Vows Sworn in Churches
January 30, 2015 - by
Lord, deliver us – the Supreme Court is about to tell us who can and can’t marry.
Marriage as an institution twists and turns back into the mists of time but will a judge even ask how – and why – it began? Are roots of marriage biological? Anthropological? Or theological? Is marriage a holy institution formed by God and nurtured by angels and prophets? Or was it created by a government long ago, by a Pharaoh or Hammurabi?
Christians – or, at least, most of them – agree Holy Matrimony’s roots start in the soil of a sacrament; that a marriage isn’t created by a $20 government license but by a vow sworn in a church alongside a sacrament with the power to make a man and wife “one flesh.” And they’d also argue, hopefully politely, that while Sam and Dave or Judy and Jill can do a lot of things, they can’t do that.
But, of course, courts have their own way of looking at things. A judge may think angels and sacraments joining souls don’t matter much beside Sam and Dave having the same right to a marriage license as Jack and Jill. But, in a way, instead of illumination it simply compounds a tragedy when judges see more virtue in Sam and Dave’s temporal rights (like filing a joint tax return) than they see in sacraments and vows sworn in churches.
Vows Sworn in Churches
January 30, 2015/
Lord, deliver us – the Supreme Court is about to tell us who can and can’t marry.
Marriage as an institution twists and turns back into the mists of time but will a judge even ask how – and why – it began? Are roots of marriage biological? Anthropological? Or theological? Is marriage a holy institution formed by God and nurtured by angels and prophets? Or was it created by a government long ago, by a Pharaoh or Hammurabi?
Christians – or, at least, most of them – agree Holy Matrimony’s roots start in the soil of a sacrament; that a marriage isn’t created by a $20 government license but by a vow sworn in a church alongside a sacrament with the power to make a man and wife “one flesh.” And they’d also argue, hopefully politely, that while Sam and Dave or Judy and Jill can do a lot of things, they can’t do that.
But, of course, courts have their own way of looking at things. A judge may think angels and sacraments joining souls don’t matter much beside Sam and Dave having the same right to a marriage license as Jack and Jill. But, in a way, instead of illumination it simply compounds a tragedy when judges see more virtue in Sam and Dave’s temporal rights (like filing a joint tax return) than they see in sacraments and vows sworn in churches.