Gay Conservative

Any time I hear of marriage, I get an image in my head from the movie “The Princess Bride.”  It doesn’t matter who it is I know that’s getting married; I see that serious-looking bishop with the goofy speech impediment trying to talk about how important marriage is.  It’s funnier’n hell; I only wish the reality could be so light-hearted.

Right now, in Arizona, a group called the Central Arizona Project is pushing Proposition 102.  It was introduced during the last Presidential election as the marriage amendment.  In its original form, it banned anybody who wasn’t married–straight and gay couples–from getting any tax breaks or benefits from employers (an almost identical law was vetoed by Sarah Palin in Alaska).  It was soundly defeated then because it was so broad and wide-sweeping.  Now I’m not so sure.  Now they’ve changed the resolution to specifically ban gay couples from receiving benefits, and straight couples are safe.  They’re pushing it as a state law that would ban gays and lesbians from getting married.

Trouble is, that’s not all it does–and to boot, it’s already against the law for a marriage between same-sex couples to be officially recognized.

I don’t see the “sanctity of marriage” that they all talk about.  Today, cheating on your spouse is almost as chic as being anti-war…it’s acceptable, and in some cases is even seen as almost heroic.  I’ve never been able to respect people who knowingly and deliberately cheat on their spouses and have no remorse when everyone gets hurt in the end.  In the church, you’re raised to believe that marriage is for life and there’s no questioning the finality of it.  But, if you cheat and get divorced, God will always accept you back just the way you are and there will be no guilt or accountability associated with your “mistake.”  I’ve seen it happen far too many times.

Nowadays you can go to a drive-thru in Las Vegas and get married to anyone you like, as long as it’s not a same-sex ceremony.  If you were too drunk to know what was going on you can have it annulled within a few days.  Britney Spears famously did this several years ago.  Sanctity?  You’ve gotta be kidding.

What is marriage?  Today it’s seen as a legal and/or religious recognition of a monogamous relationship, one that comes with a host of benefits and perks that you don’t get if you’re single.  Married couples are entitled to tax breaks in most countries.  It wasn’t always like this; in the Roman empire, there was no ceremony.  Marriage was simply seen as an agreement between two people (yes, some of them were same-sex) to love each other and live together, maybe raise a family.  Legally speaking, there was little recognition; ceremonies were purely religious then, particularly among the Jews.  It wasn’t until John Calvin came along and introduced the Marriage Ordinance of Geneva that marriage became a legality that had to be officiated by both the church and the government.  Several British monarchs after Calvin’s time shaped it into what it is today.  (On a side note, same-sex relationships were first made illegal and punishable by death by the government’s hands under Roman emperors Valentinian II, Theodoisus and Arcadius–”Christian” emperors.)

In America today, marriage is the only institution in which the church is allowed to act as an agent of the government.  Marriage was born of religion and, the way we recognize it today, is held up by religion.  Our Constitution may or may not support this sort of thing, but if the “separation of church and state” that Thomas Jefferson wrote about so long ago is to hold up, the church shouldn’t have such sway, in my opinion.

Here’s what I think should happen: marriage should be presided over by the church.  It can be recognized by law, yes, but marriage–since its roots are firmly in religion–should be what the church offers.  The government, represented by a justice of the peace, should preside over “civil unions” that are basically the same thing, only recognized by a different name and administered in a different fashion.  This should hold true for gay and straight couples.  There are people I know who are very anti-religion who might be happier with a civil union in a courtroom.  There are Christian churches out there that call themselves “open and affirming,” meaning they accept and welcome all GLBT people of faith and don’t believe it to be a damning sin.  Religion isn’t the only thing that drives the anti-gay marriage movement, but it is a very prominent factor.  Religion should not be written into law, and that is exactly what is being done with these “marriage protection initiatives.”

If it were changed to what I just described, we’d have something nobody believes we can achieve right now: equality for all people regardless of orientation.  We wouldn’t have to settle for less, and those who dislike the idea of gays ruining the so-called sanctity of marriage would still have what they want.  Could I be wrong?  Sure.  But I think it’s a step in the right direction.