Redefining the Marriage Debate
May 15th, 2008 will likely go down as an historic day for my home state of California. For same-sex couples and gay rights activists it was a day of celebration and a broad step forward in the fight for marital equality; for conservatives and evangelicals it was a day of injustice, an egregious slap in the face to the voters of California who had overwhelmingly rejected the public recognition of same-sex marriages with the help of prop 22 back in 2000. For me personally, it was a day of reflection, a chance to drive a proverbial lawnmower over my brain with the whole marriage conundrum. To briefly define this quandary, conservatives believe in limited government (some restrictions apply, void where prohibited), however they are fighting to protect their sole entitlement to a license that represents governmental dominion over a supposedly spiritual union, in order to prevent that union from losing its meaning. If the previous sentence has caused you any dizziness, headache or loss of brain cells, then perhaps you now understand my obscure lawnmower analogy.
It would seem that the opponents of same-sex marriage are in a frenzy because, as we all know, state marriage licenses are a sacred thing, originally handed down to Moses on Mount Sinai along with the ten commandments, intended by God as a way of legally binding the love between a man and a woman. Okay, so that’s not technically true. Marriage licenses were actually an American invention of the 1920s, intended as a way of preventing whites from marrying minorities in 38 states, but I guess that’s sort of the same thing. Because Lord knows, if you let mixed-race couples get married, next thing you know you’re going to have gay people wanting to get married!
If conservatives are so passionate about the ideals of limited government, then shouldn’t they be fighting to eliminate the marriage license altogether? Apparently not, because now they are countering the state Supreme Court’s decision by introducing The California Marriage Protection Act, which is basically a resurrected prop 22. Though not as melodramatic as the failed California Marriage Amendment, which sought to actually amend the state’s constitution, The California Marriage Protection Act will serve the purpose of reminding us all that the sacrament of marriage is only as good as the paper on which it is written. Score one for the Lord. Personally I find it more than a little silly when people title their initiatives with words like “protect” or “patriot,” but at least they didn’t call it The Let’s Protect Our Dear Children From the Pedophilic Tendencies of Practicing Homosexuals Act, which may very well have been their first choice.
We hear all this talk about the dangers of “redefining” holy matrimony, but I am afraid that ship has sailed. Legally-recognized marriage in this country requires permission from local officials, complete with massive paperwork, long lines and two forms of identification. To summarize, marriage as it is defined today has more in common with The Department of Motor Vehicles than it does with the church. So what if it becomes redefined? If we can redefine the universe as a six-thousand-year-old landscape where men danced with dinosaurs and women were created from ribs, then surely we can redefine marriage as a union rooted in love, as bold as that may seem.
The institution of marriage has been redefined so many times anyway, I fail to see how it would even matter. The Book of Genesis says that every man should take for himself a wife, but Genesis and the rest of The Old Testament are filled with more polygamy than a Utah county fair, not to mention instances of women as property, and even strange rules about brothers marrying widows. Abraham and Solomon are revered by Christians, Muslims and Jews alike, and both of those men were polygamists. Solomon even kept concubines. Yes, some would argue that Solomon’s women were the source of his downfall, but I fail to see the relevance in that. Delilah was the source of Samson’s downfall, and he was no polygamist. Then there are The Beatles and Yoko Ono...
The New Testament does not fare much better. The most vocal New Testament authority on marriage is St. Paul, a man who referred to women as weaker vessels and yet remarkably was never married himself. I believe, though, that Paul was a proponent of same-sex marriage. According to Paul, marriage ought to be reserved for those people who cannot control their sexual impulses. Since that basically describes every man who has ever lived, gay marriage would be pretty much mandatory by that standard.
But you may be asking, “Why the blasphemous theology lesson?” My point is that there is no singular, set-in-stone definition of marriage. Matrimony means different things to different cultures, different points in time and even different individuals. We are fortunate, however, to live in a time and place where marriage is all about the love of people. It is not a contract between families, nor an arrangement of social or economic advancement (is it too soon to enter an Anna Nicole joke here?). Marriage is a personal decision rooted in love and a desire for commitment, and those of you who oppose same-sex unions ought to bear in mind that you are not protecting marriage by fighting to regulate a piece of paper. If marriage is truly the spiritual union that you believe it to be, then that piece of paper is ultimately meaningless in the big scheme of things, and those whom you oppose are already married in their hearts, so why don’t we just level the playing field? My gay friends are entitled to all the same miseries as everyone else.
