Why I oppose gay marriage (September '07)

I knew that would get your attention. :)

I suppose I could have composed a more politically correct title, but that's not really my style, and for what it's worth, the title isn't entirely inaccurate. Then again, it's not entirely accurate either. This blog is going to take another shot at Big Brother, and maybe give you a new perspective on a hot-button issue at the same time. Besides, I've recently picked up a bunch of new readers, and it's always fun to see how many of you will go running for the hills when I tackle a topic like this.

The whole gay marriage debate has been hotly contested from two major points of view. The media loves to portray the whole controversy as an issue of gay rights vs. religious conservatism. The problem is, it's not that simple.

I look at the issue from another point of view. The way I see it, there is a much bigger issue of governmental interference here that nobody seems to be contesting. The "gay rights" lobby would love to see the government assert some legal muscle on their behalf, and the religious right would love to see the government step in and enforce their beliefs. The gay rights groups are running to the government for protection against the big, scary religious conservatives. The religious conservatives are running to the government for protection against those big, scary homosexuals.

The problem is, each side is running to enlist the help of a much more dangerous monster as they seek to vanquish their respective bogeymen. Government involvement is less like a two edged sword, and more like a guillotine. It seems like a good idea when you want to trim off a mangled digit or remove an infected limb. The problem is, you can't make it go away when they want to stick your head in the damned thing.

The sticking point is actually a "semantic" one. Those of you who have ever engaged in any serious study of law, philosophy, religion, or government know how serious "semantic" issues can be. In point of fact, most great debates can be broken down in terms of semantics. The meanings we assign to certain words define the use of those words and our reactions to those words.

In this case, the word is "marriage." I am against government involvement in marriage in any way, and I'll gladly tell you why.

Marriage has been recognized by governments for centuries, but it was a religious institution long before that. Marriage is mentioned as a purely religious ceremony in many of the earliest manuscripts and most ancient texts known to man. This is true of ancient cultures in many different areas and covering many different religious beliefs. Eventually laws were passed regarding marriage, but given that most of these ancient cultures were literally or nominally theocratic in nature, such laws are not a solid argument for marriage as a purely legal institution.

The very fact that the government recognizes marriages performed by certain religious officials and not others is a clear indication of how the system is playing favorites in regard to religion. Furthermore, the existence of tax credits for married couples (often used as an argument for gay marriage) is further proof of special benefits bestowed to participants in a religious rite.

As far as I'm concerned, government and religion need not mix to have a happy society, and in fact is far more rational and equitable when the two keep well separated. Those who would wish to debate this topic are more than willing to challenge me, and I will happily blog on the issue of the separation of church and state for the benefit of all involved.

Now some of you might wish to argue with me at this point, noting that the government performs civil marriages that are not inherently religious (getting hitched by the justice of the peace.) I would respond by saying that the government has no business sanctioning "marriages," as marriage is both originally and traditionally a religious rite.

If the government wants to allow special tax credits and rights to people who cohabitate for long periods of time and form family units, that's fine, I suppose, but to say that some of these are valid and some are not is downright discriminatory. If the government wants to establish a legal civil union that the government sanctions, that's fine and dandy, but the government should allow access to that civil union for all of its citizens. Furthermore, the government should not then recognize a similar religious ceremony as legally valid. Religious folks who marry and want civil union benefits should have to apply like everybody else.

On the other side of the coin, the government should never be telling churches who they must and must not allow into their religious ceremonies. If your church doesn't want to baptize people who wear red shoes, the government has no business telling that church to do otherwise. If your church wants to perform marriages between two women or two men, that's the business of your church, not the business of the government. Furthermore, if your church wants to refuse to perform a marriage for whatever reason, that is the right of that church as a religious body.

In the same way, dissolution of a civil partnership would be a legal matter, while dissolution of the marriage would be a matter of religion and private counsel. Arbitrators and religious leaders handled such problems for centuries without benefit of government. They should be required to clean up their own messes once again.

In short, "marriage" is a religious matter, and the state should not be involved for better or for worse. That includes tax breaks, legal judgments, etc. The church should not be trying to involve the government, as this is ultimately both hypocritical and a slippery slope. The government should not be recognizing "marriage" as a legal status, in my opinion.

The union of two individuals for personal or professional reasons could perhaps be a government issue, but this should not be called "marriage," and should apply to all regardless of religion, gender, etc. Those who wish to marry may do so, but the receipt of union rights should come about as a result of filling out the proper paperwork and following the same procedure as everyone else, of any religious or non-religious background. In the same way, the church should not be involved in the government sanctioned union process.

If a gay couple wants to marry and a church want to allow it, fine. That will be by religious definition a marriage, and I do not now nor will I ever oppose this. The government has no business sanctioning or disallowing this religious ceremony. If another church refuses to perform the same ceremony for other people, fine. The government should stay the hell out of it.

If the government wants to create a status similar to marriage and recognize it legally, fine. The church has no business interfering with the affairs of government. If the government wants to come up with a nifty legal name for that, fine, just don't call it marriage, as marriage should be a religious ceremony. The church should stay the hell out of it.

I think that government and religion need to be well separated, for the well being of both institutions. No individual or group of individuals is going to profit in the long run by inviting government interference into private affairs.

PS--I wrote this because I promised a blog yesterday and didn't deliver. It may not be up to my usual standards, and I apologize, but I had to get something out there. I may edit later, but for now I just needed to get something out there to try and salvage my credibility. Hope you enjoy...