The passing of California Proposition 8 that declares that marriage is only between individuals of opposite sex sharply focuses attention on what is meant by marriage.
Marriage is primarily a religious ceremony. It is a religious acknowledgment that two people have committed themselves to each other and intend to act as a family, and that society should recognize their commitment because they do for each other what otherwise society would need to do. If society substitutes for a single committed individual then the job will be a lot more expensive and will fail a lot more often. Social recognition of marriage is cost-efficient for society.
Most Christian denominations make a distinction about the basis of the commitment between the two people. If the commitment is based on two individuals who are different sex, then it is normal and approved. The birth and rearing of children becomes a reason for social recognition of that commitment. That is in addition to the support the two individuals provide for each other - in sickness and in health. A similar commitment between two individuals of same sex is unusual and appears to outsiders to have no purpose since children cannot result. The individuals involved do not see it that way, and the commitments between same-sex individuals are as strong as those between individuals of different sex.
Businesses, government and religion are social institutions. They are different in how rapidly they accept changes. Businesses change quickly, small businesses more rapidly than large ones because large organizations find it more difficult to change because of their size. Government are even larger, so they change more slowly than most businesses. The institution which changes at the slowest rate is religion. Individuals join religions because they know they will not change, so they are the slowest to do so, even as the facts on the ground change and demand different reactions from individuals and institutions.
Society has changed as nations became more populated and more urban. A major change is the reduction of the number of children in each family. This shifts the relative importance of support between two individuals away from the importance of child-rearing. In addition, governments have increased the support for families with children by providing public education and health care to children. What has not changed is the need for individuals to support each other.
At the same time, it has clearly been shown that homosexuality is something that is only different. It does not threaten society or other families. Nor is it a choice. Homosexual individuals are attracted to other individuals of the same sex because of factors beyond their control.
This is important to society because these individuals who are attracted to each other provide exactly the same support to each other as do a traditional husband and wife. It is cost-effective to society to support such relations. In fact, if such individuals adopt or raise children from prior heterosexual relationships, the resulting families give society the same benefit as do relationships based on heterosexual relations.
Society is slow to recognize such changes. Businesses have reacted most rapidly. Same-sex benefits have become quite common in businesses. Governments have been slower, but they have begun to recognize the social benefits of recognizing and supporting same sex relationships. It is now only the slowest to change institution - religion - that resists accepting same sex relationships.
It is now primarily religious organizations and strongly religious individuals who work to force governments to avoid recognition of same sex relationships. The latest example is the effort by the Mormon church to defeat California proposition 8.
Government needs to act to recognize same sex relationships and offer the normal government benefits to married couples to individuals in committed same sex relationships. A committed relationship is one in which the partners have a ceremony and present themselves to the public - especially each others families - as belonging to each other and eschewing relationships with anyone else.
Religious organizations, being the slowest institution to change, may not recognize such a relationship, but it is government and the individuals themselves who pay the price of replacing the benefits to the individuals of such a recognized relationship. But the problem is not religious recognition of the same-sex relationship. It is the failure of government to recognize the same-sex relationship in inheritance and in the agency between two committed individuals. Why should government recognition of the same-sex relationship be limited to what religions recognize?
European nations and most other nations offer civil marriage, recognized by the government. Individuals become married when the file a marriage certificate. If two individuals want a religious marriage they do that in addition to the civil marriage. The civil marriage brings all the legal government privileges of marriage. The religious marriage provide the religious benefits of marriage, but they are withing the particular denomination.
Why should committed individuals be limited by religion to the religious limitations of marriage? Most civilized nations offer a civil marriage to those who qualify. It in no way detracts from the commitment before God that a religious marriage offers.
If civil marriage were separated from religious marriage, the proposition 8 in California would be meaningless, and society would be overall better off.
A first step in getting to such a situation would include Congress canceling the Defense of Marriage Act. Civil marriages should be recognized across the nation. Religious marriages should be recognized withing the denomination.
That should be obvious. What's to fear in that?
For an example of the problems, see Glenn Greenwald.
No comments:
Post a Comment