NJ Marriage Equality Part 3: The End of Marriage

This is the third article of a three-part series on gay marriage in New Jersey.

Part 1 gave a broad overview of the state of civil unions and gay marriage in the Garden State. Part 2 focused on polling data, public opinion, and the language used in the gay marriage debate. [In a completely unrelated development, PolitiFact NJ did some research on polling as well, featured in today's Star Ledger. It also published more on Chris Christie's stance.]

Those who have attended Christian wedding services have probably heard the following verse from Saint Paul's first letter to the Corinthians:

Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things...

...And now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love.
(1 Corinthians 13:4-7, 13)

Is it not wonderful to hear these words and know that God has sanctioned this marriage - that matrimonial love is the outgrowth of a communal and divine love shared by all Christians? Here, within Christianity, love is safe and distinct and clearly exists only between a man and a woman, for Paul rails heartily against homosexuality in Romans 1:26-27!

Yes, truly this is a blessed union, in which male and female unite and female is subordinated to male! Paul reminds us later in First Corinthians:

As in all the churches of the saints, women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.
(1 Corinthians 14:33-35)

Oh.

Wait a minute. We don't agree with that at all, do we? Hmmm.

The great question: What do we believe? What do we choose to accept among competing scriptural messages?

This is no place for politics.

Ah, but as Noah Feldman points out in Divided by God, the systems are so intertwined! Marriage as recognized by the United States government grew out of the Puritans! They didn't want English clergy performing this...sacrament...so they passed a law that made it illegal for anyone but magistrates to perform marriages. In one fell swoop England and religion were removed from marriage! But people clung to the idea of the "holy." This was a sacred union - commissioned by the government no less!

Marriage serves a very important societal function today. Liberals argue that it confers tax benefits and is essential for the moral practice of such processes as end-of-life care, in which one partner would be best suited to make decisions about the life, well-being, and property of the other. The Religious Right, on the other hand, argues that marriage is a contract between a man, a woman, and God. It's a zero-sum game. If one side wins, the other side loses.

And so I propose a non-zero-sum solution: the abolition of marriage as a governmental institution. Marriage grew out of religion, it's true, but partnership, especially in parenting, is largely perceived as serving a beneficial social function. Therefor marriage should function in the domain - once again - of religion only. Here the Religious Right wins. BUT, in order to provide the benefits promised by a liberal society - those that ensure that the dying are cared for, and that people are rewarded for just behavior - there should still be an institution that mimics marriage. Therefore I propose...

CIVIL UNIONS FOR ALL!

The governmental contract of marriage should be replaced by civil unions, which will remove any semantic confusion about the intermixing of religion and politics on this issue. The term "marriage" muddies the larger question of equal rights - rights supported by a majority of Americans. My proposal does away with that confusion entirely. Homo- and heterosexual partners in civil unions will receive benefits and responsibilities at the state and national level of government. Marriage will recede to its religious roots.

At this point, the Religious Right may grumble something about the government promoting the immoral gay lifestyle, but in fact such legislation would be very beneficial to a moral society, argues David Brooks. The true conservative policy would be to get people to settle down and adhere to societal norms. What better way than to force them into a contractual relationship that would steer them toward the status quo of togetherness!? [Not that heterosexual marriage is doing that well. The divorce rate of the United States is half that of the marriage rate. That means that for every two married people, there is one divorced person!]

Now, there is a slight problem with this. Many religious organizations maintain a special protection to practice discrimination. The Supreme Court in fact recently established a "ministerial exception" to allow churches to hire and fire who they please for certain positions. And while people may argue for changes in the Catholic Church, they aren't doing it through the courts. The separation of church and state in the U.S. is a positive right for religious organizations with a number of legal exemptions.

Religious organizations enjoy a large degree of autonomy, and I don't think this should change. In America, "religion" functions as a marketplace that allows believers to choose a religious "brand." The Pew Research Center reports that 28% of Americans have changed religion from the one they grew up in. Counting shifts in Protestant denominations brings that statistic up to 44%. Some churches already preach a discriminatory message. If you don't like that, you are free to move.

It becomes complex here because believers may discriminate en masse through a religious organization, but may not discriminate as individuals. A wedding photographer (or "civil union photographer" if my idea catches on) may not refuse providing services to gay couples. However, the pastor of the church that the photographer belongs to may refuse to officiate a service for this couple. This brings up an entire new complex of issues, but my instinct now is that as long as religious organizations do not infringe on the rights of others, their actions are legitimate. The very principle of religion's insulation from politics is what allows this somehow-sanctioned discrimination.

Religion speaks to that which they eye does not see and the ear does not hear. It may have ideas to offer to politics, but particular faiths should not bear a great influence in an increasingly pluralistic society. Let us maintain our values - the popular supports for equal rights of all couples - by shifting the way we think about the issue.

[Given the irrational nature of political discourse, I have no faith whatsoever that my proposal would be seriously considered, but I hope I have offered at least a thought-provoking argument. And so, thoughts?]