Marriage
Today in my Constitutional Law class we discussed the issue of same-sex marriages.
I volunteered, mostly to avoid being cold called later, but also to espouse my opinions on the matter.
I believe that the State wrongly usurped the Church's power to perform marriage ceremonies somewhere in the far past. I think this was done because the State, fearing the Church's ability to regulate that aspect of society, wanted a piece of the authoritarian pie. Placing the realm of marriage under state control allowed the government to stick their noses even further into other people's business- which is what the government is best at, it appears.
That said, nobody really cared when this occurred, because nothing really changed. At least, they thought nothing changed. But beneath the surface, the entire process had become different- what had been an intensely spiritual and religious event became nothing more than an entry in the county court's register. Of course, for some, the old traditions still remained intact- but the omnipresent state hung around like an unwanted and uninvited guest, knowing full well that his recognition of the marriage was needed in order for it to take full legal effect.
Regardless of whether or not you're a religious person, imagine what a marriage means to the followers of religion. They're making a vow before their beloved and (what they believe, at least) a higher power. Is that really something that can be enforced/ratified by a state power? I daresay not. To borrow a phrase from Lincoln, the state's "poor power to add or detract" renders the exercise moot. It's like the FAA giving a meteor permission to land, or NOAA sanctioning a tornado for excessive violence.
Regardless, for hundreds of years, this link between the sacramental world of religion and the secular world of government persisted. No one cared until people of the same sex began trying to get married. There became two choices: (a) ban same-sex marriages and uphold the religious foundation of marriage, or (b) allow same-sex marriage and uphold the right of consenting adults to ratify their very personal decisions. Both choices mostly sucked, because choosing one meant subverting either (a) a most hallowed religious and cultural tradition, or (b) destroying a fundamental right to freedom.
The madness will only stop when the government realizes that it has no legal right, nor moral authority, to "marry" its citizens, regardless of sexual orientation. Those of faith can get married in a church, and the rest of the populace can get "unionized," "merged," or have their life contracts notarized by the Judge of Social Partner Coalescence. People could enter five-year renewable contracts, contingent on both individuals marching down to the courthouse to re-sign the papers. Of course, those who want to can do both- if the church (assuming the state action would be almost automatic, like getting a car tag) will allow it.
One last note to ease those zealots who lose sleep at night over the fact that Tom and Tim might get married, and then I'll put the reins to this ranting and wild horse. The name of the union is immaterial, even if it's called a "marriage." Those who lack the right to deem something cannot change that fact by merely invoking the words. We are not magic. No matter how hard I say it, I simply cannot change water to fire by calling it fire.
Marriages- true marriages- only take place in a religious structure and/or with a religious leader of some type present. At the very least, there is a mention of some sort of Deity, and a pledge of love that goes far beyond any legally recognized stardard of care. Of course, its terms (in a contract sense) would be considered unconscionable. The act isn't legally recognizable, and was never meant to be as such.
I volunteered, mostly to avoid being cold called later, but also to espouse my opinions on the matter.
I believe that the State wrongly usurped the Church's power to perform marriage ceremonies somewhere in the far past. I think this was done because the State, fearing the Church's ability to regulate that aspect of society, wanted a piece of the authoritarian pie. Placing the realm of marriage under state control allowed the government to stick their noses even further into other people's business- which is what the government is best at, it appears.
That said, nobody really cared when this occurred, because nothing really changed. At least, they thought nothing changed. But beneath the surface, the entire process had become different- what had been an intensely spiritual and religious event became nothing more than an entry in the county court's register. Of course, for some, the old traditions still remained intact- but the omnipresent state hung around like an unwanted and uninvited guest, knowing full well that his recognition of the marriage was needed in order for it to take full legal effect.
Regardless of whether or not you're a religious person, imagine what a marriage means to the followers of religion. They're making a vow before their beloved and (what they believe, at least) a higher power. Is that really something that can be enforced/ratified by a state power? I daresay not. To borrow a phrase from Lincoln, the state's "poor power to add or detract" renders the exercise moot. It's like the FAA giving a meteor permission to land, or NOAA sanctioning a tornado for excessive violence.
