Same Sex Marriage…Another Look, and a Proposal

Moral Relativism and Inalienable Rights

Moral Relativism and Inalienable Rights - Continued

My previous articles on this subject (links above) have generated a long debate and a comment thread that has meandered on for nearly 500 posts. It is clear at this point that no minds have been changed by the discussion. What I will attempt to do here is to summarize the arguments on each side, and to offer a suggested solution to this seemingly irresolvable controversy.

Let’s call the proponents of same sex marriage “Yeas,” and the opponents “Nays.” In the following paragraphs, I have tried to paraphrase the (often eloquently stated) arguments offered by both sides. It is highly recommended that interested readers should read the threads of the articles linked above, rather than relying on my summary.

The Yeas basic argument is that prohibiting same-sex marriage is a civil rights issue, not unlike the prohibition of mixed-race marriages in the last century. They argue that the “equal protection” clause in the Constitution is violated when gays are not allowed to marry.

There are numerous arguments on the Nay side, starting with the Biblical condemnation of homosexual acts. Nays argue that children should be raised in a family with a male father and a female mother, and that gays are therefore inferior parents. True homophobes go further, saying that homosexuals are “sick” or “evil,” and that they should be rejected by society, or even condemned to death, as Leviticus in the Old Testament states.

Virtually all of the above Nay arguments are, in my opinion, based on Biblical bigotry and/or homophobia. But there is one more argument, often proposed by the Nays, that at least has a logical basis: Marriage has been “traditionally” defined as a union between a man and a woman. Even though no law specifically states this, most would agree that it is a “traditional” definition. Adding same sex unions, therefore, changes this basic definition, and once you start changing the definition of marriage, you are starting down a “slippery slope,” where any kind of union can be defined as marriage...groups of mixed gender, or a man and his dog, or even a man and his car…a clever use of reductio ad absurdum.

Before these arguments can be evaluated, we must first determine their legitimacy. Yeas say this is s civil rights issue. Nays respond that gays can make civil unions or domestic partnerships which are essentially the same thing. Are they?

Marriage establishes a legal kinship between spouses. It is a relationship that is recognized across cultures, countries and religions.

Civil unions exist in only a handful of places...Vermont, New Jersey and Connecticut. The protections offered by civil unions do not extend beyond the border of the state. The federal government does not recognize civil unions and provides no federal protections for them at all.

California and Oregon have domestic partnership laws that offer many of the same rights as civil unions, but domestic partnership laws vary from state to state. Some, like the recently passed California domestic partnership law come with many rights and responsibilities. Others, like the one in Washington offer very few benefits to the couple. Again, none of the provisions are applicable across state lines, and none are recognized by the federal government.

What are some of the differences between marriage and civil unions?

Recognition in other states: Even though each state has its own laws around marriage, if someone is married in one state and moves to another, their marriage is legally recognized. For example, Oregon marriage law applies to people 17 and over. In Washington state, the couple must be 18 to wed. However, Washington will recognize the marriage of two 17 year olds from Oregon who move there. This is not the case with civil unions. If someone has a civil union in Vermont, that union is not recognized in any other state. As a matter of fact, two states, Connecticut and Georgia, have ruled that they do not have to recognize civil unions performed in Vermont, because their states have no such legal category.

Dissolving a Civil Union v. Divorce: Vermont has no residency requirement for Civil Unions. That means two people from any other state or country can come there and have a civil union ceremony. If the couple breaks up and wishes to dissolve the union, one of them must be a resident of Vermont for one year before the Civil Union can be dissolved in family court. Married couples can divorce in any state they reside, no matter where they were married.

Immigration: A United States citizen who is married can sponsor his or her non-American spouse for immigration into this country. Those with Civil Unions have no such privilege.

Taxes: Civil unions are not recognized by the federal government, so couples cannot file joint-tax returns or be eligible for tax breaks or protections the government affords to married couples.

Benefits: The General Accounting Office in 1997 released a list of 1,049 benefits and protections available to heterosexual married couples. These benefits range from federal benefits, such as survivor benefits through Social Security, sick leave to care for ailing partner, tax breaks, veterans benefits and insurance breaks. They also include things like family discounts, obtaining family insurance through your employer, visiting your spouse in the hospital and making medical decisions if your partner is unable to. Civil unions protect some of these rights, but not all of them.

So there are clear differences between marriage, civil unions and domestic partnerships, and these differences would appear to deprive those who cannot marry from enjoying substantial and meaningful rights. This is a civil rights issue.

Now, consider the “definition” argument. It is clear that word definitions change over time. Consider the word “gay.” When I was a young man, a “gay bachelor” was a young stud out to conquer and seduce as many young women as he could. The meaning of that word has certainly changed! How did that change happen? Through common usage. As more and more people adopted the new meaning for the word, it became an accepted definition.

What about the “slippery slope” argument? Because “gay” was redefined, are the definitions of “merry” or “cheerful” or any other word definitions threatened? No. Word definitions, like many other traditions and rituals of society, change over time. So what is the harm in expanding the definition of “marriage” to include same-sex unions? I can’t see any.

But, it is abundantly clear from the passage of Proposition 8 here in California that a narrow (and dwindling) majority still oppose same sex marriage. That result may have been due to voter ignorance or confusion. Certainly that was the intent of the proponents who spread disinformation, claiming that failure of Prop 8 would require churches to perform gay weddings, and schools to teach about, and promote, gay marriage. Those tactics were despicable. We will never know how much effect they had on the outcome.

But the “definition” argument keeps reappearing, and it is probably influencing a lot of people who are uncomfortable with the idea of redefining the word.

So here’s a proposal. Let’s have a separate but completely equivalent union between same-sex couples and call it…uh…

MERRIAGE.

When two gays “merry” it will surely be a happy occasion!

And for those who are worrying about redefining the word “merry,” let me assure you that “merry,” as in “Merry Christmas,” is an adjective, but in my new definition, “merriage” is a noun, and when a gay “merries” another gay, it’s a verb. It’s not the same word, so there is no redefinition happening.

I can’t wait to hear your comments…from both sides.