For instance, if one of the partners was already secretly married or had made vows of celibacy, it would not be licit for there to be a marriage. Or, a case where a partner lacked consent to the union because he or she was being pushed into the marriage by family, under duress. Or, if unknown to anyone, the two partners were too closely related or otherwise violated rules of consanguinity.

I do think that marriage, in modernity, has become too much a creature of the State and that this is part of the difficulties we run into with regard to same-sex partnerships and other kinds of non-traditional households. So much legal, political, tax, inheritance, insurance, custody, and other baggage/benefit has come to be attached to the legal definition of marriage. (Why this is the case is an interesting question too.)

If two unrelated “spinster” women lived together in a household 200 years ago, I doubt there would have been as much question about whether, for instance, the one could stay at the bedside of the other as she was ailing or whether whatever property they held in common would remain in the hands of the other upon the one’s death (assuming no other immediate heirs, etc.).

But with the gradual increase in democratic rights and citizenship, there has also been a gradual regulation of the domestic sphere by the apparatus of the modern State, often in the name of what is in the compelling interest of the State and/or for the good of society (not that these necessarily coincide).

The extension of regulation as a form of benefit/privilege implies the withholding of those benefits/privileges from others, which is bound to lead to resentment to those who don’t enjoy them. Furthermore, in the context of a narrative where benefits/privileges are generally becoming more broadly applied under the rubric of “rights,” they will sooner or later be demanded by others in the name of justice.

Part of me wants to reject this whole approach to justice and modernity (and to worry whether extending civil rights is merely perpetuating a broken system). But given that’s what we’re stuck with for the time being, I guess the question is what it means to love one’s neighbor within our present context. And that’s where Daniel’s reflections intersect with things.

I’ve had friends who, in my estimation, were making less than ideal choices in a life partner. The time to make that case is before the wedding. At the wedding and after is my time to say that I’m your friend, I love you, and I’m committed to standing with you and walking beside you through whatever path you go down.

So yes, there’s a place to object. But then there’s a place to love and support those who have made decisions we don’t approve of. And often, in so doing, we discover that we weren’t as wrong as we thought; or, alternatively, we discover that we really do get to walk in love with our friend through hard times that we could foresee.

I’d want my dad to object if he thought my wife was a horrible choice.

I’d want my doctor to object if my wife was secretly my sister and would lead to all kinds of harms.

So it may be possible to construe civil restrictions on gay marriage as a minimalist legal discouragement to engage in harm. (surely, there could be many more intrusive ways of doing so, but those have left the barn long ago)

I don’t think the “household’ idea is that modern, BTW.

There seems to be a general thread here that the sacred mystery of marriage is the church’s business, civil unions are the state’s. That seems to be a profitable way forward.

Alex, you make a great point by questioning why sex has to be at the heart of a civil partnership. You made me realize that this whole thing seems to be very much centered on a very small and modern definition of a household. Your suggestion opens up some interesting possibilities for other ways to care for each other as a society.

The question is whether our government should recognize a domestic partnership and make special provision in the tax code for it. This should not be confused with the holy union of marriage sanctified by God and observed by the church. The government should be completely indifferent about the sexual habits and feelings of the partners in the relationship. If the partnership was over pork-futures, sex would not be an issue. Neither should it be over domestic partnerships.

As Christians I think we should be relieved to give up any special recognition of marriage by the state. I remember seeing footage of Gavin Newsome marrying a gay couple some years back. Gavin Newsome reeks irreverence. The relationship was sanctified in the same measure as the man applying the sanctification. The bridal illustration of Christ’s relationship to his church was tarnished.

The reason for the intractability of the problem is that both side are attempting to resolve a sacred issue in the secular courts.

Obviously, the gay marriage issue is but a small part of this puzzle, and on its own can’t return us to anything but a very narrowly defined cultural Christianity. Helpful, I know

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/07/28/court-university-expel-student-opposes-homosexuality/

In many ways, Christians who refuse to draw a line in the sand will find that a line has been drawn for them.