Blogatron

I had a discussion with some co-workers on this subject, and what it came down to was whether you define marriage as a legal contract or a spiritual union.

If you've been raised Catholic, aside from being told that homosexuality is a sin, you've been taught that the purpose of marriage is to live together as Christians and produce children in the name of God. So, even if you're a progressive Catholic who doesn't mind The Gay so much, you're still caught with a nagging feeling that the term "marriage" just shouldn't apply to people who, biologically, can't fulfill its purpose.

So I think the personal issue that's plaguing a lot of people is that they've always seen marriage as a ceremony that takes place in a Church, performed by a holy man, executed by power vested in people from God, and now that there's this debate going on, they're being told none of that really matters.

Personally, I don't care. And if people are worried that the institution of marriage will be cheapened by this, then they should really go and get upset about the national divorce rate instead.

"So I think the personal issue that's plaguing a lot of people is that they've always seen marriage as a ceremony that takes place in a Church, performed by a holy man, executed by power vested in people from God, and now that there's this debate going on, they're being told none of that really matters."

I'd remind those people that there is, indisputably, a civil definition of marriage which differs from that. People go before a judge to get married (and, as you pointed out, get divorced) every day, and despite the fact that these actions are counter to many religions, the goverment doesn't try to legislate against this. Nor has it seemed to threaten anyone's spiritual interpretation of the intstitution of marriage, whether or not they approve of it.

Even if it did, I stand by my belief that the government has no place drafting legislation that enforces any set of religious beliefs. I invite an argument that is not either personal or religious, that would have some fact-based bearing on the issue of why the Constitution of the United States should be amended to prohibit certain types of contracts between people.

Personally (and I must stress that I am speaking as someone who's living in sin with an opposite-sex partner, so take this with the appropriately-sized grain of salt), if "marriage" is what's freaking people out, then maybe it's time to draft civil union legislation which would grant the same legal rights. I don't really care what you call it as long as people who actually want to make stabilising, life-long commitments to each other are allowed to do so, and as long as I do not have to read another heartbreaking story about how someone's partner of 20 years was not allowed to visit him or her on his/her deathbed because of "family only" rules.

Right on. I, along with Ted Kennedy, my father-in-law, and all the Turks, absolutely believe in a clear-cut difference between a civil and religious union. If you want to have a religious union, then go crazy. But the legal and personal advantages of marriage should be able to take place with no religious strings attached. Of course they do, when people go to a justice of the peace, but the society at large still seems incapable of separating the two. Which is why I think that everyone, whether they choose also to have a religious union, should have to have a civil one, and this should be open to absolutely everyone who wants to make that level of commitment. My father-in-law, who is an ordained Baptist minister, has boycotted doing legal marriage ceremonies until what he does for heterosexuals can also legally apply to homosexuals. He will bless people the way he blesses gay commitment ceremonies all the time, but he will not sign marriage licenses. There is a movement of clergy around the country doing the same, and I think they've got a good thing going. And don't get me started on the assertion that gay marriage "threatens" hetero marriage. That is too ludicrous to even discuss (see Adam Felber's recent "Save My Marriage" entry, which link I don't have now but is linked on the second to last post on my blog).

Divorced though I am, I think a Defense of Marriage Act is long overdue. Some of the proposed content needs re-thinking, though.

In an era when marriages occur and come apart at about equal rates, defending marriages against the factors which wreck them is a fine idea. Marriage provides most of our social glue. It offers stability and security to children, both emotionally and economically. The married, by and large, make for longer-term, more committed and more stable employees; they’re healthier, earn higher incomes, are more apt to participate in civic, volunteer and religious activities, and on and on. A happy, solid marriage is a beautiful thing to see.

There are terrible marriages, too, of course. Some couples stay together even in conflict and misery that make their friends and neighbors – and children – cringe. Whether this is better or worse than splitting up, who can say? Both can be stony roads to travel.

