There’s a lot to discuss on Gay Marriage Equality, for tonight, let me share this one anecdote.
There is one place where logic cuts through so clearly that it amazes me that the average lay person doesn’t get it. I have a very bright, liberal, open and warm couple of friends, a man and a woman who are married to each other. Michael is Jewish, Reen is Catholic; neither is particularly religious but their lives are obviously shaped by their religious heritages. I’m talking about the positives here; I’ll leave for them to speak to any negatives.
So these are good, salt of the earth, gay-friendly, enlightened people.
I sat across the table from them after a delightful Thanksgiving dinner and the topic turned to Gay Marriage. I put to them this simple question: Is marriage a civil or a religious institution? I was really taken aback when they said nearly in unison, “civil.”
Either answer would have allowed me to make my point, but I would have said marriage is a religious institution. The reason I was surprised, is for me there is a clear separation. While their response gives me the stronger case, I expected them to see the institution as I do.
For me marriage is symbolic, ceremonial, and by most accounts religious. Committing to another individual is a spiritual act, an act of love. Where is the state involved in that? The state gets involved in the area of laws. From a legal perspective, marriage is a contract. It is about property, rights and responsibilities. It is a civil contract, a “civil union.”
I have no huge problem with marriage discrimination — if you use my definition of marriage. Why would I want a fundamentalist church to perform a ceremonial act for me and my partner if on Sunday morning they say our love is “an abomination?” Not me — I’m still going to seek the ministrations of UU, UCC, Episcopal, or any number of other churches where one might find good folks who will bless a union with my partner.
If we say that the state grants marriage, however, the institution has to be open to all. There is no way around it. There’s great work being done regarding the first and fourteenth amendments to the U.S. constitution, especially regarding equal protecton.
This is where hateful folks jump in and say that if marriage must be granted to all, there will be incest and beastiality, plural marriage, and on and on. These extremes are not supported by the 14th amendment and the legal tests that must be passed to say where the state can and cannot discriminate. (see previous links.)
Now, if Reen and Michael had said, “religious,” regarding the nature of the institution, I’d have said, “Damn straight.” (not a pun)
The other argument gaining some steam goes, “The state has no business being in the business of marrying people.” The state should grant civil unions to all who apply, including gay couples and even couples who mutually agree to care for and take responsibility for one another whether or not they intend any kind of sexual relationship. This would still exclude relationships including incest, underage, animal —whatever.
If people still want to get married, they can arrange it with their church, guru, or wedding planner. Religious people could still discriminate on the basis of religion within the context of the church. Beware non-religious wedding planners. You are a public accommodation and will not be entitled to discriminate. If you need a loophole, just operate under the auspices of a mega-church, many of whom will be glad to shelter your business, as long as they get their cut.
In the end almost everyone is happy. Happiness may still elude those raised in fundamentalist religions if they want to be married in the traditions in which they were raised. If we got as far as true separation of church and state and equality in marriage, though, I expect things would get a lot better for even the most oppressed.
Sphere: Related Content
