Not The End Of The World
By Mitch Berg
New Jersey legislators legalize Civil Unions.
Personally, I don’t oppose civil unions; it’s a contract between two people that has conditions that need to be met, and (in theory) penalties for breaking. The courts, I think, are right; there’s no secular, legal reason to bar people from having them in accordance with other laws. (The “Now a guy can have a contract with a Badger and a Moose” doesn’t hold up; relationships between gays and lesbians are legal; humans, badgers, moose and other fauna are not. If you see a need to prevent them, by all means organize. I’m not especially worried).
Of course, the reasoning of some on both sides irritates me:
“Love counts,” Democratic Assemblyman Wilfredo Caraballo, a chief sponsor of the bill, said as the debate opened. “The gender of whom one loves should not matter to the state.”
Yeah, true as far as it goes, but could we drop the “Love Counts” BS? Marriage isn’t about love, and either are civil unions. Oh, one had best love one’s partner, to be sure – but marriage (and surrogate ideas) are about much more than just “loving someone”.
So Mr. Caraballo’s bit about the “gender of whom one loves should not matter to the state” is true only in the sense that love is irrelevant. Marriage and civil unions, to the state, are about obligation, duty, penalties and conditions.
Nothing more.
Love’s got nothing to do with it.
But Republican Assemblyman Ronald S. Dancer said: “It’s my personal belief, faith and religious practice that marriage has been defined in the Bible. And this is one time that I cannot compromise my personal beliefs and faiths.”
Except that the Bible has little to say about contracts.
The social conservative argument is that “civil unions open the way for gay marriage!”. Perhaps that’s true – and I oppose gay marriage – but that is our problem.
Gay marriage, like abortion, should be the job of the states to decide. If you want to hold the line agains gay marriage (or, for that matter, civil unions), then get organized – because your opponents certainly are. And in politics, victory generally goes to those who show up.
For my part? Since civil unions are purely secular, and subject to secular laws, and there’s no secular reason to deny gays the right to contract with each other (assuming homosexuality is legal), then I can accept civil unions – and then draw my line in the sand, and top it with barbed wire. Marriage is not a civil, secular observance. It is a religious exercise. And I challenge anyone to find any religion that justifies gay marriage on religious grounds (real religions, not McFaiths like the Unitarians). And it may be that you can find such a faith; it’s a lock that I will neither marry nor worship there.
Gay rights advocates welcomed the legislation as a step forward but said they would continue to push for the right to marry.
Er, yeah. Expect pushback.
December 15th, 2006 at 11:07 am
This was something you and Ed discussed last Saturday on the NARN. I said just the other day that it was the most reasonable and comprehensive dissertation on gay marriage/civil unions that I have ever heard.
This post serves as an effective recap of last Saturday’s segment.
Thanks!
December 15th, 2006 at 11:56 am
The NJ legislature passed it’s civil union law only under orders from the court. It’s a fig leaf of democracy over the obscenity of judicial tyranny.
“Except that the Bible has little to say about contracts.”
But the bible itself is a contract. Some fundamentalist Christians believe that it clearly obliges the state to reinforce its teachings, and that the consequences of doing otherwise will result in tragedy for the nation. They are justifiably angered when the courts override a popular consensus on a moral issue.
December 15th, 2006 at 12:01 pm
Are there some Unitarians who essentially accept anything? Maybe so, but that’s probably true of Presbyrterians, Methodists, Episcopals, and Catholics, to say nothing of liberal Lutherans.
Very true. And that’s a whole ‘nother post. In fact, it’s something I’ve posted on in the past.
Not wanting to start an argument, on the whole, your post is excellent.
Thanks.
December 15th, 2006 at 12:08 pm
But the bible itself is a contract. Some fundamentalist Christians believe that it clearly obliges the state to reinforce its teachings, and that the consequences of doing otherwise will result in tragedy for the nation.
True, but the US – even though founded on Judochristian principles – has no state religion. The Bible is a contract, and one that binds its believers. And it’s a democracy; believers (of all political stripes) are as entitled to work to affect national policy as infidels. As indeed they always have throughout US history (the revolution, emancipation, welfare, civil rights – all were driven fundamentally by religious figures long before the rest of the nation). But at the end of the day it’s our civil laws that bind the government.
They are justifiably angered when the courts override a popular consensus on a moral issue.
Yep. And if I’ve learned one thing about the law in the past ten years, it’s that generally doesn’t spring from nowhere. So those in Jersey that support civil unions need to get out and get organized and change the law into something that passes judicial muster – and those who support it, likewise, need to do the same.
December 15th, 2006 at 2:31 pm
Wow. jbauer and Mitch on the same side of an issue. Dunno about anyone else, but to me, that’s an indication that maybe its the correct side! (Especially, of course, since I share fundamentally the same opinion.)
Here’s a question though, if the state is fundamentally concerned with the civil contract that lays out rights and responsibilities between two consenting adults while Marriage is fundamentally an oath, witnessed and supported by a community of faith, between two consenting adults, why not defend Marriage by getting the state completely out of it?
Why not keep the marriage (religious) and the civil contract (state) separate? Of course, most communities of faith are going to develop standardized civil contracts that best support their form of marriage but if someone outside their community of faith chooses to use the same contract, it doesn’t mean that they’re married in that faith – it just means they have the same rights.
