OPINION

Editorial: Government officials are not the clergy

The Register's editorial

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry last Friday. Two days later, a pastor at a church in La Mesa, Calif., held up a copy of both the court's ruling and a Bible as he closed his Sunday sermon.

"One was written by five people in black robes in Washington, D.C., and the other by 40 people over 1,600 years under the inspiration of God. You ought to decide who you are going to choose," he said. Then he dropped the ruling on the floor and held up the Bible. The congregation stood and applauded.

Message received, pastor.

You, like some other religious leaders, don't agree with the granting of marriage rights to Americans, regardless of their sexual orientation. Though many clergy in this country do not share your view, you're entitled to your opinion. And as was the case before the ruling, you still do not have to perform a wedding ceremony for gay couples in your church. Neither do any other religious leaders, including the dozens of evangelical Protestant pastors who released a declaration saying they would "not allow the government to coerce or infringe upon the rights of institutions to live by the sacred belief that only men and women can enter into marriage."

What the rest of us should remember: Such opposition to equal rights is of no practical consequence in this country. The church's role in marriage is ceremonial, replete with the exchanging of rings, vows and a flower girl. The church has nothing to do with the legal recognition of marriage. That falls under the jurisdiction of government, which issues licenses and ensures specific protections and benefits for married people.

Of course, government officials who don't understand this reality are a problem. Unlike clergy, they have taken an oath to uphold the laws of our nation. Some may need prompting to get their narrow minds around the difference between legal rights and religious ceremonies.

In Alabama, two probate judges said they would no longer issue marriage licenses to anyone. If they couldn't stop same-sex marriage, they would stop marriage altogether. "If you read your Bible, then you know the logic," said one.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott responded to the ruling by issuing a memo to state agency heads. It informed them this country was founded by people seeking a place "to worship God" and government officials have a "constitutional duty to preserve, protect and defend the religious liberty of every Texan." It's not clear how those tidbits helped state employees do their jobs.

Then there were the downright wacky responses from some politicians. Perhaps the most notable came from Ted Cruz, who is seeking the Republican nomination for, of all jobs, the leader of the free world. He characterized the period of time in which the court upheld Obamacare and granted marriage rights as the "darkest 24 hours in our nation's history."

Just contemplate that statement for a moment. The darkest 24 hours. Ensuring Americans have health insurance and equal rights was more troubling than stock market crashes, natural disasters and a terrorist attack that killed nearly 3,000 people?

The vast majority of Americans support granting same-sex couples the right to marry. The high court ensured that right was constitutionally protected. Opponents are simply solidifying their positions on the fringe.