- It's an issue people can get very ugly about, and while I enjoy a good political debate, virulent hatred makes me uncomfortable.
- I don't live in California anymore.
This article in the San Francisco Chronicle changed my mind (since I don't visit their website regularly, it took me awhile to see the article, published last Friday) - on #2 because as a state Supreme Court case, the decision on Proposition 8 will create precedent and thus its impact will extend more concretely beyond California's borders, and on #1 because some things are too important to avoid just because it's more comfortable to do so. So I'm climbing up on my soapbox.
Unsurprisingly, given where I grew up, this is an issue I've been aware of since middle school, and on which my personal opinion has evolved over the years. I started out, at 12 or 13, hesitant to have an opinion, in the "I'm not a member of the LGBT community, can't I just stay out of this?" vein. Then, briefly, and I felt guilty about it even at the time, I thought civil unions were the way to go: "Marriage is a religious institution, after all, and aren't a lot of religions at odds with being gay?" After that, I threw up my hands and went back to not knowing what to think, although I was 100% sure that the LGBT community (and let me emphasize the T part of that acronym, because it's a subsection of the community that's overlooked appallingly often) should have the same rights as married couples - in regard to taxes, next-of-kin, custody, etc. - regardless of what a formal union was called.
That last part has become the focus of my opinion as it stands today: equal rights are a necessity. Not only for the LGBT community, but for our society, which continues to find things to divide itself over rather than focusing on the fact that we're all people, we're all Americans and if we'd just accept that human beings don't come from cookie cutter molds and move past that to see the similarities beneath the surface, most of us would probably get along pretty well.
Personally, I don't think the government should be involved in marriage at all. Marriage is a religious institution, and who religious leaders marry should be a decision of individual religious communities, whether their faith tradition chooses to make such a decision on a global level, a local one or on a case-by-case basis. As far as the government is concerned, whether or not people are married shouldn't matter - whether or not they're committed to one another for the purposes of our society should.
So really, a civil union is all the government should be granting or getting involved with, and any two people who want to commit their lives to one another should be able to enter into one, in my opinion. No restrictions other than basic ones such as age and familial relationship (brother and sister...still not such a great idea, sorry!) should even enter into the government's consideration. Our society isn't geared toward single people - in fact, it can make life pretty difficult for them, financially - and if the government focuses on what will make for the most productive society in the long run, as governments are supposed to do, they'll have to recognize that more formally united couples means a more productive, healthier United States.
Leaving the decision about marriage up to individual religious institutions doesn't make the problem go away - there are bitter debates among clergy and lay people within religious traditions and even within individual congregations about the sanctity of marriage and what exactly it means in today's world. (And then there's the question, "What about people who don't adhere to any religion?" I'd say entering into marriage, a union traditionally believed to be blessed by a deity of some kind through the proxy of a religious leader, doesn't make much sense if you don't believe in the deity and you'd probably be more comfortable with a civil union anyway. But maybe that's just me.)
There are religious traditions that flat-out reject the LGBT community, which I think is bigoted and short-sighted (and hypocritical, in Christian traditions, but that's another topic), and which cause a great deal of pain to the LGBT people who were raised in and would like to be adherent to them. And there are religious traditions that welcome everyone with open arms, regardless of their differences from "the norm." That isn't fair to those who don't fit into their faith tradition's mold, but it's also not a battle the government can (or should, at any rate) fight - each tradition needs to evolve in their own time and on their own terms, not when and how they're told to do so by a legislature or a court.
Doesn't religion adhering to the dictates of government about a religious institution breach our freedom of religion? And doesn't a religious institution being adopted by the government interfere with freedom from religion? Both freedoms are written into the Constitution, and shouldn't that be the answer, as far as the government is concerned?
Posts
5 comments:
Right on Jess! I thought I was the only one who had these thoughts!
Thanks Nancy! I was a little nervous about posting this one, so that's an encouraging response.
An easier, pithier summary of my take on the government side of things came to mind when I was talking to a friend about this earlier today: "For the government's purposes, it doesn't matter if Suzie's marrying Seth or Sally. What matters (should matter) to the government is that Suzie and Sally or Suzie and Seth are prepared to commit to each other for the rest of their lives, and as two citizens of the United States, they deserve all the rights of both individual citizens and an American couple." I know this one was a little long, so hopefully that sums up at least part of it!
Brave of you to tackle the subject, and I think that's the kind of bravery that changes the world, Jess, the kind where somebody stands up and says what she thinks even if she's kind of afraid that other people might not like it, but just because she thinks it's right!
Jessalyn, you are right on with your conclusion - let the Constitution decide. Afterall, doesn't that form the basis of our other laws?!?!
On the religious side, I think that's a discussion best left to those adhering to the religion in question and I won't get into it since the issue doesn't apply to me and I have issues with institutionalized religion itself -but that's a different discussion.
Another point on the government side of things, while I do think it's great to have someone that is legally responsible for you, and you for them (at least that's the way I see it), and things such as money, assets, property need to go somewhere if something happens to you (they don't just disappear into a black hole...or do they?), I think our civil society should be governed by laws that are equitable to both single and married people. We have made so much progress in equal rights based on gender (well, at least the commonly recognized male and female, and unfortunately not the T in LGBT as you mentioned) and race, why not marital status as well? Why should a single person have to pay more taxes? Why should a single person feel as though their existence is somehow incomplete just because they have not entered into a legal/social/religious union with another? Why can't a single person fill out the same exact paperwork to designate their next of kin, their power of attorney, etc? I think the rules governing our society should be based on individuals, not unions. And if you get married, then you have to fill out the paperwork twice - once for each of you. How else can we credibly claim we have separation of church and state?
I don't know that it's brave, more just finally speaking up. But thank you, Hope!
And great point(s), Payal! You and I both deal with the difficulties of being single in a couple-oriented society on a daily basis, and I think it's even more noticeable for and frustrating to us given the cost of living (even for a couple) in D.C. When a studio is only a few hundred dollars less per month than a large one bedroom or a small two bedroom apartment, it doesn't seem quite fair.
And it's an interesting point that we don't usually even think of our laws as not being equitable for single people, we usually just accept that it's much easier - legally, financially - to be a couple than an individual, because being a couple is "normal." Great food for thought, thanks!
Post a Comment