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.
steveflesher
Philip
Mel Maguire
Mark Ciavola
Comments
Well, since that’s pretty much what I think, too, I can’t argue with you.
I agree. Civil Unions and Marriage- makes sense. Great post.
When a bi-sexual friend of mine and I discuss this, he points to “separate but equal” and how it has historically failed. He thinks calling one Marriage and calling the other Civil Union, but providing the same benefits under each, isn’t going to work based on his belief that separate is not equal.
I disagree with him, but its an interesting notion to consider I guess.
I am not gay. My brother Frank was. He passed away two years ago from AIDS. Before he came out, I admit I had no real opinion on gays and lesbians one way or the other. I saw the pain and the bias levied towards him and it continues to haunt me to this day. I do not understand why anyone would disagree with marriage between two consenting adults period. It seems to me that people should champion two adults wanting to get married and commit themselves to each other regardless of whether they are the same sex or not. If people want to pick a fight, they should be fighting against children all over the world being forced into marriage against their will. As usual, people have their priorities screwed up.
Also, as a registered independent who leans towards the right, I am praying the Dems do not win the presidential election as I feel their party is so out of control, more so than the Republican party. While both parties need some rethinking and regrouping, the Dems need a severe overhaul, perhaps the so called “Progressive Seculars” should move on and form their own party instead of bringing down the Democratic party, which needed help to begin with. Not to get too preachy here, as I also disagree with structured religious organizations, but I do have a firm faith in God and I believe we are all God’s children and He loves us all equally, be it straight, gay, lesbian, whatever, but I also believe there are some way off course that He would probably like to just bop on the head.
Roberta-
I get what you’re saying about two consenting adults. And on so many levels I hear you/understand where you are coming from.
And on so many other level s I hear where other people are coming from on calling marriage between a man and a man or vice versa, the same thing. God didn’t make Adam and Adam, God made Adam and Eve, hence Mel’s point about marriage being sanctioned by the church.
I guess my thing is- if we didnt’ have income taxes in the first place, it wouldn’t matter who your spouse was, to begin with, say if we had a national sales tax. Furthermore, your benefits at work should extend to anyone that you choose to let them extend to- so long as they’re human. If you’re gay, then they go to your partner. If you’re married they go to your spouse. I don’t understand why it isn’t that way.
But then there are no benefits in ranching, save for not having an office everyday, so I’m sure I may not completely understand the benefits issue.
“I agree. Civil Unions and Marriage- makes sense. Great post. ”
I agree. It will not happen any day soon. But it should. We are at war in CA over this issue. It’s ugly. Both sides are not playing fair and spreading lie after lie.
I can see gay Roman Catholics getting upset over your plan becuase they can never have legal marriage in the Catholic church. But they would want legal marriage. So the options are marry in a gay friendly church or demand the government offer marriage.
This is the crux of the issue in CA. There are civil unions in CA that offer the same protection as legal marriage. But that isn’t good enough for the gay community in CA. But, it should be. Take the bus or walk; as long as you get where you need to be is all that matters.
I know two same sex couples who opted for the civil union when that was the only choice. They are not going to get married because they already are married in the eyes of the state.
“He thinks calling one Marriage and calling the other Civil Union, but providing the same benefits under each, isn’t going to work based on his belief that separate is not equal.”
UGH!
We have in this country public school classrooms that are boys only or girls only. It is not widespread, but they exist. The parents of these kids voluntarily put their children in these classrooms.
They are separate and equal. The kids don’t get shortchanged. The law does not allow this.
The problem with Brown vs. Board of Education was in the past children at segregated black schools were getting short changed big time on many different levels. Separate was not equal in that case.
To say separate but equal can never ever be is wrong. It can be and it is.
John, the fight going on in California right now is sad. I have friends and relatives all over that state and they’re pretty well split on the issue; my relatives in LA are all for gay marriage, while my relatives in Fresno think it’s the harbinger of the Four Horsemen.
You had said before that the decision made by the Supreme Court was a case of judicial activism; I both agree and disagree. The people don’t always vote in ways that agree with the laws of the land, in which case the judges have to step in and interpret the law as it is written. I’m not sure that I believe they overstepped their boundaries in declaring the ban on gay marriage illegal, then again I’ve not read their opinions on the matter.
Few judges are able to get away with acting outside their capacity to merely interpret the laws that exist, though. Both sides complain of judicial activism and I’m not sure I believe any of them. It’s an issue I want to read more about. I think I just found the subject for my thesis…
In most of the places where gay marriage bills have failed, exit polls have shown that people are willing to have civil unions, just not use the world marriage.
And John, you are SO right! I’ve been the beneficiary of some of that ridiculous propaganda. I won’t even get into the gay side of the propaganda, as I’m sure you’ve all heard it many times.
On the anti-gay marriage side one thing that drives me nuts is when people make a big effin’ deal about, “how will I explain this to my kids? I don’t want to have this conversation yet!”
I have four kids. One is gay (and I’m pretty positive she was genetically predisposed and we’ve known since she was about 5 she was going to lean that way) – she is 16. I also have a 10 year old, an 8 year old, and a 5 year old. My cousin is a lesbian in a committed relationship for many years. They are both called auntie by my kids.
And never have my kids even NOTICED that the aunties are “different.” Because the funny thing about kids is that they pretty much view anything as normal unless the people around them are making a huge deal about it.
So here’s the deal – I think that people who get all hysterical about “explaining” things are just looking for a reason to be hysterical. But I also think the book “Heather Has Two Mommies” is silly, because that just gives kids they idea they should be thinking it is weird and then should be learning to not think it is weird.
If that makes sense.
People don’t give kids enough credit.
“People don’t give kids enough credit.”
Often it is the kids who figure out who is different before the adults do. Whether they care one way or another might depend on how they are raised.
Instead of what do I tell my children it should be what will my children tell me LOL?
Benefits for married persons are given because it is difficult and costly to bear and raise children for society and this is considered a benefit to society which is supported by tax law. The maintenance of a nuclear family is by and large beneficial for children and thus for society.
Heterosexual women bear the burden of being the physical bearer of children and this affects their entire lives. Much of their energy goes into nurturing the father so he can provide what men do provide for children-strength and a feeling of security and many other qualities of a good father. Tax breaks for married persons are not written into the law to encourage long term committed relationships as an end in themselves.
Good debate, Mel. Keep up the good work.