From the Los Angeles Times: Gay Episcopal bishop visits Studio City

In response to a question about how the parish should respond to the passage of Proposition 8, the bishop suggested that churches could begin mending the split on same-sex marriage by having clergy get out of the civil marriage business altogether.

Robinson, who supports gay marriage, said he favors the system used in France and other parts of Europe in which civil marriage — performed by government officials — is completely separate from religious vows.

In the U.S., the civil and religious are often combined, with the cleric signing the government marriage license.

“In this country, it has become very confusing about where the civil action begins and ends and where the religious action begins and ends, because we have asked clergy to be agents of the state,” he said.

Last summer, Robinson and his longtime partner had their civil commitment ceremony blessed in the church. He said that “untangling” the roles of clergy and government in this country would focus the discussion of same-sex marriage on civil rights rather than religion.

“The church is infringing on the secular society and trying to enforce its beliefs onto the entire culture,” he said. “If we can get these two things separated, we can assure every religious group, no matter how conservative, that they will never have to bless these marriages.”

“I think we could actually gain some support from our detractors if we could make this separation clear,” he said…

The one statement I disagree with is: “…we can assure every religious group, no matter how conservative, that they will never have to bless these marriages.” No Church has to do anything the government demands of it as it is, nor can they be forced to, even under penalty of law. If Church is true to its faith — faith in God, not government, adherence to God’s commandments, not man’s, then it will reject falsehood whatever the penalty. A long line of martyrs and confessors attests to that.

To that point, I have commented on the Church’s complicity with government in prior posts and won’t re-cover that territory. In short, the co-mingling of faith, politics, and governmental administration is in-and-of-itself a wrong. The Church should encourage the good that governments do, but should do so without acquiescence to an agenda beyond that immediate good. Churches must use care so as not cloud their message. Yoking themselves with unbelievers’ (2 Corinthians 6:14) agendas detracts from the Church’s mission.

Reading Bishop Robinson I am reminded of a post by former blogger, the Rev. Jim Tucker (unfortunately his posts are no longer publicly available), in which he discusses marriage and the motivations of young couples who appear in church for the pomp and circumstance, never to cross the threshold again once married. Bifurcating civil co-habitation contracts from ecclesiastical marriages would do a lot to end the extravagance and expense associated with “marriages for show.” Do couples come to church intending to embark upon a life of faith, or do they come intending to embark on a one night party? In many cases I fear the later. They are caught in a moment blinded by expectation and rarely consider the consequences. That unthinking action, that type of marriage, is more harmful to the institution of marriage than any myriad of civil co-habitation contracts.

Do civil co-habitation contracts open the slippery slope which posits that once “gay marriages” are allowed all evil will break loose, to wit: polygamous marriages? From my perspective the same rules apply. If people want to enter into a civil co-habitation contract of any form then let them. The problem with such arrangements as practiced by fundamentalist Mormons is that they are a.) abusive and b.) an excuse for latching onto the public dole via welfare and Medicaid fraud. A good civil co-habitation contract and the enforcement of current laws would rule those options out. I don’t see many willing to enter into such a contract if it forces them to give up X% of their estate should the contract fail.

In the end a person who believes is required to subject themselves to the teaching of the Church. That choice, one we each must make with our God given freedom, doesn’t make life easy and demands sacrifice, but is essential to our call to be faithful. We are all called to make the choice, not “a” choice, but the choice.

The recent Miss USA controversy is a case in point. Miss Prejean stood by her Church and its teaching. For that she was ridiculed by those who do not believe in freedom of conscience or expression — the new communists and overlords. The words of Keith Lewis, Co-Executive Director of K2 Productions (the sponsor of the Miss California USA) in the organization’s Official statement regarding Miss CA USA 2009 final answer controversy better reflect the attitude of those who love and respect freedom (emphasis mine):

I am proud of Carrie Prejean’s beauty and placement at the 2009 MISS USA pageant. I support Carrie’s right to express her personal beliefs even if they do not coincide with my own. I believe the subject of gay marriage deserves a great deal more conversation in order to heal the divide it has created.

Freedom is beautiful. The overlords…not so much.