Remember that “wedding” you attended, when two friends got hitched in front of an “officiant” dressed up like Big Bird, and you never believed them even though they swore it was legitimate? Well, Big Bird was probably with the Universal Life Church. He may have been a minister of avian proportions, but read that definition again. Heretofore, Big Bird was legally kosher. But now, the state says it’s not so.

After the jump, our pal J. Conor Corcoran, Esq. ponders what it means when the state says Big Bird and a man of the cloth are not really the same thing.

February 18, 2008

Last Thursday, the throngs amongst us participated in a beloved, annual “romantic” rite of coerced, economic onanism. The abusive self-exertion of Valentine’s Day is nothing new, of course. Masochistic in origin (and truly so – it’s born of the ancient Roman festival of Lupercalia, when the male descendants of Romulus and Remus would run through the Eternal City, whipping a prepared and duly queued gauntlet of women, in the hopes that a good smacking would ward off infertility), the masses still participate in this ritual, two thousand years later. Today, however, we beat our beloved over the head with a dozen roses in the relentless pursuit of the missionary position. Or any position, for that matter. Take it where you can get it, that’s what I say.

Even our local government gets into the act. For example, every Valentine’s Day, a local jurist named Judge Goodheart (I defecate thee not) performs marriage ceremonies, en masse, for those who seek the presumptive summit of their romantic endeavors, with the noxious proviso, of course, that it is only for the slews of heterosexuals amongst us.

This Valentine’s Day, however, had a particularly progressive tang about it. Unfortunately, it is ultimately a flaccid endeavor, however well intentioned, towards greater equality.

The Philadelphia ACLU filed a lawsuit on Thursday to overturn a recent proclamation by a York County jurist, Maria Musti Cook. She unilaterally invalidated countless marriages in Pennsylvania performed by “Internet ministers,” a term of condescending derision that usually refers to officiants who sign up online, in a matter of minutes, to be a minister of the Universal Life Church based in Modesto, California — or its more fun contemporary, The Church of The Subgenius. Her reasoning, quite simply, was that ULC ministers aren’t the real deal.

Jeezus Key-rist.

The Pennsylvania legislature has declared that marriage can only be performed by an enumerated list of particular individuals; namely, certain elected officials or (and here’s where it gets interesting, so follow closely) “a minister, priest or rabbi of any regularly established church or congregation.”

Remember that “wedding” you attended, when two friends got hitched in front of an “officiant” dressed up like Big Bird, and you never believed them even though they swore it was legitimate? Well, Big Bird was probably with the Universal Life Church. He may have been a minister of avian proportions, but read that definition again. Heretofore, Big Bird was legally kosher. The Philadelphia ACLU has essentially declared, “Here here, and rightly so.”

It is a benevolent piece of litigation if there ever was one. But the ACLU is attempting to ameliorate the symptoms of a well-rooted disease.

The problem with marriage laws, in Pennsylvania and throughout the country, aren’t simply a state’s insistence that it’s only for heterosexuals, or that it’s to be performed by state sanctioned “legitimate” holy men. The problem is that government shouldn’t be in the religion business at all.

Separation of church and state is a hallmark of our society, and it is the law of the land. When government gets into the business of issuing “marriage” licenses, however, it is expressly engaging in religious machinations. “Marriage” is a religious term of art and action. It is also, therefore, a religious institution. The issuance of such a license, by government officials, in furtherance of such a religious institution, is accordingly unconstitutional.

The state has a righteous interest in the perpetuation and recognition of coupledom, as indeed do all of us. The tax credits and health insurance coverage born of such recognition give people greater motivation to procreate. It is a tremendous foundation of our society and our economy, and without the horizontal hokey pokey in some form (be it a one night stand or a committed relationship, test tubes and a Petri dish or repetitively boring bedroom trysts), none of us would be here. As they say at Philebrity, makin’ babies is a good thing. [Ed. note: But please also remember, dear reader, that talking about them is pretty much the worst thing in the world.]

But the state shouldn’t call it marriage. Leave that to organized religion in all of its self-evident insanity. If the holy rollers, of any stripe, want to have their ceremonies their way – by all means. City Hall ceremonies, by contrast, are supposed to be for all of us, n’est pas?

The problem is that, though governments should promote healthy relationships, the state has explicitly employed a religious device in the promotion thereof. And that’s about as kosher as Christmas. In focusing on Judge Cook’s insistence that Big Bird can’t be a minister, the Philadelphia ACLU has missed the forest for the trees, attacking merely the repugnant symptom of a more odious disease. In waiving the pursuit of this fundamental civil liberties issue, the ACLU is further perpetuating marriage – a governmental license, fundamentally religious in name and in execution. This is a travesty.

Come now, Philadelphia, the city of fraternal amorosity, with your Love Park and your Teddy P. Contact the Philly ACLU. Give them your support, but tell them about the greater picture. Let’s make it civil unions for everybody, as opposed to marriage for some.

Previously: Ask The Lawyer: Is This Crime Plan Worth A Damn?

This entry was posted on Tuesday, February 19th, 2008 at 1:46 pm.