Rand Paul: Government Should Get Out of the Marriage Business Altogether

Rand Paul, leading the way with sanity.

I repeat the same objections that I posted to Roger Olson’s similar proposal. Although one of them now is pretty much moot. Paul’s proposal:

1. doesn’t provide adequate legal protection should one spouse fail to uphold their end of the contract.

2. In cases of the above, it makes the church the only court of recourse, potentially overburdening/distracting them from the primary mission.

3. Opens the door for a more “respectable” polygamy.

4. Removes church opposition (or motivation thereto) to legally recognized homosexual unions/marriages.

5. It potentially denigrates the the legitimate authority of the powers that be.

It seems simpler and just better to speak the truth in love, let the gvmt do what they do, and deal with member/potential members according to the truth, and let the chips fall.

I have strong Libertarian instincts. But Libertarian and biblical don’t always coincide. I am all for keeping government as small as possible. But government is ordained by God for various reasons, and upholding marriage is one of them. Given that the marriage union and the family is the foundation of society at large (both at the original creation and in an ongoing way in each generation), how can society at large not take an interest in marriage, and how can the institution with the power of the sword not use its coercive power to protect married individuals and the institution of marriage as such?

I recognize I’ve stated something of a biblical ideal, and I’m not unaware of sin and all the damage that a sinful government has done to government.

Frankly, the sexual revolution and no-fault divorce has done plenty of damage to marriage before now. In earlier contexts, the court would deny divorces when there was insufficient ground, because divorce itself was understood to be a harm, and not just an sad occurrence during which harms may come. Nowadays, the government sees its role in divorce as making sure one party doesn’t completely rip off the other during a divorce. That the government would say, “No” to the divorce is more or less unthinkable. (But then, nowadays, a lot of less-than-biblical churches see their role in divorce as helping the parties cope with the stress, rather than stopping the parties from pursuing the divorce.)

All that to say…I suppose in these times, we’re going to have to make some changes about how we think about marriage within church and state. But I’m not sure that we have to deny that the state would still be the God-ordained institution to protect marriage. Even when they’ve done such a crummy job.

One other thing: Rand Paul’s Libertarian thinking seems to let individuals define marriage for themselves, regardless of what church and state say. Isn’t personal autonomy the root problem of the mess we’re in, anyway?

[DavidO]

I repeat the same objections that I posted to Roger Olson’s similar proposal. Although one of them now is pretty much moot. Paul’s proposal:

1. doesn’t provide adequate legal protection should one spouse fail to uphold their end of the contract.

2. In cases of the above, it makes the church the only court of recourse, potentially overburdening/distracting them from the primary mission.[/QUOTE]

In the Libertarian view, one of the key duties of government is to uphold sanctity of contract. My legal duties to my wife are much weaker under the current system than they would be if we had drawn up the contract ourselves. Government has done a very poor job of forcing spouses to uphold their marriage contracts. Currently, the church must deal with bad governmental decisions in regards to divorce, child custody, etc. And further, wouldn’t it be best if we were able to deal with divorce / custody / support issues within the church in a Matthew 18 sort of way? Under the private contract scenario, my wife and I could even name our church as the legally mandated mediator.

[QUOTE] 3. Opens the door for a more “respectable” polygamy.[/QUOTE]…and we see that the government does such a good job of upholding traditional definitions and standards?[QUOTE] 4. Removes church opposition (or motivation thereto) to legally recognized homosexual unions/marriages.[/QUOTE] If there were no legally recognized marriages, why would the church need to fight non-existent legally recognized homosexual marriages? Instead of fighting political battles, we could use the gospel to call people away from sin and towards Christ.

[QUOTE] 5. It potentially denigrates the the legitimate authority of the powers that be. [/QUOTE] It does not “denigrate”. It “limits”. Isn’t that what the whole American experiment has been about? Limiting governmental influence in our lives?

[QUOTE] It seems simpler and just better to speak the truth in love, let the gvmt do what they do, and deal with member/potential members according to the truth, and let the chips fall.

M. Osborne,

The Bible commands us to respect government. Thus, we follow the law unless it directly contradicts biblical commands.

