Who controls sanctity of marriage?

Editor’s note: Voices is a weekly opinion column by a rotating panel of Maine columnists who explore issues affecting spirituality and religious life.

Civil unions in Vermont, a Massachusetts court decision striking down a prohibition on homosexual marriage and the recent ordination of an openly gay Episcopal bishop have fueled a national effort for a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as between a man and woman.

Some polls show that a slight majority of Americans support altering the U.S. Constitution. Little thought has been given to the unintended consequences that are likely to occur.

The distinction between civil and religious marriage has been blurred. In an interview with ABC News, President Bush said, “I will support a constitutional amendment which would honor marriage between a man and a woman.” He added, “whatever legal arrangements people want to make, they’re allowed to make, so long as it’s embraced by the state.”

President Bush said he wants to “defend the sanctity of marriage” while allowing same-gender couples to have legal rights. This shifts the marital debate from secular to religious, since legal rights, by the president’s own admission, are not the issue. U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., appearing on ABC’s “This Week,” said, “I very much feel that marriage is a sacrament.” “Sanctity” and “sacrament” are religious terms.

Americans are often suspicious of Washington. They especially distrust it with their tax dollars. Why, therefore, should citizens allow government to define marriage – usually considered a matter of faith, religion and conscience? This runs contrary to liberty, individual rights and limited government.

Regardless of how Americans view gay marriage, the key issue is whether Washington should have any role. It seems reasonable that conservatives would want to contain government. Similarly, it seems logical to have theologians debate the morality of gay marriage. Federal involvement, even if limited to civil marriage, will only complicate the situation.

Assuming that the intent of the president and Senate majority leader is to defend civil marriage, then a question must be asked: What threatens civil marriage? Neither the president nor Senate majority leader offers an answer.

According to Peggy Vaughan, author of “The Monogamy Myth: A Personal Handbook for Recovering from Affairs,” about 60 percent of men and 40 percent of women will have an affair during marriage. A 1998 report in USA Today puts the figures at 24 percent for men and 14 percent for women. The Washington Post cited Janis Abrahms, author of “After the Affair,” who contends that one of every 2.7 couples will be affected by infidelity. Should infidelity be criminalized and those convicted fined or imprisoned?

Fifty percent of all marriages end in divorce. Should laws be passed making divorce difficult? Should there be retroactive tax consequences for marital dissolution?

Practicality must also be a factor. Government cannot prevent two people of the same gender from calling their union a marriage. Such a public pronouncement cannot be constitutionally outlawed. Therefore what’s the point of an amendment? Time might be better spent on pressing social needs like poverty, health care or affordable housing.

Federal involvement immodestly implies that religion has failed and God needs assistance. In addition, government interference devalues the marriage between a man and woman. This unique, special and intimate commitment, based on love and friendship and blessed by God, can never be threatened by how two other people describe their relationship. If it is in danger, then the heterosexual marriage, civil or religious, was never built on solid ground.

America has maintained an administrative separation of church and state for good reason. An established national church would rip the social, cultural and political fabric of humanity’s greatest melting pot. A constitutional amendment regarding a sacrament does not mean that Washington is financing a religion, but it does indicate the casual, dangerous and unnecessary mix of politics, theology and public policy.

If the intent is to address a civil concern, then heterosexual divorce and infidelity must be included to better honor and protect marriage. To do otherwise would be hypocritical. If this is a religious concern, then constitutional action gives Washington unprecedented authority to influence an individual’s relationship with God. In either case the federal government would be empowered in a manner that should encourage amendment supporters to reconsider a constitutional change.

The Right Rev. Paul Peter Jesep is an auxiliary bishop in the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church-Sobornopravna who is studying at Bangor Theological Seminary. The views expressed are solely his own and do not reflect the church’s position. He may be reached at VladykaPaulPeter@aol.com.