gaymar

Issue #44

Last Update March 2, 2006

National Gay Marriage by Sten Grynir The current furor over gay marriage is reminiscent of the flap over gays in the military. In both cases homosexuals have volunteered to shoulder a societal burden from which they might otherwise be exempt, and the homophobic and pseudo-religious are livid. In the case of military service, the fear apparently was that the bonding so necessary for military effectiveness might go too far, or that men might be subjected to the same kind of sexual pressures that until recently were fine if women were the targets. In the case of marriage it's hard to figure out what the objection is, so incoherent have the protesters been.

The bible may well state that marriage is between a man and a woman, although I'm not sure where. Certainly the bible prescribes dire punishment for men who lie with other men, but it seems to be entirely silent on the matter women lying with women. All of this, however, is beside the point. Unless you forget entirely about separation of church and state, marriage is a civil act between consenting adults that confers certain rights and responsibilities on both of the participants. The issue of marriage vs civil unions is a red herring; marriage is a civil union, and not to be confused with the religious sacrament of the same name. Priests, rabbis, ministers and shamans are not forced to perform marriages that are contrary to their faith, and no one, least of all gays, is proposing that this should change. The issue missed by the anti-gay-marriage folk is the civil nature of marriage.

As for the world coming to an end if biblical marriage rules are not observed, the claim that accepting that the equal protection clause of the Constitution requires that gays be allowed to marry opens the door to polygamy, incest or child-marriage is silly. Polygamy is explicitly supported in the bible, so that objection is inconsistent with the desire to follow biblical rules. Morman polygamy, a religiously-approved custom, was dropped as the result of coercion; Utah would not be admitted to the Union unless it outlawed polygamy. As for incest and child marriage, both of those are inherently coercive situations which government has a legitimate reason to suppress.

Rather than finding non-religious terminology to describe gay marriage, perhaps all civil marriages, heterosexual as well as homosexual, should be called something else (civil unions?) and the term marriage reserved for the religious ritual. The tax, inheritance, next-of-kin, fringe benefit and and child custody advantages currently accruing to marriage would then be transferred to civil unions, and only those needing to have this relationship solemnized in a religious context need concern themselves with marriage. The law need never again mention marriage.