At last

Jaybird says:

This is where the findamental definition of “what marriage is” must be hammered out.

If “marriage” is a covenant between two people, there is no government in the world that could *PREVENT* two people from being married. Heck, that’s the biggest argument that the pro-gay marriage forces have. Look at Uncle Adam and Uncle Steve. They live together, they collect art, they listen to NPR during dinner, they see the movies that NPR recommends, they discuss whether they want the lemongrass/peppermint soap or the lavender soap from Whole Foods, so on and so forth. “This *IS* what marriage *IS*!”, they cry. “Therefore they deserve some amount of legal protections!”

Meanwhile, the “traditional marriage” folks argue that, hey, marriage comes from God, it’s defined, if you disagree with God, that’s your business, it’s our business to go forward with the definition of marriage given us From On High. When you corner one of these “traditional marriage” folks, you can get them to agree that it is, in fact, legal for two dudes to go to their Unitarian Church and have a ceremony (that probably mentions the wickedness of Columbus Day) that the so-called “pastor” calls a marriage and the two dudes can call themselves “married” in casual conversation to anyone who will listen but they still won’t be *really* married because, hey, God doesn’t consider them *really* married. Leviticus 20:13. But, for the record, I don’t think they should be stoned. And so on.

It strikes me that the attitude that “civil unions are creating an underclass of marriage” takes for granted the idea that the “traditional marriage” folks are correct in their definition of marriage insofar as “marriage is defined From On High” (this “On High” being “The State”) rather than something forged between two individuals (or two individuals and “God”).

It seems to me that the argument that gay couples are entitled to civil protections is based quite firmly on exceptionally strong (even moral) ground… but then goes a step too far to copy the worst stupid excesses of the religious definitions of marriage. It’s like they’re saying that the religious folks have the broad strokes right (marriage is defined externally) just they got the particulars wrong (who’s eligible, which “On High” they’re using, etc). It’s like they had this transcendent covenant between two people… and then they want to sully it up with arguments that they want to be more like The Christians.

That said, the heart wants what the heart wants and if gay couples want to have The State use the same words in addition to giving the same protections, saying “you should want something better” is exceptionally presumptuous on my part.

But I still can’t help feeling like a wonderful, transcendant point is being missed.Report

Jaybird says:

“Even if they are identical to one another, they are unequal.”

And we are back to what a marriage is.

I don’t believe that “marriage” can possibly be granted by “The State”. “The State” does not have the competence. All “The State” can do is confer or deny some measure of civil protection. Marriage will be defined one per couple.

The belief that The State can provide it seems to totally miss the point of what a marriage is.

The arguments for why Uncle Adam and Uncle Steve are *already* married cover this. It seems to me that it be far, far more important that equal protection under the law be granted (even if the terminology of the relationship on the piece of paper in the manila folder in that particular drawer of the file cabinet is different) than to have the forms be identical.

(Incidentally, I suspect that the forms will, eventually, be identical… but the quickest way to identical forms will be through a period where the forms are not identical but the legal protections are. Ironically, the request/demand for identical forms will result in a longer period where neither the forms nor the legal protections are identical. On an idealistic level, I support civil unions (for everybody) because marriage doesn’t flow from The State but is something forged between two people… but on a pragmatic level, I support civil unions because I suspect that the fastest way to full equality is through the ghetto of ‘separate but equal’ and, in the short term, it’s more important that the civil protections are granted than that the name on the form is identical to the name of all the other forms in that drawer of the file cabinet.)Report

Jaybird says:

Bob, I am a “bottom up” guy rather than a “top down” guy.

When we say stuff like “marriage is a social good, therefore we should have our governments define and protect and extend priveleges to marriage”, that’s very much a top-down approach.

My take is that a marriage is something forged between two people and The State saying “you folks aren’t really married” has approximately as much weight as when my Catholic in-laws say it. Why? Because my marriage is something that my wife and I have forged together. It was not given us by The State (though we did stand in a (female!) justice of the peace’s office and receive some measure of civil protection because of that particular act).

My marriage is mine. With my wife, it is ours.

And someone saying “well, you guys are really married because The State said you are” misses the point so completely as to be comic.

If you met us, you’d know that we were married even if neither of us wore rings. Why? Because we *ARE* married. Colorado ain’t got nothin’ to do with it.

That is the Transcendent Point.

If someone thinks that they are not “really” married until The State acknowledges it, I suspect that this will be as much an indicator to the weakness of their eventual relationship as whether or not cake goes up the nose at the wedding reception.Report