Marriage: Religious and Civil

One aspect surrounding the debate on same-sex marriage that is far too often overlooked is that it is in fact not a single topic. The closest I have seen to an acknowledgement that Marriage is not a monolithic institution came from one of the posts on Friendly Atheist. "Is Obama’s Support of Gay Marriage an ‘Imposition’ of His Religion?," does address the issue from two points of view but does so in a slightly round-about way.

I prefer to be more direct. Marriage is two separate but sometimes inter-related institutions. Most, if not all, opponents of gay marriage are arguing from a religious perspective. That would be perfectly fine with me if they kept it strictly within the realm of religion. Unfortunately, they do not. Not only do they not stick to their own sphere they frequently seek to lie and distort the goals of those of us who support same-sex marriage. None of the laws that have been passed or have been attempted have anything to do with religion despite their claims to the contrary. The government can not force a church (or mosque, synagogue, temple...) to perform a gay marriage. All these laws do is provide government recognition of a couples commitment and thereby grant access to a number of rights and privileges.  None of them impact religion.

For most of these narrow minded religious bigots that isn't enough. They want to be able to dictate to the rest of us what they claim to be moral. It is both unnecessary and wrong. If more people would open their eyes and see that religious marriage and civil marriage are not the same thing. Religious people, whether on the left or right, ought to be grateful for the perks civil marriage provides and not seek to impose their faith on anyone outside their own relationship.

Religion in America has always had the right to impose its own rules and standards on how it views marriage and how it conducts wedding ceremonies. That will not change. However, religion should stay out of how government views and conducts civil marriages. I would use my own biases as an example. There are certain types of marriages that I do not believe government should restrict but that I personally find disturbing. Currently, we do not allow polygamy under the law. I have no interest in lobbying for it but I also would not bother to oppose it. In terms of civil law, I do not see any good reason to oppose it. That is assuming that all parties are legal adults, fully understand the circumstance, and are consenting without any coercion or pressure. If the consenting adults involved are fine with it I see no reason to impose my own views on them. Put bluntly, I do not understand and do not want to understand such a warped arrangement. I firmly believe in monogamy. That is my preference and though I think it leads to the best possible relationship I cannot in good conscience enforce my views on others who are in no way harming me or anyone else.

Essentially, I would encourage everyone to view marriage from two separate spheres: religious and civil. I would further suggest that people step away from their own preference long enough to ask some basic questions about marriage. If we can publicly acknowledge the intimate relationship we cherish why should we prevent others from doing so? Would relationships of others impact our own? The answers seem pretty clear to me. There is no reason to deny others the rights and privileges I enjoy. It is also true that what other people do in their relationships can in any way diminish my own.

I would also point out that I do not agree with playing with the label "Marriage."  That does not work. Just changing the name of something does not solve problems.