My Tucson: The church should define marriage
by John M. Fife on Aug. 08, 2007, under OpinionState could legislate certain standards for civil unions
Karan Stewart and Eric Lybeck are married by the Rev. John Fife.
As a Presbyterian pastor, I gave up on the customary practice of premarital counseling decades ago.
It was the biggest waste of time in my practice of ministry. Couples either told me what they thought the preacher wanted to hear, or they didn’t pay any attention at all. (We are in perfect and abiding love and will live happily ever after.)
Instead, I reached agreement with couples that they would invite me to a dinner a year after the marriage ceremony.
By then, the issues were surfacing and we could talk about the serious work of building a loving and committed relationship.
I don’t have any academic study to determine whether premarital or postmarital counseling is more effective, but my hunch is that none of us in the marrying-Sam (or Samantha) trade are having great success rates with enduring marriages these days.
Academic studies do indicate that fundamentalist and evangelical churches have the highest divorce rates, with Southern Baptists leading the major Protestant denominations in divorce.
It seems the more we preach about family values and the sanctity of marriage, the harder it is to do.
The Rev. Ted Haggard and Sen. David Vitter, R-La., could be the poster boys for that premise.
What is undeniable is that the institution of marriage has become one of the most hotly contested issues in church and state.
In the political realm, marriage is the subject of proposed constitutional amendments, court battles, political campaigns and ballot initiatives.
In religious organizations and faith communities, the issue of gay and straight marriage has become the most contentious and divisive of all.
The Anglican Church is threatened with a global schism, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has become divided 50-50, and the more authoritarian communions are struggling to keep the lid on the boiling debate in the pews.
The differences aren’t just about gay and straight marriage and legal rights. Religious communities are scarcely of one mind about divorce and remarriage, interfaith marriage, human sexuality and the church-state link in all of the above.
New questions of morality and marriage continue to confront clergy.
Should the church celebrate the marriage of older widows and widowers without registration with the state? Especially since a legal marriage would terminate important medical and pension benefits.
Or should the church just turn a blind eye toward all that cohabitating in sin in Green Valley and Rancho Vistoso?
Recently, political strategists such as Karl Rove have turned ballot initiatives on defining marriage into a strategy for turning out voters and winning elections for cynical politicians.
Maybe Arizonans put a spike in that wheel when we defeated Proposition 107 last fall.
So how do we begin to clean up this marriage mess?
How about going back to a basic American value and tradition – the separation of church and state?
The state should confine its interest to the legal registration of couples in civil unions. Those couples would then avail themselves of all the legal rights and responsibilities that a registered civil union would provide.
The state could legislate certain qualifications for civil unions that are in the state’s interest (no polygamy), but could not define marriage for the church and could not discriminate against any groups.
Marriage would become solely a matter of faith and the traditions of diverse religious communions.
Marriage vows would be restored to sacred vows before “God and these witnesses” within a community of faith interpreting its own sacred texts.
At the very least, it would put a stop to all that sinful cohabitating in Green Valley!
My Tucson blog: Staying safe in the rain
John Fife is a retired Presbyterian pastor who volunteers with Samaritans, No More Deaths, Borderlinks and the Arizona Sonora Desert Museum. E-mail: jfife666@aol.com
