Recently, I was talking to a friend about legalizing gay marriage and she said something that absolutely blew my mind. "Marriage should only be something that churches grant. All couples should legally get civil unions."
Now that may sound revolutionary, because in a way it is. It changes the entire way we think about what marriage is. But, going back to the basics, marriage is a sacrament granted by the (Christian) church. It existed as a holy sacrament before it existed as a legal contract. If the word marriage had never entered into the legal realm, the gay marriage argument would be totally different (or wouldn't exist) today. After all, about eleven states recognize civil unions between same-sex couples already. If marriage as a religious institution had been historically kept separate from the legal institution, I think the problem with same-sex unions would be much smaller today. Most people who actively oppose same-sex marriage do so on the basis of religion, with the argument that "Marriage is a holy union between a man and a woman." But if we acknowledged marriage as purely a religious choice and nothing more, then this argument wouldn't stand, because you could choose marriage or not, and you could find a church that would perform your marriage. Same-sex couples wanting marriage could find an accepting church and priest that would perform their marriage (there are plenty out there); on the other hand, for any couples for whom religion is not important, the civil union side would provide all the legal rights and would simply exist outside of the church's recognition.
Would this solve all discrimination against homo-, bi- and transsexuals? Of course not. But it would go a long way toward true equality, in which all couples looking to start lives together would have the same life-joining choices before them.
Plus, this is very idealistic. There's no way to change the language that has existed in our country and in our constitutions for years upon years. And there's no easy way to change the cultural perception of what marriage is or is not, because it's based upon our cultural history that can't be erased.
I do think, however, that discussing our marriage equality issues in these terms can provide a new way of thinking about them. If we want true marriage equality in this country, it won't be just a matter of allowing marriage for same-sex couples. It will have to be by changing our perception of marriage and reevaluating how it works or doesn't work for all couples.
I foresee problems with such a solution. But first, the institution of marriage precedes Christianity, and furthermore it has been a "contract" for much longer than its modern associations with either sacramental religion or romance. Marriage was a way of uniting the wealth of two families, and of ensuring inheritance, for much longer than any modern purpose (indeed, it would not be unfair to designate marriage as being a method of trading women for property between two families). However, redrawing the distinction between marriage and civil unions would necessarily entail "taking marriage away from straight people," or so conservatives would call it. It seems to me that it would be easier to convince everyone that gays should have the right to marry, rather than saying marriage cannot be given by the state in the first place. Sure, what you suggest may be ideal, but it would be a difficult task to rebrand marriage thusly, and for what seems to me to be an arbitrary distinction.
ReplyDelete