“Marriage” as such is a fundamentally religious concept.
The problem, as I see it, surrounding Proposition 8 is one of meaning.
The religious community appears to be using the term “marriage” to refer to their concept of the sacred union in the eyes of their deity. They take the word to be concomitant with their interpretation of their sacred text which stipulates the genders of entrants into the rite of marriage.
The gay community appears to be using the term “marriage” to mean “that package of rights and responsibilities enjoyed by two persons whom have committed to help in supporting each other” in terms of property rights, hospital visitation, etc. This is perhaps an over-reaching on the part of the gay community, albeit one that allows their goal, vis-á-vis equal recognition under the law, to be more easily known. It is rather time-consuming to express in any other words what the gay community seeks — “that package of rights and responsibilities shared by two persons as they relate to property rights, visitation rights, and sundry other items that presently are enjoyed by persons recognized as ‘married’ in the eyes of their church and/or faith community”. So, as a verbal shorthand, it is represented by “marriage”.
Perhaps there are gay and lesbian couples that wish to have their union recognized by their faith community, thereby strengthening their usage of the term and, obviously, there is significant overlap between the religious community and the gay community (and many churches, etc. have opened their doors to the gay faithful), but for the sake of discussing the problem of meaning, let’s ignore them for now. As far as I know, there’s no crusading militant group of gays seeking to force all churches in the state to recognize their same-sex unions, opinions to the contrary be damned. Though they would cut an interesting figure, running through the streets in simply fabulous uniforms with Gucci and Prada print AK47′s *to* *die* *for* (matching combat boots for the lesbians).
To legally enshrine the term “marriage” in law as “the union of a man and a woman” is really to do a disservice to religion. To legislate a definition of a religious concept is government involvement in church affairs. The state does not recognize the baptism, the bris, the bar mitzvah, etc. To legally stipulate that to be capable of forming a contract, and to own property, one must have a bar mitzvah is ludicrous and would probably not see any sort of acceptance, either from the religious or secular world. To be legally defined as a person only after being baptized is equally as insane. Each of these rites represents a change in recognition within a faith community, and no further. Marriage should be no different. Enough of a farce has been made of the supposedly sacred rite of marriage by the alleged believers in it — the nationwide divorce rate should be proof enough of this. “Turns out I don’t really like you, I know we promised before our deity and our friends and families to share an eternal bond, but I just really don’t like how you drive, and how you spend money, and the background image on your computer.”
My solution would be to abolish all legal definitions of the term “marriage” and to allow the state to only offer a contract of civil union. This union would encompass the rights and responsibilities presently enjoyed by millions of straight couples and, in recent times, gay and lesbian married couples. In the interest of preserving the existing rights-contracts between married couples, they must be ‘grandfathered’ in, with the same rights and responsibilities. Then, going forward, the people interested in being part of this contract of rights and responsibilities would be granted them by the state. Those interested in being recognized by their faith communities would participate in those rites which would allow them to be so. Churches and the like would be able to retain control of their word and interpretation of “marriage”, and the people who don’t see a need to do this (gay and straight alike) would simply not. There would be no pushing of definition onto faith communities. Heterosexual atheist couples would not have to endure a farcical church wedding simply to share the rights and responsibilities which they seek.
Let me put it this way: if Prop 8 passes, some people will be denied basic rights which are enjoyed by many others. If Prop 8 fails, everyone will be allowed to enjoy certain basic rights AND nobody will lose any rights.
Doesn’t take a logician to figure that one out.
VOTE NO ON PROP 8!
