On Marriage
A pair of stories in today’s New York Times examine the new directive by Gov. David A. Paterson instructing state agencies to “recognize what he called the basic common sense of allowing gay men and lesbians married elsewhere to gain the same rights … as heterosexual couples.” The first, “How Governor Set His Stance on Gay Rights”, traces the route Mr. Paterson took to arrive at his decision; the second, “Gay Marriage Opponents Consider Ways to Fight New Policy”, looks at the controversy the decision has sparked.
Not long after Mr. Paterson made his decision public, Jim at of KINGS & carnies came to the following conclusion in his entry “The Gay Man, Marriage, and Me”:
It just makes sense to me that all pair-bonded couples have the same benefits and rights. The pair-bonded homosexual couples ought to legally be married.
In principle, I agree with Mr. Paterson’s decision and with Jim’s conclusion. Where we differ is best summed up by of KINGS & carnies:
Religious organizations, especially Christian ones where Jesus has already given us an example of staying out of governmental affairs, ought not have a say in the government’s role in gay marriage. It has nothing to do with them. Give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.
Jim’s premise is religion should stay out of government, and he quotes Jesus to make his point. The problem is, not all religions opposing gay marriage are Christian, and many would be equally offended by the notion that they should obey Jesus’ teaching.
Marriage is a loaded word, as much implying a religious rite as a civil contract. In many faiths, marriage is a sacrament, a holy thing; and even non-sacramental faiths consider the ceremony ordained, sanctioned and entered into by God. Asking believers to accept gay marriages is asking them to condone what they consider sin. It simply won’t happen as long as religion is central to American society.
Government has no business administering religious rites anyway. The United States Constitution is, after all, a secular document; the laws it delineates are ratified by “we the people”, not a supernatural authority. Ideally, those laws do two things: They protect weaker citizens from being preyed upon by stronger ones and they prescribe the contracts by which we fairly interact.
Among the contracts are those extending certain rights and privileges to citizens who unite as life partners — or as Jim calls them, pair-bonds. These contracts have everything to do with civil law and nothing to do with religion. They govern things like inheritance, personal authority and the protection of family units. In the past they have been called “marriage laws” because their protections were available only for heterosexual couples.
Since civil law, fairly administered, should be blind to race, religion, age, sex or sexual preference, those protections ought to be offered homosexual couples as well, not as part of “marriage”, but as any contract protects a civil agreement. For lack of better terminology, we might call it a civil union.
Civil unions should be as easy to administer as signing names to the bottom of a contract. They could be dissolved by the courts system. Any ceremony attached to the union ought to be outside the realm of government, so that these laws and protections are not considered “marriage”.
Instead of turning to religious authority, we ought to turn to the First Amendment of the Constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….” Marriage is a function of religion; Congress is prohibited from sanctioning it by law. It is the domain of priests, preachers, shamans, imams, sorcerers and soothsayers (and their female counterparts, if they exist).
So if same sex couples choose to form family units, they should be extended the full protection of civil law. Whether they — or any other family units — are offered religious sanction is outside the responsibility of secular government.
On Marriage has 4 responses
Harry Haller says:
30 May 2008 at 2:30 pm
Thank you kindly, ma’am. There won’t be much posting for the next few days, as I will be elsewhere celebrating with all my 53-year-old might.
Jim says:
30 May 2008 at 4:52 pm
Our disagreements are semantic rooted in the word “marriage.” If I understand you correctly, you feel the word is largely religious. I allow it its secular definition.
A rose by any other name …
“Gay marriage” is an issue today mostly because of the word “marriage.” Gay couples would like to be “married”; traditionalists believe only heterosexual couples can be “married.”
I am neither gay nor a traditionalist, so I guess they’re going to have to battle this one out without me. I don’t have a horse in this race.
I do understand that words mean things and the word “marriage” is a lightning rod in this case. As such, I offer that the word marriage needs a prefix:
Can’t we call one “religious-marriage” and the other “civil-marriage,” with neither being mutually exclusive or inclusive? Hm?
I didn’t think so.
Harry Haller says:
30 May 2008 at 6:01 pm
I’d be the first one to agree that our differences are semantic, and I’m more inclined to want government out of “marriage” because I want government out of all things religious.
Now can we talk about taxing churches?
