Separate but equal?

Thanks to Les for reminding me about the Massachussetts Supremes’ ruling on gay marriage. First, read what he said (which was mostly what others said, particuarly Solonor), then come back here. I’ll wait …

Well, yeah. What they said.

The problem seems to be with the whole “Marriage is a sacred institution” meme. Probably we’d be a lot better off if we distinguished between Marriage and Matrimony. It’s fine to say that the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony was ordained by God and blessed by Jesus. As a religious institution, I have no problem with folks drawing lines to include or exclude anyone they want (hopefully with politeness, but that’s another rant). Churches should be free to include or exclude anyone they want. If you want to belong to the First Church of Joe-Bob, whose members can only marry if they can sing “Memories” to the satisfaction of the Grand High Poobah, that’s your look-out. If I don’t like it, I can go join another church.

But marriage as a civil institution is deeply embedded in law and regulation. And something sacred and religious has no business being so codified, because then you get people passing laws and regs because God Ordains It — which is, one thinks, what the First Amendment was all about not letting happen. And God (or, more particularly, folks interpretting for Her) has Ordained some pretty cracked stuff over the centuries.

Of course, if you amend the Constitution (state or federal), you can trump that. Of course, you could also amend it to forbid miscegenation, or require folks to cross themselves three times a day, or to ban sale and consumption meat on Fridays. Just because something can be amended to the Constitution means it’s a good idea (see “Prohibition”).

My concern over this whole debate has been that by reserving the word and institution of (civil) marriage to straight couples, a parallel body and patchwork of law would be set up under the rubric of “civil union.” That would be a shame, because, frankly, marriage law works relatively well, and has quite a bit of precedent behind it working out the kinks (so to speak). Trying to cut and paste and come up with something New and Improved like CUs is asking for trouble. And, by the same token, it would marginalize marriage, since it would be easier to get into (and, possibly, out of), so that, ultimately, civil marriage would be relatively meaningless, and marriage would be a church thang, not a civil one. Which is what folks want the distinction drawn for now, so why wait.

Now I see that approach has one other flaw. As the MassSupes noted, “separate but equal” rarely is. We saw that with race. Separate bathrooms and drinking fountains and areas of the bus were rarely not equal; setting up a separate marriage ghetto and calling it “civil unions” isn’t going to be equal, either, and Americans should reject that approach.

What irks me about all of this is that it feels like such a knee-jerk reaction from so many conservatives. For me, at least, my marriage to Margie, as a holy and sacred thing, has nothing to do with the paperwork filed with the state of California. If that paperwork had been lost, it would not have meant a whit in the face of what I think it means, religiously, as a sacred bond between us. And it is that bond I recognize when I see gay couples married (using the real word and everything) in churches that allow such things. From a sacred aspect, I give those unions infinitely more weight than something done by half-tippled couples in Vegas at the Elvis Marriage-o-Mat. Or, again, from the sacred standpoint, a lot more weight that folks who just go down to the local justice of the peace or county courthouse.

But the state has decided to recognize folks who go into the county courthouse and have a strictly secular ceremony. No mention of God. No need for prayers and oaths and consideration of whether the people getting married consider this sacred or simply romantic or customary. Pay your money, file your papers, make the pledge, get recognized by the state as married.

Unless you’re of the same gender, of course. That makes that secular ceremony into something — um, un-sacred. Somehow.

I’m not suggesting that the Catholic Church, for example, be forced to marry gay couples. I would strongly resist anyone forcing them to do so, in fact — their teaching on homosexuality, whatever I might think of them, are theirs, and while I might debate them, I would never have the law force the church into abandoning them. (Issues of employment law are a related matter, which is why that’s such a messy debate.)

But the issue of gay marriage isn’t about forcing churches, or church-goers, to see an “abomination” going on up at the altar. It’s about opening the doors to equality in a civil institution to folks who are breaking no law, and who simply seek to civilly affirm their personal life-bonds. If we’re going to open it up to straight couples, we have to do so for gay couples — or we have to get the government out of the marriage business altogether, which would be a greater defeat for the conservatives (and, I think, for society) than letting gay couples marry per se.