Civil marriage in Lebanon is seen as a threat to religious institutions

Who constitute the most powerful class in Lebanon after the super rich and feudal lords? Not elected officials certainly, rather it's clerics of all faiths.

Think about it, they are not elected by the people yet they decide on vital matters such as marriage rites, death rites, inheritance law, they have political power and a sizable popular following. Those at the top of religious establishments often administer large tracts of land and dispose of these properties as they see fit and therefore have immense economic power too. They are not answerable to parliament like government ministers are, they are only answerable to God. So, when people call for civil marriage to be instituted in Lebanon, they should first know who they are up against and whose power they are in fact challenging!

It’s very medieval, I know, but there it is, we are a very medieval society where a career in the clergy is still a very good bet, probably better than a career in the civil service. What surprises me is all these well meaning bloggers and facebookers out there who keep repeating the same old mantra, reassuring the Lebanese that a civil marriage law is not intended to undermine religion and faith, that it’s not some atheist plot to convert a deeply religious society into hardened secularists. The fact is most net authors ignore the real issue at stake.

The real issue I refer to is best illustrated by the fictitious British civil servant Sir Humphrey Appleby, the central character in the BBC sitcom series ‘Yes Minister’ and ‘Yes Prime Minister’. Humpy’s concern was not with efficiency and fairness in government, and he abhorred the democratic process, but his one concern was to jealously guard the power of his department (i.e. the Ministry for Administrative Affairs) at all costs, and he would often thwart his own minister’s plans to ‘slim down’ the department. For Humphrey, a cardinal sin of any civil servant is to relinquish powers and responsibilities, while his highest duty was to increase a department’s money, power, and personnel: Power for power’s sake. Only those in power or who have power appreciate what that means.

Religious establishments everywhere on Earth have a bureaucracy with similar aims to the State's civil service, to preserve their prerogatives and their power, but above all to safe guard their exclusive right to sanction marriage among the faithful. So, giving people a choice is a threat. Some of you would say that even in the absence of civil marriage in Lebanon couples can still go to Cyprus. Actually only a very small number of people can afford the ticket price and stay, while the vast majority of people will have no choice but to go through their religious establishment to be legally recognized as man and wife. So much for the dream of a society of free individuals making up their own minds. Free choice here is a luxury that only the wealthy few can afford.

The only option as I see it is for government to do its job and ensure religious establishments do not have a monopoly in such matters, that if people born into a certain faith wish to tie the knot in a civil ceremony and not a religious one for whatever reason that they can do so under law. But the question here is not can government achieve this, rather does this government, or any other one that comes after it for that matter, have the desire and the courage to do so as this would be akin to political suicide for any politician whose career would soon be over.

So, we are stuck. We will unlikely see civil marriage in Lebanon any time soon, not for 50 or 100 years at least, or maybe that is too optimistic!