Clergy Refusing to Sign Govt Marriage Certificate

I don't really see why the government is involved in telling people who they can marry. If a marriage is seen as the binding together of two souls, if a marriage is based on love and the desire to have a home and a family, well I don't see the government really having the expertise to make decisions about that, sorry. As far as ownership of property, custody of children, insurance and other financial and legal agreements, yes, I can see the role of the government in regulating those kinds of contracts between partners, but marriage is not special in that regard, business partners deal with most of those issues, or ones like them. Marriage though seems to me like something that falls in the domain of religion.

There is a movement starting up now among clergy from various denominations to take possession of the institution of marriage by refusing to sign legal marriage certificates. The group's web site is HERE. Salon has the article this morning.

July 10, 2009 | Art Cribbs leans forward in his pressed blue shirt and pink tie, wide-eyed and wistful, exclaiming his love of wedding ceremonies while sitting in his office one morning.

"It's just glorious," he said. "Every time I do a wedding, I go back to my wife and reconnect. It's like reliving our own wedding vows."

But Cribbs, a 59-year-old African-American minister with the United Church of Christ in San Marino, Calif., isn't attending many weddings lately.

As part of a nationwide movement, Cribbs is refusing to oversee the union of couples until the right to marry is granted to all, and laws like Proposition 8 in California, which deny the right of same-sex couples to marry, are repealed.

Headed by John Tamilio and Tricia Gilbert of Pilgrim Congregational United Church of Christ in Cleveland, the Refuse-to-Sign campaign seeks to make the division between church and state clearer, as it concerns the issue of marriage.

Supporters of the campaign argue that faith leaders have, by default, become agents of the state, signing off on marriage licenses -- whether or not they agree with the state's policy on marriage. By asking clergy to refuse to sign marriage certificates, they hope to make a distinction between the obligation of the state to afford equal rights to all and marriage as a religious sacrament.

In short, the Refuse-to-Sign campaign says, while churches have the right to choose whether to bless same-sex couples, states should not have such a choice, and have a duty to extend marriage certificates to all who seek them. Clergy say, "I won't"

It seems to me this approach could take the entire "gay marriage" issue off the political table. There will be some churches that perform the ceremony and some that don't. The partnership agreement can be a legally regulated contract like any other, and marriage between two soul-mates will be handled by religious authorities, not bureaucrats.

Skipping down ...

It's an idea that organizers think both conservatives and liberals can get behind.

The Refuse-to-Sign movement, despite being made up largely of liberal organizations, is actively making an appeal to conservatives: We want your church to be able to decide for itself on the issue of same-sex marriage, even if, in the end, it chooses not to bless same-sex couples; we just don't think the state has that choice.

Although conservatives may not like the direction the country is heading, they could be satisfied with the knowledge that they will continue to have the freedom to deny same-sex couples the right to marry, without getting hassled by the state or other religious organizations.

And although the Obama administration has been receiving piss-poor grades from the LGBT community of late, there are enough who are afraid of what might be around the corner -- on both sides of the debate -- that a movement to seek more autonomy, and separate church and state on the issue of marriage, could very well be appealing. For supporters of gay marriage, it means avoiding the possibility that friends who are homosexual will never achieve marriage status, and for those on the other side of the debate, it means the religious communities they belong to won't be forced to comply with a state mandate with which they disagree.

There you go, the flip side of this proposal is that a church can refuse to marry people of the same sex if they want. As it is, there are inclusive churches and prejudiced ones, and you're free to go to whatever suits you. There is something satisfying about it.