Gender, Marriage and the Rule of Law
A Political Essay by Jeffrey E. Poehlmann
Originally published February 21, 2004
With the recent rulings in California and Massachusetts, the topic of same-sex marriage has guaranteed itself a place in the pantheon of hot button issues poised for the pressing in the political grandstanding of our current election year. The state of Massachusetts and the city of San Francisco, CA, have sensibly treated this as an issue for the courts and not constitutional amendments, though already there is a renewed fury to protect the sanctity of an institution from something that poses it no real threat.
It seems that every few weeks there is another story in the news that makes mention of the passionate arguments for or against the legalization of "gay marriage." Typically, sides against such a legal union call for the "protection" of marriage, as though existing marriages will somehow be in jeopardy if such laws offering equal protection of same-gender couples are enacted. Sides in favor of such laws, on the other hand, state that they are only looking to gain equal legal footing for what they claim are equally important and meaningful unions.
Whether or not one approves of a lifestyle choice made by another individual should have nothing to do with whether one can impose restrictions on that other individual's rights. Provided that no laws are being broken in the process, our freedoms of expression must be protected for the sake of all citizens. The first step, of course, is to ensure that the laws on the books are fair and serve the purpose of government without going counter to our Constitution and often-misunderstood Bill of Rights.
We keep seeing opponents of same-gender unions stating that marriage is, by definition, a union between a man and a woman. That meaning resides in individual perspective seems irrelevant to this group. Meanwhile, supporters of same-gender unions may ask, where is such a definition? To be fair, the essentially "definitive" Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language does state that marriage is "the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc." Of course, that is just the first of ten definitions or variants of meaning for the word. Another accepted definition, according to the same source, is "a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction." To be "in the manner" does not mean that literally the union must be between a male and a female, only that the roles of husband and wife must apply. Because of the flexible nature of language, trying to impose literal meaning in this case is both futile and irrelevant to policy.
Fluidity of Language
Looking further into the meanings of words, the active verb "marry" is defined as "to take as an intimate life partner by a formal exchange of promises in the manner of a traditional marriage ceremony." Different dictionaries will offer variants on the definitions highlighted here - and one of the things to be learned by this (in fact, by the study of language in general) is that what is often at stake is a simple matter of semantics. Language is designed so that it evolves, and frequent adjustments are made in the wording of definitions to reflect the times and common usage. An example of this is that the Encarta Dictionary, considered to be one of the most up-to-date dictionaries of the English language, defines marriage thusly: "1. a legally recognized relationship, established by a civil or religious ceremony, between two people who intend to live together as sexual and domestic partners 2. a married relationship between two particular people, or an individual's relationship with an individual spouse 3. the joining together in wedlock of two people 4. the ceremony in which two people are joined together formally in wedlock." My first source, it should be noted, is based on a text from 1987 with minor revisions up through 1996. My latter source is from 2002. There is no way to say that, universally, marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman - only an individual can define it in such a manner, and that definition cannot be forced upon everyone.
Recognizing that there is a distinction between religious and civil marriage, the government ought to discount religious arguments either pro or con with regard to marriage law. (Interestingly, the Catholic Church didn't make marriage a sacrament until the year 1215. Also, from the 5th through the 15th Century, the Church performed "holy unions" for both heterosexual and homosexual couples.) Any religion is able to have its own rules and restrictions with regard to marriage - our government is forbidden from instructing a religious institution on such matters. Likewise, if a religious institution wishes to perform a same-gender marriage, our government is prohibited from preventing such a religiously recognized union from taking place. On the other hand, civil marriage is all about the law and recognition before the eyes of the government.
Church and State
Some countries, such as France, require that if there is to be a religious ceremony it will only be considered valid if there is also a civil ceremony. France is a deeply religious country, yet it recognizes a clear distinction between the affairs of the Church and the affairs of the State. In the United States of America, for the sake of religion and freedom and tradition, we allow religious weddings to act as civil ceremonies provided the religious authority conducting the marriage files the proper paperwork. This is a wonderful freedom, but one must wonder if it has not allowed for this duality of ceremony to blur perceptions of where the religious aspect ends and the civic aspect of marriage begins.
With regard to arguments that marriage is an institution for raising children, it is interesting to note that most child-rearing laws are gender and marriage neutral. It seems that the laws in place to protect children do not depend on a parent having been married at all in the first place. Additionally, if marriage is only for couples who are rearing children, then what is to be done with childless couples? Nowhere are there actions being taken to penalize married couples that have chosen not to have children even when they are biologically capable. Likewise, nowhere are to be found rules forcing marriage upon single parents or prohibiting unmarried individuals (of any sexual orientation) from adopting in the first place.
Foreign Approaches
Currently, three countries allow same-gender marriages: Netherlands, Belgium and Canada. The citizenship and residency requirements vary (Canada's being the loosest), but the fact is that there is a growing global acceptance of this type of union. (Some legal recognition has also been given to homosexual couples in France, Germany, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Chile, Argentina and Iceland.) The United States traditionally recognizes marriages performed not only across state lines, but in other countries as well. It is good for the government and good for society to recognize all international marriages and afford our own citizens the same legal protections they could find elsewhere, proving our society to be progressive in the area of human rights and social equality. From a secular perspective - the only valid perspective when discussing rules of civic law - there are no substantive arguments against same-gender marriages. Whether a religion will recognize a marriage between two individuals of the same gender is irrelevant and should be completely beyond the scope of government interest, and vise versa.
The bottom line: recognizing same-gender civic marriages is good policy and the right thing to do.
Other Resources
Interested in discovering more about this topic? Explore these links ...
- The Pew Forum: Less Religious Opposition to Gay Marriage
- An academic look at the arguments against same-sex marriage from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln
- "Same-Sex Marriage" article by Lindsay Sobel, in which the pros and cons of being legally married are discussed
- A debate site takes a shot at the issue
- Another source of other voices on the FreeEssays site
- About.com's page on the Hawaii Supreme Court ruling
- Same-Sex Marriage as Civil Matter, article from San Francisco Chronicle
- Examining secular reasons to oppose gay marriage onAbout.com
- In The Korea Times, Lee Dong-wook examines how his country is approaching this issue
- Randy Cahoon's well-researched essay on Same-Sex Marriage, with complete bibliography and footnotes.
Recent YouTube Videos
The following videos show fairly recent comments from voices on both sides of this issue.
One little detail that has always bothered me over the years when confronted with the statement that marriage is a holy union or otherwise a religiously affirmed position, is that marriage pre-dates the Judeo-Christian tradition in many cultures. If marriage has existed independently of religion for over 3,000 years, what is the foundation for the supposed moral high ground of this "religious" position? There is none, beyond ignorance of the history of faith.
ReplyDelete