Be you bitter or blissful the season of hearts, candy and way too much red, pink and purple confetti is once again upon us. It seems appropriate that it's during the Valentine's Day season that the Washington State Senate has approved the bill allowing same-sex couples to marry. Given this is only the first step towards actually legalizing gay marriage in Washington State, but it is a monumental one and it came to pass with minimal hair pulling.
The bill's sponsor, Sen. Ed Murray (D), has taken a very diplomatic attitude towards his fellow lawmakers. He reminds everyone that those voting against gay marriage “are not, nor should they be accused of bigotry,” and that “those of us who support this legislation are not, and...should not be accused of, undermining family life or religious freedoms.” He understands that this issue is not as simple as 'do you accept or reject the expression of love between two individuals of the same sex' – something that people on both sides of the argument tend to forget.
Were I writing this column for the midwest or southern states, I'd start in defending the rights of LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) individuals to love whomever they want. But seeing as the majority of the northwest has already turned that page, I'll move right along. When I discuss the topic of gay marriage with anyone not full speed ahead for the initiative, the bump we tend to hit is not over whether two people of the same sex have the right to love one another but whether or not they should be allowed to marry as opposed to uniting in a civil union.
At first glance these two things seem very much alike, but there are major legal differences. Civil unions provide legal protection for couples only at the state level. They are not federally binding. It takes as little as crossing the state line to render null the benefits such as the power to make medical decisions for an incapacitated partner. Furthermore, people and children involved in civil unions are not legally 'families.' This complicates registration forms, taxes and so forth, the fouling of which can lead to all kinds of ramifications. Disparities like these are what lead to the common complaint that imposed civil unions make LGBT people feel like second class citizens.
Much of the reasoning for pushing civil unions over gay marriages is rooted in the traditionally held religious connotation of the word 'marriage.' Yet this leads me to wonder why our nation, which claims a separation of church and state, has no legally equivalent secular label. I mean, setting aside that numerous theologians argue against using the Bible to justify any anti-LGBT rhetoric, the religious 'traditional marriage' of a man and a woman before God 'til death do they part was already being pushed aside long before gay marriage ever stepped up to the plate.
We commonly hear about America's high divorce rate: 41% for first marriages, 60% for second marriages and a whopping 73% for third marriages. But what we don't often hear about is how nearly half of all marriages are no longer even presided over by church officials. Instead they are performed by judges, otherwise certified individuals and even friends and family members. In 2010 the Universal Life Church Monastery (not a religious church), one of the largest insta-certification groups online, was 'ordaining' 700 'ministers' a day. This is a trend that is only growing as Americans continue to pull away from religion.
I don't understand how marriage between a loving and committed gay couple is more threatening to traditional religious matrimony than a through and through secular heterosexual marriage. Moreover, I don't understand how a nation that gets all riled up over Tebow bending a knee for a quick prayer on the football field is yet willing to defend the very ritualized Christian idea of marriage (or vice versa for that matter).
Either way, the debate at this point seems to be over the legal verbiage. If we are so committed to the sanctity of the word marriage then why don't we go all the way and completely distinguish between marriage before God and marriage before state? Well, we don't because marriage has come to mean something to even the most staunch anti-theists. Regardless of the statistics, marriage still implies a lasting bond between two loving and devoted individuals.
So here's what I think, we can't have it both ways. Either marriage is redefined as something specifically presided over by the church so the appropriateness of gay marriage then falls under the jurisdiction of each individual church and secular unions are separately classified. Or we accept that marriage has come to be equally meaningful in secular and religious communities, in which case the religious reasons for only supporting gay civil unions over gay marriages are moot. What do you think?
