On
Marriage Equality
Thursday,
July 02, 2015
On June 26, 2015 The United States Supreme Court decided
that same sex marriage was constitutional.
This is an historically significant day I never believed I would see in
my lifetime. I feel compelled to write
some of my thoughts about this day as it is fresh in my mind and not clouded by
faulty memory, but with a few days to reflect and to experience the initial
reactions. The purpose of this writing
is mostly personal journaling, but because I have children who have witnessed
this moment in history and grandchildren who may never know a time when same
sex couples could not marry, this may be (or not) an interesting perspective in
history for them.
Many of the arguments made about marriage equality seem
to be based upon the definition of marriage. I am a lover of language, so I find this point
particularly interesting. A google
search (Merriam-Webster definition is similar enough to not necessitate putting
in) for the definition of “marriage” brings up the following:
mar·riage
ˈmerij/
noun
1.
1.
the legally or formally recognized
union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same
sex) as partners in a relationship.
"a happy marriage"
synonyms:
|
wedding, wedding ceremony, marriage
ceremony, nuptials, union
"the marriage took place at
St. Margaret's"
|
|
o
2.
2.
a combination or mixture of two or
more elements.
"a marriage of jazz, pop,
blues, and gospel"
synonyms:
|
union, alliance, fusion, mixture, mix, blend, amalgamation,combination, merger
"a marriage of jazz, pop, and
gospel"
|
Many conservative Christians wanted to allow “civil unions”
but wanted to save the term “marriage” for the biblical ideal of marriage. The English word for marriage pretty much
means a civil union. I argue that the distinction
between the civilly recognized union and the Christian version already exists
in the term “holy matrimony.” The English word marriage in my opinion encompasses
both civil unions and holy matrimony in a simple elegant word. Holy matrimony specifies a marriage based
upon Christian beliefs, but marriage is not necessarily holy matrimony. Red is a color, but not all colors are red.
The celebratory cry for marriage equality has been, “Love
Wins!” The reality is that love always
has, even before it could be civilly recognized. Gay couples were marrying in ceremonies
before it could be legally recognized, before interracial marriage was allowed
interracial couples married in secret, polygamists still marry in secret. The ritual has existed long before the legal
acknowledgement did. So really, the
inclusion in the social and legal contract of marriage is what has won. Not nearly as catchy though, is it?
I had an interesting conflict happen a year or so
ago. I took two classes at Weber State
University. One was a political science
class and one was my second English requirement. In the English class I was required to write
a persuasive essay. I chose to write
about marriage equality. I noticed in my
political science class that Article IV Section 1 of The Constitution dealt
with personal contracts between citizens in different states:
“Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to
the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And
the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts,
Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.”
My poli-sci text book explained this as contracts and
records of one state follow you from state to state. If you take out a loan in California, you
must still pay it back if you move to Ohio, also the same goes for
marriage. An opposite sex couple doesn’t
have to worry about whether or not their marriage is recognized in whatever
state they move to. But until June 26th,
a same sex couple’s marriage was only valid in states that allowed that
marriage to be performed. I presented
this argument in my essay and was admonished by my professor that I couldn’t
just interpret The Constitution the way I saw fit. And yet at the time I knew of a same sex
couple who had been married in one state, moved to Utah, decided to divorce,
and could not file for divorce in Utah because their marriage was not
recognized at the time. Yet their
property and finances were still entangled according the state they were
married in.
The sad reality is, one of the reasons we have civilly
recognized marriages is to fairly divide marital property, establish custody of
children, and ensure support of children and/or spouses in cases of divorce. “Till
death do us part” should really be amended to “Till death do us part, or one or
both of us decide to opt out” to be more accurate. Which is not to say there aren’t very valid
reasons for divorce, but there are also equally dumb reasons.
Some states are considering wiping out governmental
involvement in marriage altogether because of same sex couples gaining the
right to marry. I believe this is absurd
and dangerous because of the strides that have been made in divorce law in
protecting vulnerable people. In the
past all property belonged to the man, and in the case of a divorce between and
man and a woman he could legally take everything and leave her with nothing and
no means to support their children. If
the opinion is that marriage equality destroys the institution of marriage,
then why purposefully and actively attempt to destroy the institution of
marriage? It seems to me like the
institution of marriage is more in danger from the reaction to marriage
equality than marriage equality itself.
One absurd argument against marriage equality is the
slippery slope one regarding marrying children and animals. Children and animals cannot give
consent. They may be able to be coerced
into agreeing, but that isn’t the same thing as informed consent. What about polygamy? Because of the protection civil marriage
allows vulnerable people I do support legalizing plural marriages between
consenting adults. So often the women
and children in polygamist marriages have no legal protection and no right to a
share in the marital property. Right
now, generally speaking, first wives in polygamist marriages have legal
protections but the rest are basically legally treated as single parents.
Now I could go into a whole lot of biblical debate about
marriage equality, but the fact is people can use the words of The Bible to
debate nearly any topic, and find supporting scripture to fit their needs. This is done with gay marriage; it’s been
done in the past to both support and condone slavery, rape, violence, and war. I find this to be pointless in this debate
because again we’re discussing the civil contract of marriage so the only
document to really be discussed is The Constitution, and I agree with The
Supreme Court, there just doesn’t seem to be anything in The Constitution that
opposes same sex marriage or supports same sex marriage bans by state. Their job is to interpret The Constitution. The
biblical debate should stay within the realm of how individual religions choose
handle the ritual of marriage. I think
it’s a worthy discussion between the Judeo-Christian religions to interpret The
Bible and decide what they feel should be followed literally and what is
allegorical as well as the historical, social, and cultural context the
scriptures are written in. This is why
we have constitutional scholars and biblical scholars.
Over all, I would ask everyone to try to be kind during
this transition. Empathy, kindness, and
understanding can go a long way. There’s
a snarky meme going around that says, “Hug a conservative, they’ve had a rough
week.” Every time I see it come up on my
news feed, I actually do feel badly for them.
While I disagree with their arguments, I can also understand how
frightening it must be for them to feel like society is going to hell in a hand
basket (Revelations is some seriously scary stuff). I feel the same way whenever we go into a new
war, global resources are allowed to be abused, a species is made extinct by
humans, an unarmed person is shot by police, and a vulnerable class is taken
advantage of by corporate greed. The
very moral fiber of their being is offended.
We may not feel the other side deserves empathy, kindness, and
understanding because their interests don’t align with ours. I would ask everyone to remember, most of us
doing the best we can to try to better our world. Our methods and ideologies may differ vastly,
but the end goal for most is a better world, whatever than means to us
individually. As always I encourage
people to read points of view different from their own and research as much
truth as is possible in the sea of information and misinformation out
there. Equality won, but from this point
forward we will find out if love really can win.
