Bishop Marc Handley Andrus Calls for Separation of Church and State
Let it never be said that I don’t give praise to religious individuals where it’s due. In this case it is most definitely due. Bishop Marc Handley Andrus of the Episcopal Diocese of California is raising his voice to call for the separation of church and state, at least when it comes to the debate over marriage.
INSIDE THE FIRST AMENDMENT
By Charles C. Haynes
First Amendment Center
…..
In a letter last month, Bishop Marc Handley Andrus of the Episcopal Diocese of California directed his clergy to “encourage all couples, regardless of orientation, to follow the pattern of first being married in a secular service and then being blessed in The Episcopal Church.”
…..
“There are a lot of benefits in getting out of the legal marriage business,” the Very Rev. Brian Baker told The Sacramento (Calif.) Bee in reaction to the bishop’s letter. “This way the clergy and the couple can focus on the spiritual blessings the church has to offer and not the political stuff.”
…..
Maybe the bishop is on the right track: Separate secular from sacred by drawing a bright line between civil arrangements and the sacrament of marriage. Each state would limit itself to defining marriage as civil benefits for committed couples (as mandated by state law) – and each religious group would be free to define marriage according to the tenets of its faith.
…..
Ending this church-state entanglement wouldn’t end the gay-marriage debate. But it might serve to reframe the issue by focusing on civic arguments for and against extending government benefits to same-sex couples. In my view, it isn’t the business of government to preserve the “sanctity of marriage.” Nor is it the business of government to dictate the meaning of marriage to any religious community.At the same time, no religious group should be allowed to impose a religious definition of marriage on the rest of society. Various faiths in the United States define the sacrament of marriage in various ways. The establishment clause of the First Amendment should bar government officials from making public policy solely on the basis of a theological conviction about what constitutes “marriage.”
…..
I think the bishop has it just right. People can get their civil ceremonies wherever they choose, and if desired go to a willing church for a spiritual blessing for their union. Marriage is, after all, not strictly a religious institution no matter how much certain religious individuals and groups try to claim it is.
Mr. Haynes has it right too. It’s not the business of any religious group to impose its definition of marriage on the nation at large as different groups have different definitions. I’ll forgive him his failure to mention that people without faith also have their own definitions of marriage as I assume it was an oversight (but a common one).
Sadly I don’t see it happening. It’s far too rational, and fair, a plan.