But the Bible never commands us to “trust” government. With respect, I think your post demonstrates that you wish to “trust” government to care for the definition and sanctity of marriage. How is that working out for you so far? I live in Nevada. They have a cool little chapel where you can get legally married by Elvis on a weekend fling. A week later, you can sober up and file for your no-fault divorce. Government has demonstrated its complete ineptitude to honor the sanctity of marriage. Our hope should not be in government.

I see no biblical reason that the government should be the God-ordained institution to protect marriage. I view the church as a more legitimate venue for that task.

I’m reading D.A. Carson’s The Intolerance of Tolerance right now. This is an excellent, recent book (2012) about the “new” version of tolerance and what Christians can do to combat it. He deals with the tensions of living in a democracy, and whether Christians ought to get involved with “legislating morality.” He wrote:

Christians constitute a community that never quite aligns with the values of the state, including ing democratic states. Yet if we recall our Master’s command to love our neighbors as ourselves, then in democracies we are not limited to the option of deciding at any moment in history whether the state is acting like an unknowing servant of the living God to promote justice and well-being, or rather more like a beast given to tearing Christians apart.

No, democracies offer us another option: getting involved and trying to shape things in a way that speaks truth and upholds fundamental distinctions between right and wrong, precisely because we love our neighbors. (Kindle Locations 1752-1754).

Christians have the responsibility to advocate a God-given morality and worldview in the public square. After all, the secularists are doing their part to promote their agenda. Christians often fail, however, when, in a pragmatic attempt to get policy enacted, they strip their objections of all theological underpinnings and secularize it so it is easier to swallow.

Sean, people either see it or they don’t.

Rome was a bastion of filth in all things. The common view of marriage in its day was equally as awful as it is in our day. Paul never tried to reform Rome though. He simply taught that the thinking of the day was evil and that the Christian was to live by the commands of Christ.

James, I don’t see how leaving the administration, execution, and enforcement of the marriage contract in the hands of the government prevents us from living by the commands of Christ.

“Either see it or they don’t.” Heh. Make an argument, bro!

Sean—I have much I could say in rebuttal to your response above, but let’s boil it down. Rand Paul’s suggestion comes down to two things.

• The state has redefined marriage in a way Christians find immoral.
• The state could potentially “bear the sword” against Christians who do not recognize the new state definition and act accordingly.

For the first part, leaving this in the hands of the church will create as many or more definitions of marriage as there are denominations and sub-denominations. Many “faiths” will define marriage as including homosexual couples. Media attention and inter-denominational squabbling ensues. In other words, the culture war continues.

For the second part, now that the State has said that the marriage contract cannot be withheld from same-sex couples, it doesn’t matter who administrates it. Your scenario, as I understand it, has the church executing and administering the contract, with the State acting in some enforcement capacity. It’s still a contract over which the State has ultimate jurisdiction, and so those acting as brokers of the contract could still be held accountable to the Supreme Court’s current reading of the 14th amendment. Paul’s “solution” solves nothing.

[Sean Fericks]

With respect, I think your post demonstrates that you wish to “trust” government to care for the definition and sanctity of marriage.

Oh. Well, not the case.

[Sean Fericks]

Our hope should not be in government.

Agreed.

[Sean Fericks]

I see no biblical reason that the government should be the God-ordained institution to protect marriage. I view the church as a more legitimate venue for that task.

Here’s where we differ, perhaps.

Viewed in terms of the created institution of marriage, not considering sin and the fall, there’s no biblical reason for any other institution to protect marriage. A man and a woman could promise life-long fidelity, and that’s that. In God’s eyes, the essence of marriage is the leaving-and-cleaving, one-flesh union, whether any state or church recognizes it.

Bringing the fall into consideration, God has ordained human government for the promotion of good and the restraint of evil. Divorce is a societal evil: it is a sin with rippling effects into society at large. Therefore, a state, to be a good state, has a legitimate interest in promoting good and restraining evil in marriage. And God has allowed the state coercive power so that when push comes to shove, the state does the pushing and shoving.

