Gays vs. The Sanctity of Marriage

My marriage license was distributed by the state of New York. Nowhere in that document does it mention the church, Christianity, God, Jesus, Yahweh, Mohammed, Allah, or the flying spaghetti monster. That's because marriage is a secular institution.

Let me say that again: Marriage is a secular institution.

That means that it exists outside the authority of the church. My wedding did not take place in a church, it was not done with the church's permission, and it was not presided over by a minister or a priest.

So when I hear about same-sex marriage and the church's disapproval, I am forced to wonder: who asked them? Since when does a couple need to seek the approval of the church? If two people wish to be married in a church, by a member of their clergy, then by all means get the endorsement of the church. But apart from that very specific scenario, I have to think that the church, and religion in general, should sit this one out.

Weddings can be performed by judges, ship captains, and a host of other officials that exist outside the controls of any organized religion. So if same-sex marriage were to be legalized, and certain clergy were squeamish about officiating a gay wedding, I have no doubt that the couple could seek out a whole host of alternative officials.

Then we come to the argument about "preserving the sanctity of marriage". This old chestnut gets trotted out by evangelicals as though they hold the line against the incursion of invading hordes, hell-bent on destroying the sacred. But let's do a little math here. According to most polls, about 75% of Americans profess to be Christian, of some denomination. Of that 75%, a little less than half fall into the category of evangelicals. So, essentially, we're looking at one in three Americans affiliated with some degree of Protestant evangelical Christianity. Several studies have rated these same evangelicals have higher divorce rates that Catholics, Jews, Muslims, atheists, agnostics, etc.

When I got married, I knew that I was bonding my life to my wife's. I knew that this was not a commitment to be taken lightly, because it was intended to be a lifelong commitment. This is not news that was exclusive to me. The traditional wedding ceremony makes mention of this, so anyone who has ever been to a wedding has a pretty good idea that it's a long-term commitment. The expressions "'til death do us part" and "as long as we both shall live" are so ingrained in our understanding of wedding litanies that to not hear it would cast an awkward moment into the vows.

And rightly so. So it begs the question, if evangelicals are so concerned with preserving the sanctity of marriage, why do they perceive the biggest threat coming from the homosexual community? It should be clear that they are doing more harm to their own cause than any gay couple could.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: marriage, gay or straight, is an issue that ought to be decided by the states, not the federal government. This is truly the best compromise on an issue that is so divisive. The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Each state issues marriage licenses, and should be trusted on how to define a marriage. If the state you live in allows gay marriage, it should not be the right of the federal government to challenge or interfere. And if your state's marriage laws do not reflect your own personal moral code, you are entitled to move to another state.

I would love to see a study done in the coming years comparing how gay divorce rates stack up against their straight ones. I wonder if part of the straight community's fear of allowing gay marriage is that gays might be able to make it last better. Time will tell. Since there will likely be fewer children in a gay marriage it would make divorces a little less complicated. But that's a whole other discussion.

Ultimately there will come a day, after this business has been settled and we collectively decide that the right to marry belongs to all Americans, when we look back and wonder: why we were so obsessed with denying our fellow citizens their basic rights? Certainly being happy and in love is a right we all have. I think it will hearken back to the Civil Rights movement when white sincerely believed that to allow blacks equal rights would unmake the fabric of society. The bigots were wrong then, and they are wrong now. To insist on gay people having "civil unions" instead of "marriage" is just the latest version of seperate drinking fountains. We cannot expect the homosexuals to forever sit at the back of the bus. We cannot continue to call ourselves the land of the free when some of us are freer than others.