0

Signing Off to the Powers?

I surrendered to the powers and principalities last weekend and signed my first marriage license. I’m sorry Chuck Campbell, who taught me so much about the powers. I’m sorry Stan Saunders, who taught me how to be countercultural. I’m sorry Kim Long, who helped me think about weddings so carefully. But I did it, I signed a marriage license.

Now for most of you, I imagine this strikes you as nothing to be sorry about. And let me be clear: in many ways I signed very happily. It was a wonderful wedding and an honor to preside. Erik and Angela are great for each other, and I see God’s blessing in and through their relationship. It’s nothing about the particular wedding at all, but about the concept of ministers signing marriage licenses in the first place. As I’ve argued for years, in a country where the separation of church and state is upheld so that both might thrive, why in the world are ministers still signing marriage licenses?

I held this perspective even before some states started legalizing gay marriage and others decidedly did not, but our current hodgepodge of marriage laws should make pastors even more suspicious of signing their names to state documents for reasons of their church function. No matter which side of the gay marriage debate you’re on, why do pastors insist in breaking down the wall of church state separation so often and signing our names on the licenses?

Why? Well, I suppose, both out of habit and out of pastoral sensitivity. It is hard to tell a couple whose wedding you’re conducting that you’re not willing to sign the license. That just adds annoyance and expense to an already hectic wedding schedule. And I suppose pastors wiser and smarter than I have been signing licenses for ages. I guess that’s why I relented so quickly when faced with my first wedding.

Ultimately, I tell myself, I signed so happily out of pastoral sensitivity. That makes me feel a little better, I guess, but it could just be a nice story I tell myself to make me feel better.  In the back of my mind I wonder what other strongly held positions I’ll surrender out of “pastoral sensitivity.” Where is the line between pastoral sensitivity and obeying the powers?

I just don’t know, but I know I’m still not comfortable with popping my John Hancock on that license.  Maybe it’s because I’m young and only been ordained for a few months, or maybe it’s because I’m suspicious of institutions telling me what I can and can’t do. Either way, I signed that darn license and a couple is now married in the eyes of the state. Fair enough, I guess, they were already married in the eyes of God — may as well get the tax break. But I’m still not comfortable with what made me break so easily.

image by shho

EmailShare
  1. jbonewa says:

    My seminary didn’t offer any comment on this sort of thing. I guess it was assumed, “that’s just what Pastors do.”

    It’s only been in the last several years that I have struggled with the issue of same-sex marriage, especially as it has become a legal right in Iowa, that it’s become clear to me that it would be best for me not to be in a position to sign any marriage license.

    I would be happy to give up the right as a way to support equality for all. As well as to no longer be an agent of the state in a civil matter.

  2. Thanks for the comment, Jim ;) Especially as one from Iowa with that perspective. I suppose it also brings up the distinctions between pastors as called to a specific church and as serving the greater church. Session or church boards could order (or not) a pastor to conduct a wedding/union or not. It just gets sticky real quick.

  3. Rebecca says:

    I think that when considering protests it is useful to focus more on the ones which will have some larger effect rather than the ones that leave you feeling ideologically pure. So in this example trying to move for the Presbytery to make a general rule for a large regional area – or even pushing for statewide or nation law change would be more useful than one minister refusing to sign. That seems mostly to inconvenience the couple at a time already filled with stress without really being very effective at communicating what your point is. (Though perhaps if it was a couple who you knew well and they shared your views you could agree to do it together.)