The debate over gay marriage often boils down to one question: Is marriage a religious issue or a secular one? In fact, we recently had a letter to the editor to just that effect.
Honestly, I’m surprised we’re still having this debate. A careful examination of the institution of marriage in American society shows us that both answers are valid, but only one is important to the discussion of gay marriage.
Marriage is, of course, a religious institution. It’s an important ceremony in many of this country’s religions. And each of them views it in different ways, with different practices attached. Some religions already support gay marriage, and have for thousands of years.
But let’s restrict ourselves for the moment to Christianity, because it’s the majority religion of this country (and the one most often involved in this debate). Marriage is a vital ceremony in every denomination, a vow taken before God that binds two lives together. Religion is an important — often the most important — aspect of marriage for many couples.
But stopping here would not give us the whole picture. First of all, people of all religions (even — gasp — atheists) are considered equally married under the law. Secondly, the religious ceremony in a church is not required for a couple to be married in this country, but a marriage license is. Third, the government isn’t in the business of regulating or endorsing religious beliefs, but it does regulate who can get married and what benefits it brings. Add it up, and the conclusion is simple: There also is a secular institution called “marriage.”
These two institutions are separate, but equally valid from a cultural standpoint. It is one thing to be married in the eyes of God and one’s church family, another thing entirely to be married in the eyes of the state. Both bring couples different benefits. But a couple married only in the church would not have access to well over a thousand rights available to secularly married couples (and that’s only on the federal level).
This secular marriage is not just a feature of our separation of church and state; it is an important and necessarily secular aspect of our culture.
It’s necessary because of its many benefits. Marriage binds people together, making them accountable to one another. It brings whole families together, creating support structures throughout society. Who takes care of you when you can’t take care of yourself?
Marriage ensures the continuing function of society by allowing fewer individuals to fall through the cracks or onto government aid. And, of course, it creates the foundation and the familial support necessary for raising children. It takes a village, after all. These are just the most obvious of the many benefits of marriage (for a more detailed explanation of this entire argument, read Jonathan Rauch’s “Gay Marriage: Why It’s Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America”).
It’s true these benefits also would arise from a purely religious conception of marriage. But we need a secular marriage, because we need these benefits to apply equally across all religions, and to those without religious beliefs. So important is this institution to secular life, and so necessary the rights it entails, that it must extend outside the religious (especially purely Christian) sphere.
So these institutions are separate, must be separate and are both vital to our society. With this separation in mind, you might ask why we call them both marriage. Wouldn’t changing the name of the secular institution solve the gay marriage debate?
The most obvious point would be an appeal to history. We’ve called them both marriage from the beginning (after all, it’s a “marriage license”), and changing the name now just because gays want to marry would create a “separate but equal” situation. But arguments from tradition are often weak, so I’ll go a little deeper in my logic.
The majority of the benefits of marriage, religious or secular, come from the socially imbued power of the institution. Despite the high divorce rate and celebrity “quickie” marriages, the majority of Americans still view marriage as more binding than the average contract. It has such social cache because we’ve all been subconsciously programmed to view it that way.
So, changing the name would create a second class of citizens who still aren’t able to be “married,” and it would weaken the institution itself. It is necessary that these two institutions continue to share the same name. But it also is necessary for us to understand the difference.
No one wants to tell you who can get married in your church or your religion. But you can’t use those views to keep a tenth of the population from a host of secular rights. There’s no reason why gays shouldn’t be allowed secular marriage, and it’s high time we all realized that.
The Oklahoma Daily is pleased to provide you the opportunity to share your thoughts about this article. We encourage lively debate on the issues of the day, but we ask you refrain from using profanity or other offensive speech, engaging in personal attacks or name-calling, posting advertising, or straying from the topic at hand. To comment, you must be a registered user of OUDaily.com. Thanks for taking the time to offer your thoughts.
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in | Register
matthewmurrayday 2 years ago
I AM NOT GAY, YOU PIGS.
dio 2 years, 1 month ago
@matthewmurrayday
There is a 99.999% probability that you actually are a self-hating gay.
