ShayBee.com > Essays > Society > Marriage, Legal v. Religious
Marriage, Legal v. Religious
Currently, our laws define marriage as a legal contract between two
consensual adults to hold certain property and family rights in common. Many
states have added "civil unions" and/or "domestic partnerships" as a lesser form
of that legal contract.
At this time, I don't know of a single religion that lacks a marriage
ceremony or lacks the concept of marriage as a union between the two spouses, at
least spiritually speaking. And just to be clear here, when I say religion I am
talking about a formal, united belief system with a broad base of adherents.
Now, I know several couples who have undergone the religious ceremonies of
marriage and refuse to get a wedding license. People also get married by a
Justice of the Peace with no religion binding or blessing the event. What that
demonstrates is that the two types of marriage, though somewhat similar in
intent, are not synonymous.
If a marriage were a strictly religious affair then, by all means, leave the
definition of marriage to the religious authorities. Don't worry, though; all
those assorted religious authorities are out there preaching up their
definitions of "marriage". Too bad, so sad – marriage is not a strictly
religious experience. It is the property and family rights bestowed by the legal
marriage – the secular world issues – that get the pot stirring here.
From where I'm standing, if we were to stop calling the legal marriage
"marriage" and call it, oh, "civil unions" then most of the angst over
homosexual alliances would be alleviated. "Marriage" could safely remain a
religious experience while ceasing to deny homosexual couples the property and
family rights granted by what is now a legal marriage.
There are some folks who will look at my suggestion and throw up the classic
arguments – "Marriage is for procreation", "God only intended marriage to be
between one man and one woman", "that's just caving into a minority special
interest", and yada and yada and so on.
First off, if marriage is for procreation only, then does that mean that
sterile people should not have the right to get married? Should a lack of
reproductive ability invalidate an existing marriage? Broadening the scope to
make marriage primarily for the benefit of child-rearing, should couples be
forced to adopt within a certain length of time if they don't produce offspring
of their own? I hope most reasonable people would quickly scratch the idea that
legal marriages are solely about making it easier to have babies.
As for God's intent – whichever god is cited – that would be why clearly
defining the difference between religious and legal marriages is a good thing.
Let the sacraments of marriage stay in the churches. That is between the couple,
their religion, and their deity. If there is a deity out there who does not want
their faithful to share with and pass on to their loved ones the fruits of their
labor, I haven't heard of them yet. If there is a deity who would deny their
faithful the right to stand beside and to care for their loved ones in an hour
of need, I would be rather leery of meeting that one's faithful. I certainly
wouldn't want them in my life.
As to caving into a minority special interest, where does ceasing hypocrisy
turn into "caving"? Where is consistency in applying the laws already in place
institute "caving"? We have federal anti-discrimination laws on the books that
supposedly state that it is illegal to discriminate against someone based on
their gender. Disallowing marriage due to the gender of the couples involved
certainly sounds like gender-based discrimination. California gets to take the
hit a little harder – they added "sexual orientation" as a protected class;
disallowing marriage based on the sexual orientation of the couples involved
certainly smacks of discrimination.
So far, the only reasons I have heard given to make homosexuality taboo are
religious reasons. My father, on a number of occasions, has stated that America
is a Christian country and always has been. My answer usually runs along the
lines that the people who make up the nation can be as Christian or Buddhist or
Pagan or whatever as they want to be; the United States of America, as a legal
entity, has stated forwards, backwards, and three ways to Sunday that the
government is not religious. The laws of the United States may be guided by the
moral imperatives of the People, however, the People are not solely Christian or
Buddhist or Hindi or Islamic or Pagan or whatever. We are a wide mix of cultures
and backgrounds. We cannot base our laws on religious dogma and still expect our
country to be the Land of the Free.
Freedom is a burden that requires us to actually think for ourselves and not
simply accept the convenient answers spoon fed to us with emotional sleight of
hand by those who "just want to help us" because we're too apathetic, or too
comfortable, or too scared that we might be wrong.