John Coleman has a great article over at Reason Online promoting the idea of “state-free marriage”:

It is time to privatize marriage. If the institution is really so sacred, it should lie beyond the withering hands of politicians and policy makers in Washington D.C. There should be no federal or state license that grants validity to love. There should be no state-run office that peers into our bedrooms and honeymoon suites. If the church thinks divorce and homosexuality are problematic, it should initiate the real dialogue to address these problems in-house rather than relying on state-sponsored coercion to affirm doctrinal beliefs. And if tax-codes and guardianships need some classification for couples, let’s revise civil union standards to reflect those needs.

I’ve been on this bandwagon for a while now, often putting me on the opposite side of the fence from other religious conservatives. I’m glad to hear that this idea is getting more airplay.

There has long been a distinction between civil marriage and religious marriage. Both the church and the state have their reasons for ordaining or codifying the relationship between two people. For most of American history, the involvement of the state in marriage has often piggybacked on the role of the church in marriages. I think it’s time for that practice to end.

I can think of no reason for the state to be involved in marriages whatsoever. There exists sufficient legal mechanics to provide the property, inheritance, and other rights that are now tied to a civil marriage without having to call the relationship a marriage in the eyes of the government.

After all, the state is only really involved in marriage in the first place because of the economic and legal opportunities marriage creates. You can’t blame the state. There’s something to be said for collecting taxes and maintaining legal order. But it’s obvious the state could really care less about the qualitative health of anyone’s marriage. There are no real disincentives practiced by the government to discourage divorve. In fact, divorce has gotten easier and easier to achieve in recent years. Similarly, the bar is pretty low to apply for a marriage license. As far the government is concerned, marriage is only slightly more consequential than receiving a driver’s license and is much less difficult to formalize than buying a house.

On the other hand, marriage is a big deal to the church or at least it should be. After all, maintaining healthy marriages and presumbaly growing families is one of the chief methods of transmitting religious faith. Churches of all denominations place tremendous emphasis on encouraging marriage as a social practice and sustaining those relationships. The motivation is much less extrinsic than the motivation of the state.

My conclusion is that we must de-regulate marriage. States should be allowed to design legislation recognizing civil unions between any number of people, regardless of their gender or relationship to one another. These unions would provide for all the property, inheritance, and other rights now assoicated with marriage. But it will not be called marriage. At the same time, marriage should be left to churches. It should be their task to ordain any marriages that they see fit. It should also be their task to nurture and sustain these marriages, and if they see fit, they should grant divorces. The bar should be set high for those couples seeking to enter into a marriage relationship within the church. Divorce must be a last resort. But this should be the decision of the church.

Now, married couples would most certainly seek to codify their spiritual relationship by entering into a civil union, recognized by the government. However, it’s very likely that plenty of people who will enter into civil unions with one another will have no interest in “getting married”. That seems pretty obvious from all the debate over gay marriage.

I’m sure this proposal will stir up plenty of disagreement among my fellow religious conservatives, but I think if they are being honest with themselves, they will be forced to admit that the only way to truly preserve the sanctity of marriage is to take the state out of the equation and restore the authority of the church.