TylerBranson 2 years, 1 month ago
A comment that begins "I agree with Jerry Falwell" is an indication that the subsequent lines are not to be taken seriously or to be given any amount of credibility. @matthewmurrayday would be better suited in Wichita with the Westboro people with such an abhorrent ideology. Might also be gay.
Lansdallius 2 years, 1 month ago
Or a proponent of satire.
TheJeff 2 years, 1 month ago
State marriages are secular privileges granted for those very reasons you stated. In theory, a stable tax base and stable place to raise the next generation. Instead of calling a marriage a "civil right" for all (and often then only trying to get it for one group anyways), they should focus on why this particular group is worthy. I think they could make a much more solid argument for their case. Especially now that everyone has the hospital visitation rights (which ought to be rights to all), the tax privileges (which serve the state a purpose and thats why they give them out in the first place)might need a different and more logical argument. Both for their own sake of getting it, and to keep legal definitions all neat and tidy. Or we could get a flat tax with single, base deduction and not worry about the whole thing. "There’s no reason why gays shouldn’t be allowed secular marriage, and it’s high time we all realized that." That may be true, but a more precise argument is necessary for that final. Can any group of any amount of people get married, or are there still some definitions. For example, there's nothing inherently wrong about me and all my roommates getting married just for the benefits, but it wouldn't really behoove the state to allow for such a broad definition or opening.
This was a very well thought out article.
matthewmurrayday 2 years, 1 month ago
I agree with Jerry Falwell. We have become an immoral nation, and the attacks of 9/11 showed that.
We invited 9/11 because America has tolerated LGBT. We invited the Oklahoma City bombing because of Clinton's policy towards LGBT rights. Every terrorist attack ever committed against America we have deserved. We have stopped standing up for God.
Agree or disagree with me all you want, but I'm using God's policy. It isn't something I made up. As a Christian, I am obligated to tell the truth.
SupremecyofNature 2 years, 1 month ago
Why are governments showing bias towards marriage in the first place? There is nothing inherently just or righteous about mate pairing, nor in having children. To say that marriage is some very selective institution is to ignore history. HUMANS ARE POLYGAMISTS, POLYGYNISTS, and POLYANDRISTS. However, we are also self aware. It’s high time we quit reproducing and imbuing these spittle-covered Ted Haggard-in-the making children with such a sense of self righteousness. The loudest opponent in this argument comes from a historically racist and superstitious group. This group has also produced Glen Beck, therefore I propose a three-fold plan: 1.) Couples seeking marriage license must complete a self-assessment...any hint of the psycho-babble BS about Christ coming from Missouri is an AUTOMATIC DQ and mandates a 10 year penalty before another request can be made.
2.) The secular institution if marriage will allow up to two children before LARGE TAXES are imposed and the parents voting rights thoroughly removed if that number exceeds five children.
3.) Anyone who argues that allowing equal marriage rights will produce marriages between humans and animals, humans and plants, or humans and all of their roommates is to be stripped, shaven, and run through their town until their God says stop.
GraciesDaddy 2 years ago
@mustafa: Let's not bring intellect into this discussion... It's obvious that brains have no place here.
/snark
mustafa 2 years ago
Homosexuals always accuse people they don't like of being queer. No one knows better than they how degrading and insulting that status is. Thus there is more evidence that dio and Tyler Branson are queer. Also to resent being misidentified as queer is homophobic, so unless they are willing to admit they may be queer, then that is further evidence that they are.
Falwell was right that it was the incredible decadence of the USA that offended the tiny minds of the jihadists.
The 1993 March on Washington was suppose to become an annual event. But the highly negative behavior of the participants made it too politically damaging to have even one repeat performance. Among the advocacy groups represented were man-boy love (pedophilia), Sadeo- masochists, and polygamists performing group marriages.
Two years before 911, Hillary Clinton hosted Western-feminist conclave in Cairo, where she rubbed the collective Islamic nose in lesbianism.
dio 2 years ago
@mustafa
Infallible logic. Read yourself:
"Homosexuals always accuse people they don't like of being queer."
One line later:
"Thus there is more evidence that dio and Tyler Branson are queer."
So you are a friend of Dorothy too?
mustafa 2 years ago
"Infallible logic."
It isn't my logic, it is theirs, the twisted logic of the homosexual intelectual argument.