Either We All Get Married.... Or No One Does
Once again, the debate is on in Canada about same-sex marriage. There have been several proposals that have been put out there as to how to handle this issue. There are however, only two that strike me as being fair and sensible. Firstly, we extend marriage to gay and lesbian couples. Everyone gets the same rights under the law. I think it's somewhat anachronistic to say that such a proposal upsets the "traditional" definition of marriage for several reasons. Polygamy was practiced widely in the ancient world. The biblical kings, David and Solomon both had multiple wives. What about concubines, that was another common practice in the ancient world, and yet surely today most anyone would consider it grounds for divorce. So the "traditional" definition of marriage is not as deeply rooted as many of its proponents would like to think. In addition, many people do not take marriage to be the serious proposition that it's so-called defenders consider it to be. Drive-thru wedding chapels, open marriages, high divorce rates tell a story that suggest that people on the whole, simply do not consider marriage to be as sacred as some say they should.
Let's be realistic here, in 2005, marriage, in the eyes of the law is little more than a legal arrangement for taxation and benefits purpose. That will sound denigrating of course to couples who really do try to make a marriage work, but nonetheless that's what it is in the eyes of the state. So why deny this piece of tax and contract law to gays and lesbians? Is it the use "m" word that is so scary? Someday I imagine I may very well get married - to a woman no less! I cannot imagine for the life of me, how two men or two women also being married would somehow ruin my own hypothetical marriage. When I am in a relationship, knowing that somewhere in my own city gays and lesbians are also in relationships has not ruined that.
Of course, there has been the "separate but equal" proposal. Gays get "civil unions" that are just like marriages, but not. First of all, I don't think that separate has ever been equal (see Brown v. Board of Education). Secondly, if civil unions are good enough for same sex couples, why not for everyone? This is the second sensible proposal that I have heard. The government should just get out of the marriage business altogether. Let people call it what they want, marriage, long-term pairbonding, whatever, the government just gives you a certificate saying that you have a civil union. That way, one can call something a marriage if one feels that's what it is, but there is no official pronouncement either way. Does it make marriage a subjective term? Yes. But I would hasten to argue that it already is. The Roman Catholic Church does not recognize the remarriage of divorcees and there are a number of other situations with other faiths. There is already subjectivity on the matter of what is, and is not, a marriage according to one's faith and convictions.
So there you go, either we all get married, or no one does.
Let's be realistic here, in 2005, marriage, in the eyes of the law is little more than a legal arrangement for taxation and benefits purpose. That will sound denigrating of course to couples who really do try to make a marriage work, but nonetheless that's what it is in the eyes of the state. So why deny this piece of tax and contract law to gays and lesbians? Is it the use "m" word that is so scary? Someday I imagine I may very well get married - to a woman no less! I cannot imagine for the life of me, how two men or two women also being married would somehow ruin my own hypothetical marriage. When I am in a relationship, knowing that somewhere in my own city gays and lesbians are also in relationships has not ruined that.
Of course, there has been the "separate but equal" proposal. Gays get "civil unions" that are just like marriages, but not. First of all, I don't think that separate has ever been equal (see Brown v. Board of Education). Secondly, if civil unions are good enough for same sex couples, why not for everyone? This is the second sensible proposal that I have heard. The government should just get out of the marriage business altogether. Let people call it what they want, marriage, long-term pairbonding, whatever, the government just gives you a certificate saying that you have a civil union. That way, one can call something a marriage if one feels that's what it is, but there is no official pronouncement either way. Does it make marriage a subjective term? Yes. But I would hasten to argue that it already is. The Roman Catholic Church does not recognize the remarriage of divorcees and there are a number of other situations with other faiths. There is already subjectivity on the matter of what is, and is not, a marriage according to one's faith and convictions.
So there you go, either we all get married, or no one does.
posted by Dan at 5:27 PM
<< Home