It seems that the fine folks in California passed a resolution, Proposition 8, that defines marriage in California as one man and one woman. Some 400+ same-sex marriage supporters rallied adn demonstrated in San Diego on the eve of oral arguments before the state Supreme Court on the constitutionality of Proposition 8.
This is one of those issues like abortion or assisted suicide that stirs passions on both sides of the issue. And like all such issues, much of the passion distorts the issue and ultimately delays resolution to the benefit of all involved, whatever their position. In such cases it is often useful to examine the issue through questions.
Is marriage a religious or civil matter? In much of the world today, the civil and religious elements of marriage are completely intertwined. For those that regard marriage as a religious matter and gay marriage as an affront to their understanding of religion, same sex marriage is an understandably serious affront. While I understand such outrage, and while, it seems, the people of California through Proposition 8 recognize its validity, I do not believe that it need be so.
What if, we separate the religious and civil elements of marriage? In this matter it is worth noting that in a surprisingly large number of countries in the world, the dual nature of marriage is recognized. If you want to be married, you MUST have a civil ceremony. If you'd like to have a religious ceremony, that's fine but it caries no civil consequence. In these countries, marriage is a civil contract that is, by custom, recognized by many with a religious ceremony. In these countries, since marriage is a civil act there can be no underlying religious issues. Problem solved. In this matter, it is worth noting, that only in the relative recent history of marriage, has it been a religious act! Further, that through much of history it did not involve one man and one woman, polygamy harems and the like having a well established history often rooted in our fundamental religious texts.
This matter of separation of the religious and civil elements of marriage is interesting from other perspectives. Consider the question, what civil elements of marriage are not available to any person or persons (where more than 2 people can be involved)? I had occasion to consider this issue for myself some years ago when I was involved without marriage with the woman I eventually married. It turns out that most, though not all, civil elements of marriage are available to anyone via contract! Medical issues are not a problem at all, though one should expect to have to press the issue. Inheritance is similarly not an issue. Surprisingly, financial responsibility for children, either issue of the union or adopted, isn't much of a problem. The two issues where things get sticky are medical insurance provided by an employer and taxes.
Think about that for a bit. In the United States today, one can achieve all the civil benefits of marriage to one or more people independent of gender via civil contract with the exception of employer issued medical insurance and taxes!
So is the issue of "gay marriage" really about medical insurance and taxes? If one listens to the arguments for gay marriage it is very clear that it is not. Most of the arguments from the gay rights community at their most fundamental go to respect. Two men who have been in a 17 year relationship are simply saying that they want the rest of society to recognize their commitment and love for one another. It's really that simple. I for one could not deny such recognition, nor do I regard those who would as kind or loving.
There is, of course, a flip side. Do those who oppose "same sex marriage" really believe that people in a committed relationship should be denied medical insurance and tax benefits? When I listen to those opposed to "same sex marriage" I don't hear about insurance and taxes. Rather I hear talk about religion, morality, and children. People seem to be saying that their fundamental religious belief is that marriage is about one man, one woman, and raising children. Indeed, for most of us it is about just that simple truth! I for one can not deny that truth, nor do I regard those in a very vocal minority, here I note without prejudice that gay activist are in fact a minority and are in fact often vocal, who would force their own values on the majority as either kind or loving.
I regard both sides in this argument as wrong in that they fail to recognize that the debate is often about two very different things. It is simply not possible to have a conversation and resolve such issues when the parties are not even talking about the same thing.
So here's a common sense solution that should satisfy people of good will on both sides.
First, let's stop talking about marriage.
Second, if you want the civil benefits that now accrue to marriage, go down to the civil authority, fill out the necessary forms, and sign ... gender need not be an issue since it's about taxes and such.
Third, if you want to hold a religious ceremony do so. It IS your special day and you should celebrate it.
Finally, if you're on the religious right quit going out of your way to antagonize people who love each other and are willing to commit their lives to each other. There's little enough love as there is. Celebrate it wherever you find it. If you're a gay rights activist quit going out of your way to offend people of faith. Understand that they ARE the majority! They clearly don't want to call it marriage but, I believe, most would gladly support your civil rights and while they struggle with your choices are ultimately willing to accept them.
In short, I propose that we all grow up and get religion out of, if not marriage, then insurance and taxes. But hey, that's just a common sense POV.
No comments:
Post a Comment