Gay and Lesbian Marriage

These days, the apparently 2nd-most divisive issue (after abortion) Americans are grappling with is extending the status of marriage to gays and lesbians. The climate for this debate has escalated as a result of several state Supreme Courts ruling that gays and lesbians have the constitutional right to marry, which in turn has provoked a run of anti-gay marriage laws and amendments explicitly outlawing same. While the recent California ballot initiative may yet be overturned on the grounds that an unconstitutional process was followed with this initiative, the debate is sure to continue. For traditional believers, this issue strikes at the core of their religious faith, as the whole discussion is ultimately rooted in religious/biblical beliefs. For gays and lesbians, the argument centers around their perceived right to have the same opportunity of marriage as any other citizen.

Let us first separate both outside edges of this discussion. Firstly, I am not personally gay, so I have no personal stake in either outcome of this debate. Secondly, there is a large group of people who oppose same-sex marriage because they reject homosexuality itself, hence by extension they oppose any form of recognition to such relationships. But not all anti-same-sex-marriage people are automatically anti-gays and lesbians; this is a seismic shift in public opinion over the last 30 years. There is not only a growing body of straight people who are supporters of full same-sex relationships, but there is a similarly growing group who can be supportive up to a point but in good conscience just cannot make the leap to same-sex marriage. For them, there remains something about “marriage” that inherently defines a male/female union.

Vermont was the first state to formally endorse “civil unions,” a legal status that gave to same-sex couples defined rights and privileges that were closely akin to marital legal rights. Massachusetts has allowed same-sex marriage for several years now; the sky over Boston has not fallen, same-sex children have not turned out extraordinarily degenerate, crime rates have not increased. Traditional male/female marriage thrives unabated, and our species continues to be adequately re-stocked. Connecticut will be the next state to follow. I am quite confident that Connecticut, and the California couples who married in the legal interim, will experience similar very ordinary results. Many employers and insurance companies have already moved to grant similar benefits to same-sex couples. Yet our Republic still stands.

There are actually two issues which we must relook at. One is the meaning of marriage itself. I am not convinced that there is an inherent constitutional right to marry, but it seems pretty clear that there is no constitutionally-based discrimination in who can marry. My most radical conviction is that the institution of marriage in America is in itself unconstitutional, a violation of the First Amendment mandate for the separation of Church and State. Marriage in America mixes two concepts. One is the granting of inter-dependent legal rights and responsibilities to two individuals for such things as automatically shared property ownership, required financial/physical support, implicit power-of-attorney authority in emergencies, parental rights and responsibilities, etc. All of this is codified and is equally applicable to all citizens in that jurisdiction of legal age.

But marriage is also a religious rite, practiced and conferred within the differing rules, traditions and dogmas of each religion, and therefore is NOT commonly applied to all people. It is done to express a spiritual and emotional commitment between two individuals that is beyond the range of state contractual rights, and to do so in witness by family, friends and the individual’s religious community. In virtually all religious traditions, the chief meaningful requirements are love, commitment, and personal fulfillment. I can see where some religious groups might theologically position their concept of marriage as additionally requiring a male-female relationship, along with other cultural roles and expectations. If one particular denomination or church has the right to define such as they see fit, then other religions just as rightfully should be entitled to stake out their theological positions – such as among a man and many wives (or vice versa) (currently legally banned); or between same-sex individuals (banned in 48 states); or requiring the same nationality; or only allowing separate races (once true and now banned); or requiring participants to be of the same faith (varying rules in Catholicism).

Complicating this is the mixing of legal authority for marriage. The State inherently grants to religious practitioners the power to create a legal marriage. Most all marriages are created this way. Thereby the State endorses the varying patchwork rules of our religious groups and their mixed (and perhaps unconstitutional?) rules. And we have made religious practitioners “agents of the State” ― a mixing of state and church most definitely abhorrent to our Founding Fathers’ principles. The lesson continues to be: when we mix canon with civil law, religion with state, individual beliefs with universal enforcement, the results are never good.

The only way out of this protracted social battle is to go back to square one and separate the two issues. For the State, let any two people (“domestic partners”) be granted a defined packaged set of legal rights (a “civil union”) upon their petition, recognized universally. In fact, virtually every such right can already be granted now by individual contracts or assignment of agency between any two people. So let us just make a consistent legal package easy for everyone to obtain. For “marriage,” let us simply remove any legal basis by the State, and return that designation (“husband and wife”) to the religious groups who rightfully own it. If Episcopalians or Southern Baptists determine that they have to split into Group A and Group B over same-sex marriage permission or prohibition, then so be it; religious groups have historically separated and subdivided themselves before over all sorts of differences (e.g. interpretation of texts, dogma, forms of ritual, family rules, governance). Ultimately, it is only in separation that there can be a coming together.

Far too much time on this issue is being spent over semantics and political demagoguery. Yet we must recognize the very real power that drives people to have their union blessed within the spiritual framework called “marriage.” The greater challenge of gay marriage is to our ability to accept, coexist with, and not fear ideas and people different than ourselves, rather than insisting on a universal sameness. What ultimately counts are the values of love, responsibility and caring. Jesus said, “Render under Caesar [the state] what is Caesar’s (“civil union”); render unto God what is God’s (“spiritual marriage”).” Human beings may grapple with this topic, but I have no doubt that God’s love is encompassing enough to include any human acts driven by a desire to love and commit to one another. Within that greater context, I have no doubt that the institution of marriage will continue to be quite safe in America.