Its a pretty relevant question to me right now as I am engaged to be married but am a strong believer in equal civil rights for gay couples and straight couples. My fiance and I have pretty much decided that we’re not going to take the state’s “marriage contract” but instead limit ourselves to whatever legal options are available to any couple of any gender and orientation.
I’ve put up with physical assaults from homophobes (my sexual orientation isn’t their business). I wouldn’t go into a restaurant that only served straight people ( Imagine the gay-dar that Maitre De would have to have!). I don’t see that this is any different.
As far as I’m concerned, its up to the Catholics to say who can be married as a Catholic. Its up to the Methodists to say who can be married as a Methodist. Its up to the Presbyterians to say who can be married as a Presbyterians. The athiests can define whatever they want as a marriage. The state can just keep their nose out of it and stick with providing and enforcing civil contracts between those who want them.
But the bible itself is a contract. Some fundamentalist Christians believe that it clearly obliges the state to reinforce its teachings
To the best of my knowledge, I am not descended from the tribes of Israel. I have not been confirmed to any Christian church. It is not a contract I am bound by.
As an American, I am bound by the Constitution. As an American, I am free to choose to be bound by the Bible or not. There’s a lot of what the Bible has to say that I find myself choosing to agree with, but I am under no obligation to follow the Book to the letter. The Constitution agrees with me.
I sympathize with those who are of a denomination of faith that believes that the government should enforce their faith. It must chafe to live in a country that is built on different principles. We can all take comfort, however, that in not enforcing the beliefs of one faith, we will not be forced to follow the rules of another faith. I think the vast majority of us are truly grateful that we are not bound by sharia law. For that matter, I think many of us are probably pretty grateful that we aren’t bound by the laws of the Vatican or the CoE during some of their more ascendant periods.
A nation built entirely of people of one faith and one culture would likely be far more pleasant and beneficent for its citizens, but I don’t know that such a nation has ever truly existed. In any case, I’m truly grateful to live in a nation where I have freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of choice, and freedom of religion.
Every time I think about it, the more deeply astounded I am at the audacity, courage, and foresight of our founding fathers.
December 15th, 2006 at 5:52 pm
Marriage is not a civil, secular observance. It is a religious exercise.
So atheists can’t get married? My vows were to my wife. No deity was needed.
December 15th, 2006 at 5:59 pm
I can’t get through to you on the usual email????????? your voicemail is full
December 15th, 2006 at 7:07 pm
So atheists can’t get married? My vows were to my wife.
And you did those vows where?
The question’s not a snark. I’m curious. Where and with whom did you do the marriage ceremony?
My married atheist friends largely did theirs at the J o’ da P – which is basically a contract-signing ceremony.
So if you were married at a JoP, you basically signed a contract that is legally subject to the terms of your state – including the bit about “marriage” being defined as one dude and one chick and no more or less than one of each.
No deity was needed.
Yet.
December 15th, 2006 at 7:09 pm
Phaedrus-
You ask:
Which another way of asking if the state has a legitimate interest in regulating the institution of marriage. There are interesting arguments on either side, I think that in the end this must be a question decided by a democratic process.
You quote me:
And respond:
I was not endorsing this view, but I think it is as legitimate as socialist or libertarian views on the best way to run the country. We’re all bound by the laws of the United States, whether we agree with them or not.
December 15th, 2006 at 8:00 pm
So atheists can’t get married? My vows were to my wife.
I wish people could realize that there are two different things at play here. They’re related but separate.
On the personal/spiritual side, there is the marriage vow. What exactly that means are between you and your partner. It may very well involve your faith.
On the civic side, there is a legal contract. It is designed to support the vow you made, but it is a different thing and it is the only part in which the state really gets a say.
Let me take a big leap away from my normal “leftist” seat: If your religion believes that there are roles that the man and woman must respectively play in a marriage, you very well may take vows to that effect. Up to this point, the state doesn’t care. However, if you sign a civil contract that affirms those roles, then the state DOES care and those roles are enforceable (or you or your partner is in breach of contract). Of course, if you’re an enlightened liberal, you would never take vows or sign contracts to that effect, but shouldn’t that option be available to those who wish to enter into that sort of contract?
Contract = State
Marriage = vow/oath/affirmation in whatever framework matters to you.
They should not be one and the same. The state has overextended itself as it is wont to do.
phaedrus for Emperer. I’ll fix all of it.
December 15th, 2006 at 11:15 pm
Herin lies the “difficulty” whith turning gay marriage or civil unions into a “states rights” issue; If my smokin’ hot wife and I married in, say… Alaska, we are then married in every state of the union, and.. I think, any country as well. But if some smokin’ hot dude and I get a Massachusets “Go-to-it-fellas” marriage or civil union or whatever, it will not be recognized (necessarily!) by other states or nations.
For the record, I’m staying on the smokin’ hot wife side of things… Straight as an arrow, this fella… Never even look at guys! Honest!…
December 17th, 2006 at 12:38 am
Basically agree, but…
Marriage…love: splitting hairs.
Bible…contracts: They were called covenants. The ones with Moses and Noah are the most famous examples. (c.f. “The world’s first memo”).