Thinking About Commitment

Eleven states did something that none of them needed to do, and that none would ever find benefit from doing: they banned gay marriage.

See, the thing is, what is marriage? At least in terms of the law, what is the purpose of marriage? When people get married, what is it they are doing, and what is the impression to be created for all parties involved?

First, most marriages are a declaration before God, however the two parties involved choose to worship God. I will call God "God," because that is the name my faith provides. Others may call God "Allah," "Yahweh," "Ganesh," or "Stinky." Not my business, and not the government's either.

And that's germane to my next point. As far as the function of marriage within the governmental structure of the law, it is seen as a binding legal agreement between two consenting parties, that carries certain legal obligations, and provides certain legal rights, to each party, upon occurrence of certain events, such as divorce, birth, adoption, and death of one party. It serves to form a union of two individuals, into one legal entity, as a part of civil law. Essentially, in the eyes of the law, all marriages are "civil unions."

Now, some marriages do not involve religious ritual, and are legalized through court action, usually by an officer of the court, like a J. P. In essence, this makes these marriages strictly "civil unions," which is really the legal terminology for any marriage.

So if all marriages are really just civil unions in the eyes of the law, then what audience actually sees, accepts, and assists to declare a "marriage?" The simple explanation is that the religious community present at the ceremony does. And most marriages are conducted within the space of a religious organization, or by an official of some religious denomination. So these declarations to the community and before God (or at least his representative) are the substance of marriage.

So why is it that we can't legally ban gay marriage? Well, we can, but the ban is a religious one, not a civil one. Any religion can define marriage as a covenant only allowable between one man and one woman. There. Gay marriage banned.

But any other religion can declare marriage to be a covenant of commitment to two individuals, regardless of gender, to maintain monogamous relations, unified households, or any other obligations that can be put upon marriages. And that more open religion is just as legitimate for doing so as one that chooses a stricter definition of "marriage." That's because of religious freedom in America, declared in the Constitution.

But the Constitution has another clause, written into the fourteenth amendment, that guarantees "equal protection of the laws." It is written in such a way as to broadly define what it is to be a member of a class of people, and also to guarantee that one class of people shall have all the rights guaranteed to any other class of people. And since civil union provides rights of property, power of attorney, inheritance, and many more to heterosexual couples, it is a strong argument provided in the Constitution that these same rights are also protected and provided to members of the class of people called homosexual.

No one else can force their religion on me, and I cannot force my religion upon them. I cannot deny another the opportunity to practice religion according to their beliefs, nor can they deny me. But the government is not in the beliefs business, so what is provided under law to some, must be available by law to all.

So Constitutionally, the United States is actually already bound to uphold the right of any religious denomination to disallow gay marriage; but is equally bound to protect the rights of any class of people, to form civil unions for the benefits afforded by such partnerships, including gay couples.

And in each case, that is conveniently the way most people like it.