Being Civil

Almost 38 years ago I entered into a civil arrangement. The arrangement entitled my partner and I to certain rights and privileges as sanctioned and controlled by law where I live; and most anywhere else I may choose to live in this country-or even other counties. The arrangement entitled us to be considered next-of-kin to one another. As next-of-kin we have the ability under law to make certain decisions for each other, like deciding on critical medical care should one of us be unable to decide these things. This arrangement entitles each of us to claim ownership in half the property acquired by the other. It entitles us to participate in employee benefit programs the other may get. We are also able to claim survivor's benefits from the Social Security Administration if one of us dies. This arrangement provides us with a legal status that prevents other parties from just being able to come into our lives and claim any control over our personal or financial affairs, unless specifically granted by another lawful arrangement. This arrangement gives me much peace of mind, because I know that my life and my partner's life are protected by laws that give us security over matters that pertain to our lives. I take comfort in this arrangement. It has value to me.

My partner in this arrangement and I went through a religious ceremony which was a traditional ritual called a Wedding. We were in a church- family and friends were there. We recited vows. The Officiant was a Priest and when the service was over we still were NOT legally married- such that any of the things I described above were real or in effect. Those things happened a short time later in the Priest's office. It was there we signed the legal Marriage Certificate, with witnesses, and with someone the government had granted permission to manage these marriage documents (the Priest in our case). This is the time we were being civil. Aside from the personal feelings of affection and the religious ritual, this was where the actual marriage took place- a civil matter- sanctioned by the state and regulated by the state. This is the part of marriage the politicians claim forms "the basic building block and foundation of our society and our democracy". The ritual in the church had no legal meaning- that is to say, without the stuff that happened later in the office, the church part wouldn't count for anything, legally. The real marriage, the one that defines families and recognizes marital unions by law could have just as easily (and legally) been completed in a biker-bar or sitting by the pool.

Over the last couple of weeks we have rehashed the old business of gay marriage. I'm jumping in on this  because I find it such a compelling social and political issue. As much as the pundits think this upcoming election is only about the economy- I think women's issues and the gay marriage issue will not be going away soon. I'm just convinced that this is a cultural election as a much as it is an economic one. For the record- I favor allowing gay marriage. (big surprise, huh?) I view allowing gay marriage as a civil rights issue based on the benefits I get from legal marriage. And those are a but a few of the major ones. There are a number of other rights and privileges granted to legally married couples- that only come with government sanctioned marriage.

The primary argument against allowing gay marriage is the claim that it would "redefine marriage" in a way that would erode the family. There have been times in our history when we have "redefined" much  bigger issues than marriage. We redefined  human-ness when we eventually outlawed slavery. Prior to the 13th Amendment slaves were not considered fully human. Our original Constitution designated slaves as only 3/5ths human. In 1920 we redefined basic citizenship by giving women the right to vote. So we can redefine marriage too if we have the will to recognize its current limits as a violation of civil rights. It's what I would call, being civil.

Those who argue that marriage is "traditionally one man and one woman" weren't paying close attention in history class. This is really only a recent condition, and it is not universal around the globe even now.When some folks argue the biblical origins of traditional marriage, I would point out that in biblical times multiple wives were common, arranged marriages were the norm, and most women were sold into marriage- even in the tribes of the ancient Hebrews. There is no one form of marriage. The most prevalent tradition of marriage throughout history is that women generally enjoy a lesser status in marriage than men. Marriages were for convenience- for political gain- they were used to provide tribal harmony amongst rivals- or to mend differences between nations or families. They were most generally used to regulate wealth, property rights and to define family lineage. Pairing off in romantic love was way down the list of reasons people married. We don't show much respect for the sanctity of marriage in this country even now. In this country we currently practice serial (multiple) marriage (i.e. more than one spouse- just one at-a-time) So let's be honest when we make arguments citing tradition. Marriage has always had a fluid definition, and it is continually changing.

Given that marriage confers certain civil rights in our society, I'm having trouble understanding why it is acceptable for some to deny the same civil rights to same-sex partners. Same-sex partners hold jobs, form long loving relationships, and  raise children to be productive people. They are for the most part just like everyone else. The only reason I can glean from all the chatter is the religious dogma of some religious groups condemning it, and the bigotry that follows. Some  religious leaders claim that permitting same-sex marriage infringes on their rights of religious freedom. What nonsense. No one is even suggesting any religious group honor or participate in rituals or ceremonies for same-sex couples if they object.  In religious matters, the existence of other beliefs or practices shouldn't threaten the core of a religion. We must remember that our Constitution provides for freedom OF religion and it provides, with equal force, freedom FROM religion. I would hope most religions would want to practice the art of tolerance and acceptance, since most religious groups have suffered persecution at one time or another. Sadly, that is not the case.

President Obama and Mr. Romney have both stated their position on same-sex marriage. They are vastly different. President Obama favors same-sex marriage- Mr. Romney opposes it. However, they are remarkably the same on one aspect of the debate. Both have said it should be up to the States to decide the matter. I disagree. Any true resolution of this issue must be a national resolution. We cannot have a separate status for the same population depending on the state you're in. No other basic civil right is regulated that way. It's a cop-out to claim States' Rights. Perhaps the late Sen. Robert F. Kennedy said it best:
"States' rights, as our forefathers conceived it, was a protection of the rights of the individual citizen. Those who preach most frequently about States' rights today are not seeking the protection of the individual citizen, but his exploitation.....The time is long past- if indeed it ever existed- when the we should permit the noble concept of States' rights to be betrayed and corrupted into a slogan to hide the bald denial of American rights, of civil rights, and of human rights."  (emphasis added)

It is high time we decide to just be civil on this topic and permit gay and lesbian people the same rights afforded the rest of us. I have never heard a cogent argument detailing any harm that could come from allowing same-sex marriage. If there is one, please let me know.The American people favor allowing same-sex marriage (by a small but growing majority). We do more harm to our nation by holding on to this last bastion of bigotry, than we would by simply expanding tolerance and civility. The expansion of human rights is the American tradition of being civil.

Thanks for looking in.