“Marriage” and the Law
When it comes to same-sex marriage, individual opinions on the issue are often predetermined by personal beliefs, morals, and yes, even religion. But the issue is not so much a moral or religious one, as much as it is a legal one. Nevertheless, I am going preface this post by stating that I am in favor of same-sex unions having the same rights as heterosexual ones.
I use the term “unions,” because I believe the term “marriage” has no place in our legal or political systems. Marriage is in fact a religious term, which explains why religious communities are so often less receptive to the phrase being applied to non-heterosexual couple.
It’s not prejudice, it’s logic. Marriage is defined by Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (I will focus on these three religions since they make up the majority of the American populace) as a covenant (or agreement) before God between a man and a woman, declared during a wedding or other public ceremony in the presence of some sort of representative of God (i.e., a preacher), and then consummated as the final step (Source: Definition of Marriage: What Does the Bible Say?). Though there is some debate about the order, the actual ceremony, and the role of consummation, these elements are the same across all three religions, and the concept of only a heterosexual marriage is uncontested. So of course, many religious people take offense to that term being applied to other unions that do not fit those sacred characteristics. Which begs the question: Why is this religious term in our secular government?
The legal definition of marriage in the United States is:
The legal status, condition, or relationship that results from a contract by which one man and one woman, who have the capacity to enter into such an agreement, mutually promise to live together in the relationship of Husband and Wife in law for life, or until the legal termination of the relationship.(Source: Mariage: Legal Definition)
What’s more, with this official term comes official responsibilities and rights. Rights that range from the ability to care for a child, to family visitation rights in hospitals, to qualifications for insurance carriers. And in order for the LGBTA community to have access to those rights, the legal definition of marriage must somehow be made to apply to them. Consequently this group has been pushing, protest by protest and state by state to change the legal definition of this term.
However, I believe that this term has no place in the law and should be replaced entirely by the term “union.” Because though the legal definition of marriage does not speak of a contract in the eyes of God, or even about the role of consummation, it still stems from a religious concept. This being said, I also believe that the term “union,” if it ever does replace “marriage,” should not specify the two parties as male and female, allowing the LGBTA community the same rights as heterosexuals.
You bring up a valid and interesting point that marriage is an inherently religious term and should not be used at all in our government, and I couldn’t agree more. I believe firmly in the separation of church in state, and I believe that one can not base a law solely off a religious basis. It is unconstitutional and just doesn’t make sense. People who believe that same sex marriage is wrong have the right to do so, and I think that if a certain church does not want to allow same sex couples to marry within that church, they reserve the right to do so. However, under the law, the government has no grounds on which to discriminate against people on the basis of sexual preference. It comes down to a matter of equal protection under the law – something that is already supposed to be guaranteed to all Americans, but is sadly continuing to be ignored.