Marriage and Civil Unions: Is there a Difference?

Each week I set my DVR to record several Sunday Morning Talk shows and then I usually watch them in the afternoon or evening.. sometimes later in the week. Last night I was particularly impressed by the interview by Chris Wallace, FOX News Sunday anchor, with Ted Olson. Ted is the conservative lawyer who argued the case in California that persuaded a judge to overturn an amendment to the California constitution and allow gay marriages. Here is a seven minute segment from the interview:


The whole thing begs the question that I have proposed in the title of this post. I think that, in a sense, a civil government can only sanction civil unions. When the government is involved it is involved in only the legalities of a union between two individuals. It seems that marriage is something much more than a legal union between two adults. I think that marriage has to be more. Sadly in our culture it is not. Many people enter into marriage with a civil union mindset.. the idea of a contract rather than a covenant.

So perhaps.. and this is pure opinion here.. the difference between a government sanctioned civil union and a God sanctioned marriage is the difference between a contract and a covenant. A contract is a human idea.. a covenant is a divine idea. A civil union contract involves two parties while a marriage covenant involves three. There seems to be a difference in the two even when people act like there is not.

So in the case of gay marriage it seems that the government would be well served to consider the legal and contractual aspects of the civil union. Apart from that I think the government would be well advised to steer clear of the covenantal aspects of marriage.

What do you think? How would you answer the question?

8 comments:

  1. The contractual aspect is just a red herring for the real attack on the conenantal aspect of it. First came rampant divorce, now an attack on the foundation itself. They must tear down the family that is the goal beneath the surface.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think you are asking two different questions here. One, is there a difference between civil unions and marriage? And two, is there a difference between a "government-sanctioned" unions and "god-sanctioned" unions?

    In today's world, the word marriage applies to all unions. So if everyone who was married today had no problem being told by the government that they were in a civil union and not a marriage, then i guess there would be no difference between the two.

    The covenent one makes with their spouse and God -- and how they choose to honor that covenent -- has no bearing on the covenent my wife and I have with God, so no reason for me to comment there.

    ReplyDelete
  3. KB,

    I agree with you completely. In the U.S. we have redefined what marriage is. This is proven by the rapid increase in the divorce rate and many other statistics that bolster that marriages are much more dysfunctional than they were in the past. There is a clear distinction to what government defines as 'marriage' and what God established as 'marriage'. The difference seems to be growing.

    It is similar to the argument that says if there were no abortions being performed, then there would be no need for reform to the current laws.

    The real question to me is does government have an obligation to define morality? I think that the answer is somewhat convoluted. Now balance that thought with ideas like tolerance and bipartisanship and you have the conundrum that we are in now. In many ways it is more government's role to define immorality. Morality seems to govern itself, immorality brings on the the problems. But I think government needs to define what is expected to be a good citizen, not just what is the bare minimum to pass.

    We have gone so far as to take a moral compass out of our education system. We have made a few generations of children now that don't believe in moral absolutes. I think we (the people) have created the monster that we are now sadly reaping the fruits of it: marriage, murder, debt, sexual deviance, theft, entitlement, even respect for the elderly. All of these are bi-products of our 'moral enlightenment'.

    Our society has cowered away from defining a better way to live because we don't want to offend others who choose not to live this way.

    All this to say that I have no clue how to retake the ground that has been lost in these areas. But I pray that there is a way to.

    God Bless
    Doug

    ReplyDelete
  4. @ Doug. I enjoyed your comments, and I too pray for the compass that is Christ to rule in the hearts of all.

    And yet, I think we as a group tend to romanticize the past. The abortion rate, for example, peaked in 1990 and has been trending down since. The divorce rate peaked in 1980 and is much lower today. I remember growing up in NYC in the mid-70's in what was probably the most violent, crime-ridden, hateful environment I can image.

