Ok. I have to say I'm not quite sure I get it. In fact, I'm pretty
sure I don't. Why are we splitting hairs over a word?
What word, you ask? Well…. marriage.
California recently upheld the right of same sex couples to marry,
stating in the majority opinion: "Upon reviewing the numerous past
California decisions that examine the underlying bases and
significance of the constitutional right to marry, the opinion
explains that the core substantive rights embodied in the right to
marry "include, most fundamentally, the opportunity of an individual
to establish — with the person with whom the individual has chosen to
share his or her life — an officially recognized and protected family
possessing mutual rights and responsibilities and entitled to the same
respect and dignity accorded a union traditionally designated as
marriage."
It continues: "in contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes
that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term
committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for
and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual
orientation, and, more generally, that an individual's sexual
orientation — like a person's race or gender — does not constitute a
legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights."
Core substantive rights embodied in the right to marry….. an
officially recognized and protected family …… same respect and dignity
….. traditionally designated as marriage. Sexual orientation …. does
not constitute ….. basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights.
It makes total sense to me. So much so that I can't conceive of a
paradigm where one's sexual orientation could possibly be the basis
upon which legal rights are denied.
One argument against same sex marriage insists allowing gay and
lesbian partners the protections of marriage will somehow endanger my
marriage. Uhmm … ok …. Could someone please explain this to me because
I can't quite seem to grasp it.
I can understand the possible risk to my marriage of … say … no fault
divorce laws, legalized prostitution, rampant pornography, epidemic
crass consumerism, addiction, cultural acceptance (celebration, even!)
of infidelity, or a work "ethic" that undercuts our couple time. But
I'm not quite grasping how supporting the rights of other human beings
to create and protect a family will harm mine. Seems to me if we
really want to protect marriages we'd be speaking out about the real
risks rather than some smokescreen fantasy created to promote the
agenda of a religious mindset.
And now we get to the crux of the matter, don't we?
Senator McCain in his appearance on Ellen shortly after the California
court decision had a smooth, politically correct statement on the tip
of his tongue, "Well, my thoughts are that I think that people should
be able to enter into legal agreements, and I think that that is
something that we should encourage, particularly in the case of
insurance and other areas, decisions that have to be made. I just
believe in the unique status of marriage between man and woman."
Hair splitting, I say. A contract that gives (almost) the same rights
as marriage. Only instead of lace and flowers one arrives in a similar
place with lawyers and paperwork. That's not to say you couldn't have
a civil or religious commitment ceremony to mark the event; you could.
The difference is, from what I can tell, the solemnization of the
union cannot be made legal by virtue of this ceremony …. as it can for
straight couples. Why on earth not? Is there something that makes same
sex couples so different that we have to offer them a tortuous,
roundabout, coldly legal, method of getting to almost (but not quite)
the same place of creating and protecting their families?
Or is it fear and prejudice? Fear and prejudice and …. religious
beliefs? Fear and prejudice can, and have over and over again, be
addressed by looking closely at same sex couples, their children, and
their interactions with society. We know now that these families do
just as well in all those areas as straight families. We are, after
all, wonderfully complex beings regardless of our sexual orientation.
That seems to leave religious beliefs as the central disagreement. And
that is a problem.
In the US, thanks to the First Amendment, we have the right to freedom
of religion. We also have a freedom from religion. We can believe
whatever we want. What we cannot do is impose, via law or government
action, our religious beliefs upon another. No matter how deeply we
believe marriage is between a man and a woman because our god or
religious text says so, we absolutely cannot make laws which deny a
segment of the nation's couples and families the same rights as
others. The right to create, protect, and nurture, in the same way, a
long term familial relationship with a person of his or her choosing.
I know the day is at hand when we will be as aghast at this denial of
rights to same sex couples as we now are at the identical past
discrimination against interracial couples not so very long ago. From
now on when I say Musing on Marriage it's for every family … gay or
straight.
No comments:
Post a Comment