Regardless, for hundreds of years, this link between the sacramental world of religion and the secular world of government persisted. No one cared until people of the same sex began trying to get married. There became two choices: (a) ban same-sex marriages and uphold the religious foundation of marriage, or (b) allow same-sex marriage and uphold the right of consenting adults to ratify their very personal decisions. Both choices mostly sucked, because choosing one meant subverting either (a) a most hallowed religious and cultural tradition, or (b) destroying a fundamental right to freedom.
The madness will only stop when the government realizes that it has no legal right, nor moral authority, to "marry" its citizens, regardless of sexual orientation. Those of faith can get married in a church, and the rest of the populace can get "unionized," "merged," or have their life contracts notarized by the Judge of Social Partner Coalescence. People could enter five-year renewable contracts, contingent on both individuals marching down to the courthouse to re-sign the papers. Of course, those who want to can do both- if the church (assuming the state action would be almost automatic, like getting a car tag) will allow it.
One last note to ease those zealots who lose sleep at night over the fact that Tom and Tim might get married, and then I'll put the reins to this ranting and wild horse. The name of the union is immaterial, even if it's called a "marriage." Those who lack the right to deem something cannot change that fact by merely invoking the words. We are not magic. No matter how hard I say it, I simply cannot change water to fire by calling it fire.
Marriages- true marriages- only take place in a religious structure and/or with a religious leader of some type present. At the very least, there is a mention of some sort of Deity, and a pledge of love that goes far beyond any legally recognized stardard of care. Of course, its terms (in a contract sense) would be considered unconscionable. The act isn't legally recognizable, and was never meant to be as such.
Labels: Musings
Interesting post.
It made me think about how there are some heterosexual couples who are in a "marriage" even though the bond has been broken a long time ago, and then there are same-sex partners who have a bond with each other that some married couples could only dream of.
I don't know what is right in this situation, all I know is that I don't have the right to make that choice.
--Judy
Posted by
Anonymous |
10:40 AM
Without being a history buff, I disagree with you. I understand that the church was, at one time, a necessary component to marriage, but that was also when the state and the church were one in the same. And I do not believe that it was the start of marriage. The "church" as we know it, came along quite late in history. I believe this was one evolution which is now clung to as the be-all and end-all of history - but I disagree with that notion, as well.
as a non-religious person, I wholly disagree with the notion that marriage is a religious experience. I can be married without a deity. Easily. I do not need a deity to have a union that is complete, and real.
as much as history *may* matter - it is not all that matters. the changes that happen as our society [progresses? matures? evolves? CHANGES] matter. They matter to us much more than the customs of those who died hundreds of years ago matter to us.
What marriage has *become* is a set of rights. A set of defaults. The church should not get to run that. The beliefs of members of one church should not get to decide who receives benefits and who is deemed "truly married."
The church is no longer the state. thank god (?).
Posted by
Zuska |
9:18 PM
I think we agree, but we're having trouble with semantics.
I have no doubt whatsoever that two people can join into a lifelong relationship without the assistance of a deity. That relationship can be a selfless and loving one that is beneficial for both individuals, regardless of creed or gender.
My thought is that (rightly or wrongly) the majority of the populace has merged the civil and religious aspects of marriage. This is what compels the gut reaction against same-sex marriage; it offends (to a large extent) the religious element. Thus we need to split the two elements into separate and discernible camps.
Perhaps the better terms to use would be "civil marriage" and "religious marriage." Those with civil marriages would get state-based benefits. Those with religious marriages would have the benefits they assume flow from the having one- just as the Christian believes a baptism is more than dunking in water. In "legal" terms, it would mean nothing- it would merely be a declaration of their faith.
That might be splitting the hair a bit, which is why I suggest the term "union" for civil marriages. It lacks the historical connotation of religion, and would serve to apease the unwashed and uninformed masses.
Very insightful post. And by no means did I mean to slight your ability to form a lasting relationship, regardless of the word we (or society) choose to give it.
Posted by
Yorick |
9:56 PM