    The challenges you cite are real, but they have been with us since Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel. Fortunately, we have good news to share, and the more we share the peace, joy and love of the Gospel the better all will be. (I need to remind myself of that last part often). May you have a most joyous day!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Excellent question and excellent point, Bob! I love this discussion! :-)
    Several years ago, my husband left me unexpectedly - and by "unexpectedly," I mean, we had never even mentioned the words "seperation" or "divorce." He was struggling with an issue that really had little or nothing to do with me, but he projected it onto me. I had no reason to expect anything like this from him. Anyway, I came home from work one day and he was gone, along with a good portion of our furniture. He left a note explaining that he had filed for divorce several weeks ago, apologized for leaving "in this manner," but he couldn't face my pain (and his sense of guilt). I was stunned, to say the least, and begged for time - time during which we could discuss this, or at the very least, time for me to adjust to this decision he had made. In the midst of the emotional storm around me, I felt that still, small voice say, "I will wait for you." My husband was free to do what he wanted, as are we all, but God was going to give me all the time I needed. I believed then, and I believe now, that not ony did the Lord give me all the time I needed to grieve, and all the time I needed to forgive, but also all the time I needed before HE dissolved our marriage. After much Bible study and prayer, I decided that I don't know if man HAS the authority to "put asunder" what "God has joined together." Could it be that only God can do that? Man can indeed end the civil contract between a man and a woman, or between a man and a man, or between whatever and whomever he wants. But maybe the "covenant" part of marriage is only "put asunder" when God has declared it so. As I consider that premise, then I also begin to wonder if God is actually joining people together just because the government says it is okay to do so, or even just because they ask Him to do so. Doesn't He tell us all "No" sometimes? Does He give us everything we want, even when it is not good for us? Or does He get to decide how to answer our requests? Does He even "marry" everyone who comes to His altar? See what I mean? If it is all up to God, and ultimately, it really is, than "marriage" as you and I know it REQUIRES His blessing. If He hasn't given it, it isn't marriage. They can call it what they will, but God, who knows the seen and the unseen, who searches the heart,...He's the only one who really knows. Or really matters.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Excellent question and excellent point, Bob! I love this discussion! :-)
    Several years ago, my husband left me unexpectedly - and by "unexpectedly," I mean, we had never even mentioned the words "seperation" or "divorce." He was struggling with an issue that really had little or nothing to do with me, but he projected it onto me. I had no reason to expect anything like this from him. Anyway, I came home from work one day and he was gone, along with a good portion of our furniture. He left a note explaining that he had filed for divorce several weeks ago, apologized for leaving "in this manner," but he couldn't face my pain (and his sense of guilt). I was stunned, to say the least, and begged for time - time during which we could discuss this, or at the very least, time for me to adjust to this decision he had made. In the midst of the emotional storm around me, I felt that still, small voice say, "I will wait for you." My husband was free to do what he wanted, as are we all, but God was going to give me all the time I needed. I believed then, and I believe now, that not ony did the Lord give me all the time I needed to grieve, and all the time I needed to forgive, but also all the time I needed before HE dissolved our marriage. After much Bible study and prayer, I decided that I don't know if man HAS the authority to "put asunder" what "God has joined together." Could it be that only God can do that? Man can indeed end the civil contract between a man and a woman, or between a man and a man, or between whatever and whomever he wants. But maybe the "covenant" part of marriage is only "put asunder" when God has declared it so. As I consider that premise, then I also begin to wonder if God is actually joining people together just because the government says it is okay to do so, or even just because they ask Him to do so. Doesn't He tell us all "No" sometimes? Does He give us everything we want, even when it is not good for us? Or does He get to decide how to answer our requests? Does He even "marry" everyone who comes to His altar? See what I mean? If it is all up to God, and ultimately, it really is, than "marriage" as you and I know it REQUIRES His blessing. If He hasn't given it, it isn't marriage. They can call it what they will, but God, who knows the seen and the unseen, who searches the heart,...He's the only one who really knows. Or really matters.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Ed,

    Thanks for the reply. You are so right that we are called to share God's light with those around. Loving them as Christ has loved us.

    I don't think I am romanticizing too much though. As far as abortion rate and divorce rate tapering, there are two main factors that are helping distort these numbers: people are no longer getting married - they are just living together. Based on numerous surveys, couples living together is up 10-fold over just 20 years ago. Hence there is no need for divorce, since there is no 'union'. Secondly birth-control is much more widely used than in the past. These factors alone contribute to the stabilization and apparent reductions in these numbers.

    I would love to think that people are waking up and seeing there is a better way, but there are too many statistics that go against this.

    Also, I live in Orlando, and I wish we had the crime rates of the 70's. Maybe NYC is improving, but I assure you Orlando isn't.

    God Bless
    Doug

    ReplyDelete
  8. I don't think there is a difference between civil union and covenant. I don't think civil unions exist - man does not have the right to change the institution to fit our needs or remove God from it, i.e. calling it a civil union.

    There is only one defintion of the marriage covenant and that was given to us by God. Fallen man has made changes by this judge to the divinely given institution of marriage.

    ReplyDelete

I love to get comments and usually respond. So come back to see my reply. You can click here to see my comment policy.