May 15th, 2008 will likely go down as an historic day for my home state of California. For same-sex couples and gay rights activists it was a day of celebration and a broad step forward in the fight for marital equality; for conservatives and evangelicals it was a day of injustice, an egregious slap in the face to the voters of California who had overwhelmingly rejected the public recognition of same-sex marriages with the help of prop 22 back in 2000. For me personally, it was a day of reflection, a chance to drive a proverbial lawnmower over my brain with the whole marriage conundrum. To briefly define this quandary, conservatives believe in limited government (some restrictions apply, void where prohibited), however they are fighting to protect their sole entitlement to a license that represents governmental dominion over a supposedly spiritual union, in order to prevent that union from losing its meaning. If the previous sentence has caused you any dizziness, headache or loss of brain cells, then perhaps you now understand my obscure lawnmower analogy.
It would seem that the opponents of same-sex marriage are in a frenzy because, as we all know, state marriage licenses are a sacred thing, originally handed down to Moses on Mount Sinai along with the ten commandments, intended by God as a way of legally binding the love between a man and a woman. Okay, so that’s not technically true. Marriage licenses were actually an American invention of the 1920s, intended as a way of preventing whites from marrying minorities in 38 states, but I guess that’s sort of the same thing. Because Lord knows, if you let mixed-race couples get married, next thing you know you’re going to have gay people wanting to get married!
If conservatives are so passionate about the ideals of limited government, then shouldn’t they be fighting to eliminate the marriage license altogether? Apparently not, because now they are countering the state Supreme Court’s decision by introducing The California Marriage Protection Act, which is basically a resurrected prop 22. Though not as melodramatic as the failed California Marriage Amendment, which sought to actually amend the state’s constitution, The California Marriage Protection Act will serve the purpose of reminding us all that the sacrament of marriage is only as good as the paper on which it is written. Score one for the Lord. Personally I find it more than a little silly when people title their initiatives with words like “protect” or “patriot,” but at least they didn’t call it The Let’s Protect Our Dear Children From the Pedophilic Tendencies of Practicing Homosexuals Act, which may very well have been their first choice.
We hear all this talk about the dangers of “redefining” holy matrimony, but I am afraid that ship has sailed. Legally-recognized marriage in this country requires permission from local officials, complete with massive paperwork, long lines and two forms of identification. To summarize, marriage as it is defined today has more in common with The Department of Motor Vehicles than it does with the church. So what if it becomes redefined? If we can redefine the universe as a six-thousand-year-old landscape where men danced with dinosaurs and women were created from ribs, then surely we can redefine marriage as a union rooted in love, as bold as that may seem.
The institution of marriage has been redefined so many times anyway, I fail to see how it would even matter. The Book of Genesis says that every man should take for himself a wife, but Genesis and the rest of The Old Testament are filled with more polygamy than a Utah county fair, not to mention instances of women as property, and even strange rules about brothers marrying widows. Abraham and Solomon are revered by Christians, Muslims and Jews alike, and both of those men were polygamists. Solomon even kept concubines. Yes, some would argue that Solomon’s women were the source of his downfall, but I fail to see the relevance in that. Delilah was the source of Samson’s downfall, and he was no polygamist. Then there are The Beatles and Yoko Ono...
The New Testament does not fare much better. The most vocal New Testament authority on marriage is St. Paul, a man who referred to women as weaker vessels and yet remarkably was never married himself. I believe, though, that Paul was a proponent of same-sex marriage. According to Paul, marriage ought to be reserved for those people who cannot control their sexual impulses. Since that basically describes every man who has ever lived, gay marriage would be pretty much mandatory by that standard.
But you may be asking, “Why the blasphemous theology lesson?” My point is that there is no singular, set-in-stone definition of marriage. Matrimony means different things to different cultures, different points in time and even different individuals. We are fortunate, however, to live in a time and place where marriage is all about the love of people. It is not a contract between families, nor an arrangement of social or economic advancement (is it too soon to enter an Anna Nicole joke here?). Marriage is a personal decision rooted in love and a desire for commitment, and those of you who oppose same-sex unions ought to bear in mind that you are not protecting marriage by fighting to regulate a piece of paper. If marriage is truly the spiritual union that you believe it to be, then that piece of paper is ultimately meaningless in the big scheme of things, and those whom you oppose are already married in their hearts, so why don’t we just level the playing field? My gay friends are entitled to all the same miseries as everyone else.
posted by Kris Avalon at
8:22 PM
|
1 Comments
