UPDATE AFTER POST WAS MADE: For the record, it should be pointed out that atheists and others still can get married in Oklahoma, House Bill 1125 changes the requirements for recognizing clergy and all marriage licences will now have to be issued by clergy and not the state. However, there is no requirement for the clergy to approve atheists or same-sex couples.

In what must be an attempt to prevent same-sex marriages, the Independent is reporting that Oklahoma lawmakers seem to have banned secular marriage ceremonies, and that all weddings must now be performed by religiously ordained clergy. Furthermore, the state has declared that marriage licenses will now only be issued by leaders of a church. In complete ignorance of Constitutional Law, the history of the United States, and common decency, Representative Dennis Johnson defended House Bill 1125 by saying:

“Marriage was not instituted by government. It was instituted by God. There is no reason for Oklahoma or any state to be involved in marriage.”

Quite often we hear these same ignorant arguments from elected officials who claim the United States to be a Christian nation designed to be, as John Winthrop entitled, God’s “city upon a hill.” The infamous phrase comes from Winthrop’s 1630 sermon aboard the Arbella, to a ship full of future Massachusetts Bay colonists who were bound for Boston.

Incessantly, lawmakers spout the virtues of New England, and pronounce it the blueprint for America. Now, it would be easy to rant about how these colonists treated the natives (even though, for the most part, they were saints compared to the colonists of Virginia). I could just as easily rage on about how Puritan tolerance was only extended to others who shared their same religion (Mary Dyer and other Quakers were executed). I could even argue that a lot changed in the Americas during the 172 years between the abovementioned sermon of Winthrop, and Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists, which declared a wall of separation Church and State. But none of these are necessary for the dispute at hand.

For the sake of argument, let’s grant the Puritans of Massachusetts the dignity of being the cornerstones upon which the United States was built. I have no doubt that they would have been strongly against same-sex marriage, but what was their view of marriage in general? Quite simply, in Early New England, marriage was not seen to be a sacred rite, but as legal contract, or “civil union,” useful upholding property rights and other civil laws. All Puritan wedding ceremonies were performed not by the clergy, but by civil magistrates. Likewise, the bride and groom did not walk down the aisles of a church, but were hitched in a private home. Similarly, when ministers did begin to conduct the wedding ceremonies, they still were held in private homes, and the minister was granted power to do so by the state alone, and not by the church. So, perhaps we should borrow from our forefathers.

Join me in defending the foundational principles of the United States. Civil unions for all!

Brother Richard

What do you think?: Post a Comment

Subscribe to Richard’s: All New RSS Feed