Marriage must innovate, not stagnate

“The” marriage debate has changed targets over the decades but has consistently been about who is top dog and has pitted man against woman, religion against religion, denomination against denomination, and minority rights against what’s normative. These are not always healthy arguments in many respects. U.S. marriage debates often would have us believe diversity is a weakness and have involved racism, creedism, and paradigmatic sexism. We’ve argued over whether blacks, homosexuals, lesbians and multiples may marry and we’ve argued over divorce.

Rather than a dogmatic understanding of “the” social order (what a loaded concept), we will most likely develop multiple working models of marriage that, for all their diversity, rest upon common sensible criteria (honesty in purpose, minimum age, informed consent of the parties, absence of duress when entering a marriage contract, stated intent regarding duration) rather than common prejudices.

As for the present target of “the” marriage debate…when the marriage debate was over whether blacks could marry whites, that was pretty much a green light to make the final pushes for racial equality and to never give up. Likewise for the same-sex marriage debate and LGBT rights. Likewise for the coming marriage debate over different forms of Pagan marriage vs. “the” norm.

So...it may not be in our immediate future but it's not only perfectly feasible that we will have something like 3 to 10 different working forms of marriage, it's highly likely. There have been multiple forms of marriage in societies (at the same time!) in the past.

@gladerunner - You're right, marriage is not in the Constitution. As soon as I posted, I realized I made the error.

Marriage is not defined by the US Constitution. However, the 14th amendment demands equal protection for all citizens:

"US Constitution: !4th Amendment: Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

In 1967, Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren wrote the decision for Loving v. Virginia:
"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men ..." The far-reaching finding was based on Amendment 14 of the U.S. Constitution.

That's why I made the mistake. The U.S. Constitution does not define marriage...but marriage has been found to be a civil right and a 'vital personal right' through the U.S. Supreme Court.

just_breathe:
Though I agree with you on most points, I do have a question.
"In fact, marriage is written into the US Constitution"

Where?

@amelia45: Thank you for your thoughtful reply.
@christine22 and quantumelody: Thanks for your replies, too. It's nice to get respectful and rational responses instead of the rabid religious replies I often receive.

Civil unions and domestic partnerships are simply not equal to 'marriage'...and are often options for heterosexual relationships, too. Only a handful of states in this country give some sort of recognition to homosexual relationships.

Let's face it, ANY couple of Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Druids, Wiccans, Agnostics, Atheists, divorcees, criminals, etc., can walk into a courthouse and receive a marriage license by simply being in a heterosexual relationship. Religion plays no role in preventing any of them from being MARRIED in the eyes of the government. (If you believe marriage is a matter between two people and God, then you are likely believe God is present everywhere anyhow....presiding over your marriage wherever it occurs...even the courthouse.)

In fact, marriage is written into the US Constitution...and over 1,400 legal and secular rights are conferred upon MARRIED citizens in the U.S. Homosexual couples are citizens, too, and pay more than our fair share of taxes (google 'gay tax')...but we're not allowed to get federally married. And who fights against gay rights the most? America's conservative and religious voting base.

Most of the laws of this land would have to be rewritten to accommodate the "civil unions for all" argument. In the meanwhile, if civil unions are such a good idea, why didn't this argument arise BEFORE gays wanted to be married? More interestingly, why don't I see ANY heterosexual married couples giving up their beneficial marital status and demanding their mediocre civil union? Have any of you given up your civil marriage for a civil union? Would you give up your marital benefits and recognition to stand in solidarity with others being denied marriage? I doubt it.

Frankly, I think it would be easier for all the bigoted churches who can't stand gays getting married to come up with their own words and phrases for partnership. They are the ones in decline anyway. Let them have the 'church-sanctioned unions', 'religious partnerships', 'blessed couplings', etc.

Let society and inclusive denominations keep and enjoy MARRIAGE!!!

Jason: Agreed on all counts.

Different religious traditions may define marriage however they please, but all consenting adults ought to be able to sign the same contract regardless of which religious orders do or don't consider their marriage "traditional" (in huge scare quotes for obvious reasons) enough to count.

@Just_Breathe || I think you're confusing what Jason means in the above article, and from the description of your marriage I am guessing it's because you have a Christian background. I agree with Jason about civil unions. (Note: I am in support of marriage equality because I think getting civil marriage trashed for everyone would make too many people angry.) Here's why:

If every religion calls marriage something different, it is just easier to have a generic term that people can embellish with whatever more specific term they want. For example, Wiccans don't get married. They get handfasted, and the commitment is slightly different in nature. In some other pagan religions, there is a meaningful difference between same-sex and heterosexual marriages because the deities invoked to bless the marriage and the associated ritual observances might need to be changed to fit the specific nature of the couple's relationship. Here, what happens in a ceremony is just as important as what you want to get out of it. The reason for these differences? Pagan religions are NOT forms of Christianity with different (and consistent) gods substituted for YHVH. It may seem weird to outsiders, but we have different organizational cultures.

... that said, in traditional Christian marriages, the ceremonies look almost identical. I can see why you wouldn't make a distinction in that case.

