Gay marriage seems like a pretty straightforward proposition to me: the only argument against it is religious and therefore should not be imposed on anyone who happens to believe differently (if we're keeping the state out of religion and vice versa and we believe in allowing everyone the freedom to believe what they will). It's not a particularly exciting or emotionally charged issue for me, as from my perspective it boils down largely to a matter of income tax filing statuses. You can save quite a bit of dough by filing a joint return, though; it almost amounts to a tax on homosexual cohabitation.
It's clear to me that taxpayers should be able to mark the box that best corresponds to their living arrangements, regardless of sexual orientation or religious affiliation. The question is, if they were, would it make it any less possible for the people who say that they shouldn't to carry on living their lives in the manner that they believe they are meant to? My immediate reaction is no, as it is vital to the preservation of religious freedom that the government not recognize an argument that would force it to endorse a particular view of God. It occurs to me, however, that as mainstream acceptance of homosexual unions develops, religious organizations that do not recognize gay marriage may find themselves under enormous societal pressure to bring themselves up to date.
My first thought is, "Well, thank God for that!" and wouldn't it be nice if mainstream acceptance of rationality could elbow religion out altogether while we're at it. While I have no sympathy with those who desire to impose their views on others, I still occasionally (erm, fine, OK—often) find myself wishing that some group with views antithetical to my own would just wake up and smell things my way. It's no good, however, to use the cause of religious freedom to negate the argument against gay marriage and then to turn a blind eye (or even a jubilant one) to the collapse of a religious tradition simply because it is at odds with one's own (obviously much more enlightened and, well, better) views.
It's a neat trick to ensure that everyone's rights, both religious and civil, are respected. One problem is that some people get it into their heads that religious freedom means that they can belong to any church they might choose; it doesn't. Religious freedom means that people with similar beliefs can organize into groups and gather publicly to celebrate those beliefs, even if said beliefs run counter to common sense, societal norms, or the law (though religious affiliation doesn't allow, in most cases, the ability to actually break the laws that are found objectionable). Protecting religious freedom means protecting the rights of churches to exclude homosexuals (and any others they might find undesirable). Marriage laws of any kind restrict a religious group's freedom to practice their beliefs. While the movement against gay marriage has religious roots, I suspect that quite a number of churches would very happily provide such services (the ones with gay clergy seem like an obvious bet, but you can never be too sure with religion).
If the desired end result is to maximize religious freedom, government needs to get out of the marriage business altogether. This could either mean no special tax statuses for couples at all, or it could mean that only government licensed civil unions, available to any couple, would be recognized for such purposes; marriage would be between a couple and their God and of no concern to Uncle Sam. While some sort of age-of-consent laws would likely still be necessary, churches would be free to marry (or refuse to marry) any couple (or larger group) they pleased to. Being married would be like being baptized or confirmed: of great significance within ones own religious community but of absolutely no (or at least considerably less) significance to society as a whole. Existing marriages would be grandfathered in as civil unions, probably with an option to opt-out in writing within a certain time frame. Homosexuals would be free to marry in any church open to marrying them; they would also be able to claim any government mandated benefits granted to committed couples (doing both would probably entail two separate trips, though). The right of religion to exclude all those it deems unfit must, however, be upheld.
I came across this while writing the above post: Dobrich: The Growing Subculture of Religious Exclusion and Prejudice in Public Schools. I thought it was quite interesting; that's why I'm putting up the link.
The problem with this idea is that while it seems essentially reasonable and just, it isn't what anybody involved actually wants. Kind of like this: http://www.oglaf.com/ulric/1/.
ReplyDelete