Marriage has become a major topic of religious, social, and political debate in the United States, where a tectonic shift in legal opinions and public attitudes seems to be occurring. The shift seems to have caused real fear in many people, who apparently believe that traditional values are threatened. In reflexively coming to the defense of heterosexual marriage they may be missing the point that marriage is a religious liberty issue.

One of the strengths of the Seventh-day Adventist Church for almost 150 years has been emphasis on the protection of religious liberty. We often read about—and many of us know about—people who have been discriminated against or lost their jobs because they could not, in good conscience, work on Sabbath. Our denomination has a department to help members with such problems. We have sponsored the International Religious Liberty Association, which has had influence throughout much of the world.

We have also understood that religious liberty is not just for Seventh-day Adventists or Christians, but should be a right of everyone. We have lent our help to those who have faced discrimination because of religious convictions, even if those convictions differ from ours. We have supported people whose conscience stopped them from working on Sunday or Friday. We have lobbied for their protection as much as for that of Seventh-day Adventists. The principle we have followed has not been self-protection, but protection of a human right.

We do not believe that a government should tell people how to worship, where to worship, or when to worship; those are decisions between individuals and God. We would be very upset about any law that directed people to observe Sabbath on Sunday or Friday—or even Saturday—because doing so would place secular authorities between individuals and their God. We would be even more troubled with a law that outlawed Sabbath worship and threatened ministers with prosecution if the Sabbath they celebrate differed from that sanctioned by the government. In fact, our longstanding end-time scenario involves a "Sunday Law."

It is interesting to observe that Ellen White notes two special gifts given to humans in the Garden of Eden. "Marriage and the Sabbath had their origin [in Eden], twin institutions for the glory of God in the benefit of humanity" (Adventist Home, 341). "[Marriage] was one of the two institutions that, after the fall, Adam brought with him beyond the gates of Paradise" (Patriarchs and Prophets, 46). Marriage was given for the good of humans since it was not good for anyone to be alone, but to have a "helpmeet."

Today, marriage is receiving more government and political attention than any other religious issue—far more than the Sabbath. The highest court in one state has determined that its state’s marriage laws have violated the rights of some of its citizens and has decreed that it must stop. In other states, local jurisdictions and local officials have reached similar conclusions and have granted marriage licenses and/or performed marriages that may be in violation of existing state laws.

In response, many people, including the U.S. president, have called for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would prohibit marriage between two people of the same sex. Government lawyers have ordered solemnizing this type of marriage to stop. In at least one local jurisdiction, the mayor was charged with violating state law by sanctioning marriages inconsistent with current laws. Furthermore, ministers of several religious persuasions have been criminally charged with violating the law by sanctioning and performing such marriages.

The arrest of a minister charged with performing a religious ceremony consistent with his or her religion should have gotten our attention. If a government can determine that one religious practice violates law and can arrest and charge a minister for performing that ceremony, then government can determine that ANY religious practice is illegal. The arrest of a minister for performing a marriage between two people of the same sex can progress to the arrest of a minister for preaching on a Sabbath not sanctioned by law.

Opposition to such government intrusion into an area of faith does not mean that we or our faith group necessarily agree with the practices of others. Rather, it means than we support the right of everyone—ourselves and others—to obey their own conscience without government interference.

Faith groups have never agreed on a single definition of marriage. Some denominations will not perform marriage between a man and a woman if either has ever divorced. Others will not perform marriages unless both parties are members or both are not members. Still other groups have no such restrictions.

The problem is that government has long provided legal recognition of marriage by issuing marriage licenses and allowing government officials to perform marriage ceremonies. If government sanctions marriage, then it has the right to define marriage. But in defining marriage, government takes the prerogative of faith groups and supports some while not supporting others.

Governments may well have reason to encourage stable relationships between people, particularly parents. There may be good economic reasons. For instance, marriage makes joint ownership and disposal of property easier. There may also be good sociological reasons, since stable relationships increase the likelihood that children will have economic and social advantages that benefit society as a whole. Thus, governments have provided tax and other social benefits by way of encouragement.

It is unfortunate when government muddies the situation by using the mechanism of marriage, which is a religious right, to signal its support for stable relationships. Clearly, parenting is not required for stable relationships. If that were so, the government would have offered marriage incentives only to married couples who have produced children. It is also clear that government has not limited its incentives to married couples who have sexual relations. If so, it would require them to present some kind of proof that sexual relations have been consummated.

The only justification for restricting marriage to two persons of opposite sexes is that dominant churches have defined it that way. We may believe that this definition is based in Scripture, but we must also grant that other faith groups may define marriage differently.

It would be far better for government to determine that its interests reside in stable relationships between two consenting adults and provide incentives for those relationships, without requiring them to be marriages.

Marriages should be defined by faith groups. If some denominations determine that their clergy can marry only two people of opposite sexes who have never been divorced, that should be their right. Other denominations may determine that their clergy can marry two persons of opposite sexes even if one or both has been previously married and divorced. Still others may authorize their clergy to marry any two consenting adults who meet their definition for acceptable unions.

Marriages by any faith group could still be licensed as government sanctioned unions, civil partnerships, recognized partnerships, or civil unions (as one state has already labeled them) and registered by vital records agencies as unions. However, marriages would be only one of several types of government sanctioned unions for which licenses could be issued, registration occur, and recognition and incentives given..

Following this course would not harm those of us who choose to marry according to our beliefs. We have chosen to have a special type of government sanctioned union, but have not refused others the right to another type. In either case, the interest of government in promoting stable unions could be served. Those of us who choose to marry would not be less likely to marry because some other couple decided to have another type of government sanctioned union. We should choose marriage because it is our ideal. That ideal should not—cannot—be forced upon others.

Let’s get government out of the business of defining marriage, and let it be done instead by our church, denomination, synagogue, mosque, or temple. We would not accept efforts by government to determine our Sabbath, and we should not allow it to determine our definition of marriage.

Marriage IS a religious liberty issue!

EMAIL THIS ARTICLE