Marriage is NOT (just) a religious event

With Proposition 8 succeeding in the polls and the majority imposing their will on the minority (not exactly the founding principle of this nation) it’s time to really look at the issue from a rational and considered viewpoint.  Or mine, in this case.

First, marriage is not a religious creation, it is a social convention that was created to define relationships between families.  While the modern view in the US relies heavily on religious overtones, it is not the only way to see it.  Consider that there are three forms of “marriage.”  The first is actually a legal and social form which is really the version that most same sex couples want.  It does not require religion in any form.  All we need is a couple of signatures on a piece of paper and the government recognizes that two individuals have entered into a relationship.  This is where those rights and responsibilities accrue that form the basis for the desire of same sex couples to marry.  We want those 1000 rights that we would have if we were allowed to marry.  The tax benefits, inheritance, medical decisions, parenting rights, and everything else.

Then comes the second form: religious marriage.  The problem for most people is that they ignore the civil elements of marriage and concentrate solely on the religious elements.  Well, you don’t have to be religious to marry.  In many countries, the only marriage that counts is the civil one.  Here in the US we have given way to the idea that a religious ceremony counts just like the civil one and, in fact, trumps it.  But marriage is not something that requires religion, otherwise it should be denied to athiests and agnostics and those who have left the church.  No, just like divorce is a civil action (frowned upon by many religions) the marriage that preceeded it should also be nothing more than a civil event.

The fact is that when the religious folks spout off about marriage being a sacrament and should be limited to one man and one woman, they are referring only to those ceremonies practiced under their religion.  In fact, there are a number of religions that DO recognize same sex marriage and even celebrate these ceremonies.  So, same sex marriage can even be religious in nature.  The problem is that those specific religions where it is not allowed are forcing their beliefs on the rest of society and not allowing for any other kind of marriage.

This is where I get to have fun with the Christian crowd because they are the ones pushing the one man-one woman marriage deal.  You see, marriage is not the June and Ward Cleaver relationship that many people think it “should” be.  It is something that was created centuries ago and has changed throughout history.  It is not this immutable sacrament that came down from God.  No, the Catholilc church co-opted marriage (as it has so many things) by making it a requirement for recognition of any relationship.  When the church’s power grew, marriage under the steeple became a requirement, not the option it used to be.

And let’s talk about marriage.  The bible has men marrying their sisters, polygamy was the norm and the woman was subjugated in the relationship.  Why did women change their last names when marrying their husbands?  To denote the change in ownership from their father to their husband.  Some faiths refuse to recognize marriage outside their sects and until just recently (in historical terms) mixed marriages were not allowed.  This furthers my contention that marriage is a social convention that just happens to have a religious element to it.  Remember dowries?  Those were bribes from those families unfortunate enough to have female children to the families of the fortunate ones with male children to try and get rid of the girl.  Is this the ideal of marriage those religious proponents are trying to “savor?”

They claim that same sex marriage “destroys” the institution.  No, infidelity, divorce, and abuse destroy the institution of marriage.  And you can’t tell me that the clergy don’t look the other way when important people want to get rid of a spouse.  The number of “annulments”  given out by the church don’t entirely coincide with the concept of one man-one woman forever.  I would suggest that because divorce is civil (you know what I mean) then marriage should be civil as well.  That would alleviate the fear that the clergy have of being “forced” to marry same sex couples in their churches.  Now why would we want to go into a place that doesn’t welcome us?  Especially on that day!??

So, there it is.  Take religion out of marriage and grant everyone the same civil rights under marriage.  Allow the religions to marry as they see fit (including those who allow same sex marriages) but don’t grant any civil rights as a result to ensure that everyone is treated equally.  And let me marry the man I want to spend the rest of my life with so we can be just as happy and miserable as every other heterosexual couple out there, as our relationship becomes.

This entry was posted on 16. December 2008 at 14:03 and is filed under Gay, Religion, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site.