I’m not sure that living under an evil state changes the answer to the question, “For what did God ordain the state?” The pragmatics may change: the church may need to be more alert to define its own procedures when the government drops the ball. (Meaning, we cannot trust the government to be what it should be.) But the principle doesn’t change.

Interestingly, the Puritans cited the corruption of the ecclesiastical courts as a good reason for the church to get out of the marriage business, and many argued that it was an entirely civil affair. (The minutes of the Westminster Assembly and the writings of the day reflect a mix of pragmatic and principled arguments for why the state is the proper institution to handle marriage.)

[DavidO]

James, I don’t see how leaving the administration, execution, and enforcement of the marriage contract in the hands of the government prevents us from living by the commands of Christ. [/QUOTE] Neither solution prevents us from living by the commands of Christ. Christians live by the commands of Christ with or without governmental support. They also live by the commands of Christ in the face of governmental persecution. I think we would all be united on this.

[QUOTE]

For the first part, leaving this in the hands of the church will create as many or more definitions of marriage as there are denominations and sub-denominations. Many “faiths” will define marriage as including homosexual couples. Media attention and inter-denominational squabbling ensues. In other words, the culture war continues. [/QUOTE]

I think this happens whether or not the state controls the marriage issue. It is irrelevant to the discussion. From Bruce Jenner to the Sister Wives to The Bachelor, sex and marriage in the USA is definitely full of confusion. Fighting these people in courts makes them view us as enemies. Leaving it up to individual conscience allows us to speak to them as friends. We are not trying to keep them from tax exemptions and hospital visits. We are trying to convince them of the gospel.

[QUOTE] For the second part, now that the State has said that the marriage contract cannot be withheld from same-sex couples, it doesn’t matter who administrates it. [/QUOTE]

It actually does matter. In the current scenario, my marriage is legally equal to all other legal marriages, including gay marriages. If we allow individuals to write their own marriage contracts, I can differentiate my marriage from other marriages (with the church as arbiter in dispute; with provisions stating how adultery will be handled; with provisions stating that I have an obligation to provide for my wife). This allows me to be a better witness and demonstrate a stronger commitment to my marriage.

[QUOTE] Your scenario, as I understand it, has the church executing and administering the contract,[/QUOTE]

For me, yes. Others could choose any other contract that they wish.

[QUOTE] with the State acting in some enforcement capacity.[/QUOTE]

Enforcing the sanctity of contract is a primary duty of the state.

[QUOTE] It’s still a contract over which the State has ultimate jurisdiction, and so those acting as brokers of the contract could still be held accountable to the Supreme Court’s current reading of the 14th amendment. Paul’s “solution” solves nothing.

Yes, and no. The state has ultimate jurisdiction to enforce all legal contracts, even your church Constitution, the dispensation of your building and assets if dissolved, etc.

The current scheme has the state writing (not simply enforcing) the contract. Marriage is defined by the state instead of your contract. Divorce is administrated by the state instead of your church. Child custody is decided by the state instead of your contract. There is a big difference.

M. Osborne, it sounds to me like you are making the following argument:

God ordained the state to promote good and punish evil (Rom. 13). Since divorce, gay marriage, etc., are evil, marriage is a necessary jurisdiction for state control.

Is this a good summary of your argument?

Others could choose any other contract that they wish.

The very sort of free-for-all I think we would want to avoid. And its a major concern to you if the state differentiates your marriage from certain other marriages? Ok, I guess.

The state writes a contract and you fill in the blank for your name, yes. Right now 2 men can fill in the name blanks and so we need to alter this whole system just enough to make it a huge headache for the Church and still potentially remain open to reprisals from the state? No thanks.

Sean,

I’m not sure that it’s “necessary.” I would say “proper” is a better word. The state has a legitimate interest to protect marriage.

(with the church as arbiter in dispute; with provisions stating how adultery will be handled; with provisions stating that I have an obligation to provide for my wife). This allows me to be a better witness and demonstrate a stronger commitment to my marriage.

You’re not practically in this situation already by virtue of the disciplinary power your church holds over its members? I think you are. Or are you talking about legal power your church could exercise? Polity alert! And your testimony is resident in your adherence to the NT in your everyday living, not because your marriage contract is written better than other people’s. It seems to me anyway.