Just_Breathe

I think you missed the point here. By saying "Civil Unions for All" and leave marriage to the faiths, he's not suggesting that the term marriage be regulated for just one area of society. In fact, this idea will make "Marriage" more expansive and inclusive.

Your argument only works if ALL religions, churches, faith groups, etc in this country disapproved of same-sex marrige. However, we are a society of many faiths and different faiths have different definitions of what makes a proper marriage. There are many churches that dispprove of gay marriage and many who have no problem with it. We shouldn't force a church or religious organization to perform a ceremony that goes against the tenents of thier faith. But it's also not fair to NOT allow those faiths that approve of same-sex marriage to perform such unions and have them recognized.

Seperating the two is the only way I can see that allows all sides to be respected. You file for a Civil Union and then get married under the faith of your choice. Those of no faith or agnostics could even arrange a secular marriage ceremony. If your faith doesn't approve, that's between you and them but at least the government wouldn't be able to put their two cents in, which to me is how it should be.

I don't see how this is concept is hateful or bigoted. To me, it's fair and just makes sense.

If religious organizations don't like that people they are discriminating against are allowed to be married, then the religious bigots need to find a new name for their religious ceremony.

Just Breathe, very beautifully written.

I do think, though, that you give too much control to the myriad "churches" and other institutions of faith when you say: "The suggestion that anyone can have a civil union but that the churches lay claim to the 'true' meaning of marriage is inane."

They can lay claim to a particular set of meanings and rituals which constitute "marriage" in that faith, but its meaning is what we make it in our hearts. Let society in its laws use the word "civil union" for all such committments, whether conducted in an institution of a faith or before a justice of the peace. Let individuals also use the word "marriage" if they have also sworn to that committment before God, whichever God they have, according to whatever faith they have.

If you claim your relationship before God as a marriage, then it is a marriage, no matter what the christian, moslem, hindu, jewish, druid, or any other faith may hold. God alone knows our hearts. In God's eyes, it is not the physical location where the commitment is made, it is in the heart.

We don't give the word "marriage" to churches or temples or mosques. We give it back to God.

Hudson Randall learned journalism in five minutes and then wrote the story about the Lackawanna limited train wreck that killed 29 people in New York. He was 16. Hire more 16 year old reporters. You can't get them to deliver papers.

Largely agreed, Jason, though I'm a little tired of people claiming the answer to people thinking their civil marriage is being 'taken away' by inclusiveness and equality... is to in fact take away civil marriage.

Civil marriage *is* civil marriage.

Already.

People who confuse civil marriage with the attached religious rituals often want to make things appear otherwise, but we don't have to.

Civil unions are structurally-unequal, (though one way in which legal structures can be more flexible for everyone, if that less-involved arrangement is an option for any , not a second-class marriage for some: Vermont has both civil unions *and* marriage equality: that's because there *is* a difference and some find the civil union option more advantageous even if they're straight.)

Other than to point that out, though, I'm in pretty much full agreement, there.

"Let it be a civil union for all, and let marriage be a personal matter between you and your faith."

Why don't we just call it 'MARRIAGE' for any two consenting adults that want to be part of that institution? The word 'marriage' does not belong to the church or the government or ANY exclusive group of people (e.g. Christians). In fact, if Christian zealots want to stand apart from open-minded Christians, gays, Wiccans, atheists, etc., perhaps THEY should make up their own word for a lifelong commitment to their partner. If it's so easy, why doesn't the author suggest that?

The suggestion that anyone can have a civil union but that the churches lay claim to the 'true' meaning of marriage is inane. It is also the MOST offensive because it only became an argument AFTER gays started to pursue the right to get married.

I think the "civil unions for all" argument is also weak for other reasons. It's like John Doe saying he is not racist....but he refuses to integrate with other races at the public pool. So, he demands the city shut down the public pool so no one can enjoy it. If he can't enjoy the public pool by his own terms, then no one can. Besides, he has the resources to build his own pool and swim alone....so he will. Screw everyone else who simply wanted to swim together and get on with their life. Any person who makes suggestions like that is a racist and hateful person at heart.

Likewise, the person who says let the religious remain 'married' while everyone has to find their own definition of a committed union is homophobic. It's simply a passive aggressive suggestion....and it does not embrace integration of others.

Finally, the word 'civil union' does not hold the same social importance as the word 'marriage'.

I am a woman who is legally married to her wife in the state of CA. (We are NOT gay married...we are simply MARRIED.) I am committed to her for life but the word marriage is more important than I ever imagined...we are bound in love, commitment and responsibility to each other and God. We are also bound to others, in-laws, other married couples, the state, etc. Our future family will be recognized and protected by the state government; no questions asked, no legal hoops to jump through. Others look upon our relationship with a great deal of respect and expectation because they know what marriage means. Because we are married, our relationship is treated with more integrity than was ever afforded to us through 'civil unions', 'domestic partnerships', or the other crumbs of recognition the state or churches offered us.

Marriage is special and it is universally recognized. Perhaps, those who have taken marriage for granted can learn from those of us who fully want to embrace it.