What makes it so hard for so many couples to establish and maintain viable life-long commitments to each other? Theories abound. One useful thing a Defense of Marriage Act could do is fund some research into this question. What kinds of pressures are most likely to make marriages crack apart? How can we eliminate or reduce such pressures? What expectations and strategies can couples develop to help them stay the course when the going gets tough? Should we make it a little harder for couples to marry in the first place? Should we require couples to secure, along with the marriage license, a six-week pre-nuptial training course, credit checks, some counseling, and a couple of truth-in-advertising sessions with the respective in-laws – or exes?

Perhaps a Defense of Marriage Act could help us figure out why so many couples today live together – sometimes for decades – without tying the knot. Maybe the Act could provide incentives for long-term co-habitors with marital cold feet, encouraging them to take the plunge.

What we shouldn’t do, though, is develop, much less pass, a constitutional amendment which defines marriage as being between one man and one woman. This is not a constitutional issue. Marriage may be the spine of our social skeleton, but it is not the basis of our governance and has no place in the document on which that governance is founded.

Second, if marriage is good for society, we should encourage more of it. The language of this proposed amendment would reduce, not promote marriage. The divorced and widowed would be forced out of the marriage market with this “one-man-one-woman” wording, which makes no provision for a second spouse for those who might want to re-marry. “Your husband/wife died in Iraq after you’d been married only six weeks? Sorry; you’ve already had the one spouse the law allows you.”

Third, if marriage is good for society, we should encourage more of it. Same-sex couples can hardly do any worse than heterosexuals have in maintaining durable unions and providing stable homes for the children they bear or adopt. Even if they only do as well, it would add a little more of that all-important social glue to the fabric of our society. It could also potentially mean homes available to children needing adoption; it could offer a little economic boost in the form of homes sold, and all the attendant economic activity generated by domestic bliss.

Admitting this new group of people into the customs and mores of mainstream society benefits everyone concerned. It is exclusion and discrimination, not sexual orientation (or any of a host of other possible differences from the majority), that wounds and warps marginalized people and produces disturbing behavior.

As for those who rail that the institution of marriage is threatened by same-sex unions, use the sense God gave you. So you’ve been married for five or fifteen or fifty years, and it’s working for you. Congratulations. Jim and Jack, or Sue and Sally, marry and move in next door. How does that in any way change the commitment of, and history between, you and your beloved spouse? How can your marriage be diminished in the sight of God or man by your neighbors’ wedded bliss?

By all means, let’s have a Defense of Marriage Act, and let it apply to any pair of adults not under duress (say, like that of a beginning-to-show pregnancy) who wants to marry.

As someone who is about to become a JP, and also possibly (though not for several years)a United Church of Christ minister, I know that the pastors in my church would join two people of whatever gender in wedlock once said pastors had counseled the couple and satisfied themselves that the two folks would take their commitment and their vows seriously. Of course, in our church, marriage is also not a sacrament . . . While we're at it, let's also ensure that The Gay can get insurance, take jobs (even as, gasp, teachers!)and generally Boldy Go Where Everybody Else Has Already Been. About damn time.

What's interesting to me is that in Canada, as far as I know, same-sex couples can and do live in common-law partnerships that afford them many of the same legal rights that marriage does. I believe it falls under Common Law, and I think it affords the same legalities as marriage.

And yet there is a very strong movement here to legalize the act, ceremony and cultural status of "marriage" to same-sex couples. Our federal government is considering a law to apply marriage to same-sex couples, and the Pope is sending reminders to our Catholic MPPs that they can't woo their Catholic voters with Catholicism and support a bill for gay marriage at the same time.

So as much as anyone would like to separate religious and legal processes from this, there are many for whom the exact opposite is the issue: They don't want a separate or logical alternative to a church wedding for themselves and their same-sex partner, they want the church wedding itself. And they want it to hold the same legal standard as anyone else's.

I believe that I am missing some key information in your argument, Mike. While same-sex couples may enjoy "many" of the same legal rights afforded married couples in Canada, my understanding was that they are fighting to receive *all* of the same legal rights, and to be recognized, by law, as married couples - not common-law couples.

