Three cheers for Oregon's Benton County, for taking such a logical action in the melee over gay marriage. Finally, FINALLY, someplace that is willing to take a meaningful stand on the issue.
I continue to wonder, why a government constitutionally separated from religion has any interest whatsoever in defining the concept of "marriage".
The formal life commitment of two individuals to one another has two major aspects: religious and socio-economic. In the United States, we have historically used a single term to describe both, "marriage", but it would be more accurate to refer to them as "marriage" (religious) and "civil union" (socio-economic). Why? Because the state really has no defensible interest in requiring the registration of religious status or affiliations.
What goes on inside a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place of worship, is absolutely none of the state's business. A prime example of this is the continued exclusion of women from the Catholic priesthood -- something which blatantly violates the concept of Equal Opportunity, but which, as a religious practice, is solely the pervue of the Catholic church. Similarly, marriage in the context of faith is defined by religious texts and tenets, and ONLY in this context can references to passages from the Bible and spiritual sanctity have any bearing, or in fact, meaning.
Meanwhile, the state, via municipal and county marriage licensing processes, controls the socio-economic aspects of the married condition: the management of property, the assessment of taxes, the custody of progeny, and the general protections of law. In this context, it does not make an iota of difference what has transpired in history, in the Bible, or in Congress. (Not that I would equate any two of those venues with one another.) Clinging to historical precedent on this issue is no better than expounding the benefits of slavery, or decrying the victories of suffragettes. What matters here is only, ONLY, the non-religious aspect of the married state, in this particular day, age, and location. And the plain unvarnished truth is that there is absolutely no objective difference between a gay couple and hetero couple in this context.
A government operates via forms, whether they be paper or electronic. A form doesn't care about the sex (or sexual orientation) of the person completing it. Oh, there may be a space for their sex to be indicated, but that's just a tally -- the form itself really Just Doesn't Care. Bits is bits, data is data, and the computer will take whatever information is fed into it, without judgement or discrimination. There is no rational argument that can be made for denying a gay couple the rights of marriage in this context. No new processes need be developed. No new tax tables need be compiled.
There is immeasurable hand-wringing over the "weakening" of marriage by legalizing the institution for gays, but there has yet to be given any concrete example of how this accusation can be quantified. Does it lessen a hetero couple's legal rights? Nope. Does it change their taxes, property, or custody arrangements? Nope. Does it violate their faith? In many cases, sure. But that's their problem. Not society's, not the government's, and sure as heck not gay couples'.
Three cheers for Benton County, for pointing out that the emperor has no clothes.
Posted at March 24, 2004 03:28 PM in Social Order , Wonderings