On Marriage Equality

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 26^th, 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.