The Problem with Gay Marriage
Tempering our enthusiasm for the Obama victory is the passing of Proposition 8 in California. While the one has only a peripheral relation to the other, there is a lot of talk in certain circles about how "the blacks" are responsible.
Needless to say, I don't want to go there. It's counter-productive and, I think, a red herring. To me, what makes gay marriage controversial is the word "marriage".
While I am not a religious person, I spent an awful lot of time in churches in my youth. I was the longest running altar boy at St. Peter's Catholic Church, and I was, for a brief time, a religion minor in college (That was before Women's studies and after modern dance, if I remember correctly). That's all behind me now, of course, and has been for ages. I may not remember much, but I remember this: To religious people - who make up the majority of people in this country - marriage is a sacrament performed by the church.
There's an awful lot of people out there who don't pay a whole lot of attention to things outside their immediate world (work, home, church, etc). They may not have a problem with gays, or with gay relationships, but a "gay marriage" amendment appeals to them because they think that, without controls, "the gays" are going to force their church to perform gay weddings. This perception is often reinforced by their ministers who usually have their own agendas, need a hot button issue to help raise money, and are not particularly bright to begin with.
You may think this sounds ridiculous, but it's true. Remember darlings - not everyone is as intelligent and perceptive as we are. In fact, most people aren't. In the big picture, that's a good thing, because stupid people are easily manipulated, and somebody has to buy all the crap that is manufactured these days, or we'd all be in a soup line somewhere.
So what is my solution? Easy. Get the government out of the sacrament business. Stop issuing marriage licenses, and start issuing civil unions. For everyone. If you feel the need to get "married", you go find a church that marries your kind of people. While it's not talked about much, there are quite a few denominations out that that marry gay people. There'd be even more if there was more demand for it. (You'd be amazed by how quickly even the most inflexible theology gets changed when there's money to be made.)
This does not eliminate all of the arrows of the anti-gay crowd: They'll still bleat about the children, and about Adam and Steve, but let's face it - as a society, we don't care about the children (other than sometimes our own children, or the use of cute children as a way to sell products), and anyone who thinks that two people of the same sex sharing a mortgage is anathema is probably not reachable anyway. But it gets religion out of the picture, and keeps that separation of church and state all tidy. It's the perfect solution for the Libertarians, the liberals, the cloth coat Republicans, the Socialists, the Democrats and - most importantly - the harried Christian who doesn't pay much attention to things, has a hard time dealing with nuance, and has a short memory.
Ironically enough, it would also benefit the churches: There's many a romantic out there who want to "get married" - not just get a government license. Right now, they can go to City Hall or Vegas or someplace and get it done quickly and on the cheap, and still say they're "married". In my solution, they would have to seek out a church, and probably even have to sit through a few marriage lessons. For many a dying religion (and I'm looking at you, Catholicism) it would be a great recruitment tool, and a nice source of income. But alas churches, as we all know, are not run by smart people. If they were smart, they would be doing something productive. Like decorating, or being a traveling electrical hostess.
So that's my solution. Get out of the marriage business.
Needless to say, I don't want to go there. It's counter-productive and, I think, a red herring. To me, what makes gay marriage controversial is the word "marriage".
While I am not a religious person, I spent an awful lot of time in churches in my youth. I was the longest running altar boy at St. Peter's Catholic Church, and I was, for a brief time, a religion minor in college (That was before Women's studies and after modern dance, if I remember correctly). That's all behind me now, of course, and has been for ages. I may not remember much, but I remember this: To religious people - who make up the majority of people in this country - marriage is a sacrament performed by the church.
There's an awful lot of people out there who don't pay a whole lot of attention to things outside their immediate world (work, home, church, etc). They may not have a problem with gays, or with gay relationships, but a "gay marriage" amendment appeals to them because they think that, without controls, "the gays" are going to force their church to perform gay weddings. This perception is often reinforced by their ministers who usually have their own agendas, need a hot button issue to help raise money, and are not particularly bright to begin with.
You may think this sounds ridiculous, but it's true. Remember darlings - not everyone is as intelligent and perceptive as we are. In fact, most people aren't. In the big picture, that's a good thing, because stupid people are easily manipulated, and somebody has to buy all the crap that is manufactured these days, or we'd all be in a soup line somewhere.
So what is my solution? Easy. Get the government out of the sacrament business. Stop issuing marriage licenses, and start issuing civil unions. For everyone. If you feel the need to get "married", you go find a church that marries your kind of people. While it's not talked about much, there are quite a few denominations out that that marry gay people. There'd be even more if there was more demand for it. (You'd be amazed by how quickly even the most inflexible theology gets changed when there's money to be made.)
This does not eliminate all of the arrows of the anti-gay crowd: They'll still bleat about the children, and about Adam and Steve, but let's face it - as a society, we don't care about the children (other than sometimes our own children, or the use of cute children as a way to sell products), and anyone who thinks that two people of the same sex sharing a mortgage is anathema is probably not reachable anyway. But it gets religion out of the picture, and keeps that separation of church and state all tidy. It's the perfect solution for the Libertarians, the liberals, the cloth coat Republicans, the Socialists, the Democrats and - most importantly - the harried Christian who doesn't pay much attention to things, has a hard time dealing with nuance, and has a short memory.
Ironically enough, it would also benefit the churches: There's many a romantic out there who want to "get married" - not just get a government license. Right now, they can go to City Hall or Vegas or someplace and get it done quickly and on the cheap, and still say they're "married". In my solution, they would have to seek out a church, and probably even have to sit through a few marriage lessons. For many a dying religion (and I'm looking at you, Catholicism) it would be a great recruitment tool, and a nice source of income. But alas churches, as we all know, are not run by smart people. If they were smart, they would be doing something productive. Like decorating, or being a traveling electrical hostess.
So that's my solution. Get out of the marriage business.
3 Comments:
At 12:36 PM, daisymayrobin said…
Well put. VERY well put.
At 7:45 PM, Calpete said…
Of course, if the churches were being honest, they would admit that the thing they call a sacrament is not marriage but matrimony, as in holy matrimony. Marriage is and always has been a civil contract; matrimony was first mentioned as a rite of the Catholic Church in one of the Gregorys' letters in 1208, and it wasn't defined as a sacrament until nearly the end of the Council of Trent in 1560-something. Meanwhile, there is a wonderful book by John Boswell on the marriage-like rites performed BY THE CHURCH in the early middle ages -- that is, between 1208 and 1565 -- for same-sex couples. Such hypocrisy on the part of their current leaders and preachers. Shameful. I agree that the two sorts of couplehood ceremony need to be more clearly delineated, however. I just think the churches should own up to the fact that they're trying to appropriate something that's been civil all along by claiming it as a religious operation. Pfui on them.
At 8:05 PM, Catalina Vel-DuRay said…
Pete dear, with all due respect, you are speaking as a person of taste and distinction - the type of person drawn to The Good Taste Chronicles. You are rare.
The vast majority of people out there don't understand the difference between marriage and matrimony (actually, neither did I until I read your excellent post, but that's not important right now) and expecting them to know about 1208 or 1565 is a bit of a stretch for even the most intellectually limber of us. (and lately I've been having a lot of mental Charley horses)
And expecting churches to be honest? Darling, I'm blushing!
All good points you present. But we're talking about the United States here...
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home