The Ties That Bind

With New Jersey’s senate set to vote tomorrow on same-sex marriage, it’s time your faithful blogger weighed in on this. Because it’s an issue drenched in faux sanctimoniousness that’s annoyed the hell out of me for some time.

We all recognize the need for many of the laws that govern society. If murder, rape, robbery, and similar offenses against persons and property were not designated as crimes and went unpunished, we would feel insecure about the possibility of being threatened by people who did not live by the Golden Rule. This of course presumes that law is a deterrent, but it’s the best we can hope for.

We can agree that criminals pose a recognizable threat. But if you object to the notion of same-sex marriage, all I can ask is, “How does it threaten you personally?”

Let’s say, just as a thought experiment, that there was an isolated town a couple of counties over from you in which heinous crimes went unpunished and which consequently became a haven for criminals. If the state found out about this situation, it would be appropriate for it to take action to keep these criminals from posing a threat to neighboring communities. But say there was a town that allowed gays & lesbians to marry. How would that be a threat? And if it were not a threat to have this going on a hundred miles away, how would it be any more of a threat to have it occur in your own community?

If you insist that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, you’re espousing a definition established by your religion. (Other religions might see things differently; one doesn’t have to look any further than nineteenth-century Mormons.) If religions choose to so designate marriage, that’s their prerogative. But in the case of civil unions recognized by government for the purpose of matters like taxation, health care, and visitation rights, marriage is what we define it to be — and those of us who seek a more just society would choose to define it as any union of two consenting adults.

Because the perks of marriage sought by same-sex couples are those granted by civil government, civil laws are the issue here — not religious institutions. If you consider gay marriage a threat, please concede that it is a threat to an institution as defined by your religion, not a threat to you personally. The problem lies in the fact that the institution is recognized by the same designation by both church & state.

It all comes down to word-choice: calling it “marriage.” Church weddings refer to the “bonds of holy matrimony,” and the phrase “holy matrimony” yields more than three times as many Google hits as “holy marriage.” Perhaps we could agree that same-sex couples are as entitled to “marriage” as anyone, but only a man and a woman are entitled to “matrimony”? That way, those of you who insist on continuing to feel threatened can have all the holiness you want. And guess what? We’ll leave “marriage” to those secular sinners; you get MATRIMONY all to yourselves! 

Let’s conclude with another thought experiment: the person to whom you’ve committed your life is in the hospital dying, but you can’t visit because you’re not an “immediate family member.” Don’t take too long to decide how you’d feel.