The Iowa Marriage Kerfuffle

Last week, the Iowa Supreme Court decided unanimously that the state law prohibiting same-sex civil marriage violated the Iowa constitution. This decision predictably has gay rights activists celebrating, and advocates of "traditional marriage" disappointed or downright angry.

I agree with the decision, even though I am a Bible-believing follower of Christ.

"Marriage" is a word that is loaded with meanings. To Christians, it's a sacred state that is blessed by God (*). To society, it's an institution for two people who either love each other very much, or who gain some advantage from participating in that institution. To the human race, it is a means of providing security for raising children. To the government, it is a slew of tax, inheritance, power-of-attorney, and other implications.

I can't say I'm surprised that a word with so many meanings and emotional shades lends itself to confusion (**).

The Bible is clear that (Christian) marriage was created by God and consists of one man and one woman. It is also clear that (Christian) marriage is neither temporary (***) nor to be entered into lightly (****). I would protest just as strenuously if my church were to support casual divorce as I would if it were to solemnize same-sex weddings.

Iowa law is clear that (IA civil) marriage is a "civil contract". That contract is governed by state law and agreed upon by the two parties to the contract. I do not have any problem with casual dissolution of civil contracts according to the terms of said contracts, just as I do not have any problem with individuals of any sex entering into civil contracts (*****).

It should be obvious that Christian (******) marriage and civil marriage are entirely different things, but may exist together. For example, my wife and I have an Iowa marriage certificate, which was signed at the conclusion of a wedding officiated by our pastor (*******). We're (Christian) married. We're also (civil) married.

No wonder people get confused!

To the Christian world: You view (Christian) marriage as something sacred, something from God. You're absolutely right. But stop putting your hope in laws and legal rulings and constitutional amendments. Go and share Christ's love, the love that saved you from death. Show God's grace even to unrepentant sinners (********).

Furthermore, the U.S. Constitution is clear, and the Iowa Constitution is in agreement, that the state and federal governments are to keep their collective noses out of religious practices. That means (as noted by the court's opinion) that the State of Iowa may not require any church to (Christian or civil) marry any couple, opposite- or same-sex.

To the gay-rights world: You view (civil) marriage as a civil rights issue, a privilege the government has been withholding. You're absolutely right. But please realize there are people who think something very different when you say "marriage", and they are horrified at what you are suggesting. You may not believe in the God they believe in, but please understand that they do.

To everyone on both sides: Let's get some different words, so we can talk about (Christian) marriage and (civil) marriage and not get confused. I would be perfectly willing to change the term we use for (Christian) marriage. It might be better to change both terms, so that the word "marriage" would become a vague archaism. Anyone out there want to neologize?


I might be wrong. If I am, please tell me. But when you do, please tell me what premise or reasoning of mine is wrong. If you think the Iowa Supreme Court is wrong, please tell me what premise or reasoning of theirs is wrong. Especially read section "I" of the opinion (and please cite section and page numbers; it'll help me to see where I failed to catch a flaw in reasoning).


* Divorce, infidelity, and other expressions of sin by imperfect humans notwithstanding.
** Therefore, I will try to be clear which sort of marriage I am talking about.
*** Extraordinary situations such as abuse or infidelity call for wisdom. The common knee-jerk red herring argument that this would demand that a spouse stay in a dangerous situation is superficial and offensive.
**** The church I attend gives enormous attention to premarital counseling. This has been very helpful to me, personally, as well as being generally laudable.
***** With the caveat, of course, that the contracts should be legal, equitable, and entered into without duress.
****** Other religions may view marriage in much the same way. Substitute as appropriate.
******* Pastor and friend, as a matter of fact. Also, my wife and I care rather more about the vows we made to each other before God and God's work in joining us together than about the legal document.
******** This doesn't mean never sharing God's truth. But it means not trying to force people to look like you before you'll love them. It also means sharing God's truth in the hope of seeing repentance, not an eagerness for destruction.