Marry me, Mr Government?

The Tories and their marriage policies, eh?

At the moment I'm not really concerned with their exact plans for marriage tax breaks. My concern is why a government, any government, interferes with religious rituals and sacraments. I believe in a separation of church and state, but let's actually explore what that means.

A separation of church and state means that the church, or some other religious institution, should not have undue influence (that is, disproportionate influence) in deciding policy. It also means that particular churches or religious institution(s) should not be the basis for creating law (choosing one particular institution is at best arbitrary and at worst the result of dogma). What it does not mean is that the law and lawmakers will cease to respect those with religious beliefs or religious institutions.

With this in mind, I start thinking about same sex marriage and then marriage in general. Most liberals would demand that same sex marriage be permitted and that the state offers this in the same way it does to heterosexual couples. I could not disagree more. It's not that I don't think the state should offer equal treatment, it's that I don't think the state should offer anything other than civil partnerships. It would be silly to suggest the state could offer baptisms, bar mitzvahs, communion or some other religious rite or sacrament so why should they offer this particular sacrament?

We can avoid the whole argument over same-sex marriage if we leave that particular decision up to individual churches, mosques and synagogues. By doing this we can let each individual community decide who get's "married" while allowing anyone not recognised by that community the recognition of the law. It means the non-religious among us don't have to engage in a religious ceremony. It also means those who do not believe in marriage but who are in a happy, committed relationship can have access to the same legal benefits currently provided by marriage (not necessarily tax breaks, but even the mundane things like speaking for a partner over the phone when dealing with utility bills etc). The marriages permitted by individual institutions would still be recognised by the government, who those institutions permit to be married is up to the separate communities.

We might anticipate the following argument against this position; if we are trying to promote equality, then are we not shooting ourself in the foot by allowing some communities to treat their members unequally? This seems like a fair objection, but consider the reply. These communities are allowed to treat their members unequally, because the members are not obliged or forced in any way to be a member of that particular community. The gay couple who want to be wed and who are members of the congregation at a particular church (which does not permit same-sex marriage) are not forced to be members of that particular church. By remaining a member of that church they consent to the unequal treatment. If they do not consent to this treatment they can join another church which would permit their marriage.

The law has no place interfering with the beliefs of individuals, where it does have a place is making sure the beliefs of one group of individuals do not interfere with the beliefs of another group.