By E Dee Monnen
Hold your horses, all states! Government has no right to redefine a religious sacrament. That crosses the line of separation of church and state. Only a religion can change a religious definition, just as only a government can change a law. Beginning with Adam and Eve, God defined marriage as a holy sacrament and showed the world His example of a healthy society. God wanted all people to have one mother and one father, and He wanted children to be raised in families. It was government that saw God’s moral laws as good, and therefore, adopted God’s laws as their own—not the other way around.
Over the millennia, governments used the Biblical definition of marriage because its sacrosanct meaning was the only definition used by mankind. For centuries sodomy laws were common in America, and homosexual acts were considered lewd and dishonorable. The idea of two people of the same sex entering into a union was unthinkable, so all fifty states adopted the Biblical definition of marriage, leaving them with only one concern: how to tax it, so they began issuing marriage licenses.
The states’ use of the holy definition was not problematic until legislatures and judges began redefining marriage to mean two people of any sex. Unfortunately, by redefining one holy sacrament, states have also given themselves permission to redefine the other religious terms, too. I submit to you, this paradigm shift means government has established its own brand of religion and has created a constitutional crisis.
The practical solution for all states that allow same-sex unions is to refrain from using the religious term “marriage” and replace it with “legally coupled.” This removes any suggestion of religion by the state. Religious institutions “marry,” but when states start acknowledging the same-sex aberration, they should expunge the term “married” and replace it with word “coupled” on all government documents. No longer should same-sex states be allowed to ask for marital status. Instead, they should ask if a person is coupled, single, divorced or widowed. A license to marry would then be replaced with a license to couple, and tax returns along with other government documents should reflect similar changes.
I know of a church in Pasadena, Maryland, that practices the true meaning of separation of church and state. They strictly obey God’s command to, “Render under Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and unto God that which is God’s.” In their church, when two members wish to marry, they do it without a license from the state, because the government’s brand of religion has absolutely nothing to do with God uniting one man and one woman in holy matrimony as lifelong partners, symbolically becoming one flesh, a.k.a. “marriage.”
Marylanders have a history of taking a firm stand when it comes to the separation of church and state. Remember the Baltimore resident and atheist Madeline Murray O’Hair? In the early 1960s her son Bill Murray was enrolled in a Maryland public school, and back then, teachers read from the Bible and recited the Lord’s Prayer before class. This infuriated Madeline, who sued to stop the practice. She took her case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and won. It therefore stands reason that what is sauce for the atheist, ought to be sauce for people of all faiths who believe “marriage” is a religious union of two people, a Holy ritual, and states should not be allowed to confuse one of the holiest sacraments with any function of government.