There is a civil and legal definition of marriage that exists independently of marriage in a church. This is why couples who marry in a church, under the umbrella of the religion of their choice, must still obtain a marriage license from the government - because this definition, which affords various legal rights, is independent of a religious definition, which can be whatever the hell the adherents of a particular religion want it to be.

As I understand it, the legal battle that is raging right now is not a matter of gay people fighting to get the government to force *churches* to recognize their unions, but to get the *government itself* to recognize their unions. Is this true, or am I missing something? At least in my perfect world, the churches can and should do as they please. The government should no more inform their policies than religious leadership should inform government policies. That is why, in this case, I don't see a big issue with separating church and state - as far as I can tell, we already have. That's how it's possible for people of differing religions to all be recognized as married by the state - the state has already created its own, civil definition of marriage which grants certain rights and responsibilities to all couples who are married in the eyes of the state, with that little marriage license, regardless of their religion.

If you (the general you) are Catholic and think that marriage between two people of the same gender is a sin, well, we disagree, but it's your right to feel that way and for you to fight to keep *your religious institutions* from recognizing such marriages. When it comes to the larger society however, if your main objection to gay marriage is based on your religious beliefs, then it has no place in civil discourse. This is not a theocracy, and (in the States) law must be based on the ideals put forth in our Constitution. (Although more and more, it seems that it isn't. But that's a whole 'nother issue, there.)

Also (god can I EVER shut up?), I doubt that anyone who has been gay for longer than five minutes is expecting a change in law to grant instant "cultural status" to gay marriages. That's a people thing, not a legislation thing, and it's going to take years, if not generations, just like it has with interracial marriages - I mean, there are still a sad number of people who aren't willing to accept those.

you are right hilatron.
in canada gays are fighting for the government to give them the full legal right and status of a civil union -- marriage as defined by the state,not the church. gays want to MARRY, not just live together as common law partners. what is being established is this: it is unfair to say that jane and jack can live as common law partners OR get married, should they choose, but that jane and jill (john and jack) are ONLY permitted to be common law partners and are NOT afforded the same right and choice to legally marry as their heterosexual counterparts. as to the religious aspect in this, the canadian government is staying out of the church entirely by stating that any religious institution that disagrees with gay marriage will NOT be required by law to perform marriage ceremonies for gays. churches may opt out of performing marriage ceremonies for same sex couples depending on their religious views. the change in the law is simple: the govenment will no longer be able to deny marriage to gays. it is a legal redefinition, not a religious one. it is a change based on the fact that homosexuals are as equal under the law as heterosexuals and should therefore have the same legal rights and access.

-bluegirl
(one very happy canadian dyke)

-bluegirl

I never fare well in comments sections.

I suppose I'm baring my ignorance here of the legal rights afforded to common-law partnerships, and the differences between that and full legal marriage. I had thought that the purpose of common-law partnerships was to apply the same legal standard as marriage to long-standing relationships that fall outside its formal definition.

So, to my mind, the question of legalizing gay marriage was to simply apply the title of "married" over couples that couldn't have it before, making it a social/cultural question rather than a legal one. If there are clear legal differences between Common Law Relationships and marriage, then that would obviously change things.

Dur.

Yeah, the two are very different. Canada definitely has more extensive common-law rights, but they're still more limited, and harder to guarantee in the face of a legal challenge, than what married couples receive, as I understand. Here in the U.S. they're still murky, limited, and easy for family members to contest. Although myths abound that if you live with someone for x number of years you're automatically common-law spouses, this isn't the case: common law is almost never called into play except during the course of a legal battle, such as child support or custody with an unmarried couple. And insurance, inheritance rights, and the like? Fuhgeddaboudit.

I love you, Hilatron. Marry me?

I hear Canada's beautiful this time of year...

Oooh, my first proposal! I'm so honored. But I'm holding out for Massachusetts to vote on legalizing civil unions, which is in the works for the next couple of years. Just to piss off John Kerry and his wimpy "one man and one woman" parrot act.