Essay: An Acceptable Compromise on Political Rights and Religious Freedoms on Marriage and Civil Unions
By: Clay

The definition of marriage is, unfortunately, up for grabs these days. Both American presidential candidates have been asked to define marriage. The term itself is in flux, as far as society is concerned. The biggest loss though is not that there is disagreement over marriage, but rather what the American political system guarantees in terms of rights of its citizens.

Nowhere in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, or Bill or Rights is there named a right to marriage. Legally the issue is also unsatisfied. The last hundred years has seen the right of marriage extended to two people of different races. And as much freedom as there might exist for people to choose their own spouse, there is also many restrictions still in effect today (re: incest/inbreeding, multiple spouses, different species). One must obtain a marriage license before the state recognizes a legal union between the two individuals. For all the freedoms and restrictions in place concerning marriage, what does the government actually guarantee as a citizen's right concerning marriage?

The answer is one that will no doubt cause strife in many conservatives and loyal church goers. The government guarantees no right of marriage for any citizen. This is because marriage itself is a religious rite, i.e., ceremony. The marriage ceremony traditionally takes place within a sacred space before a minister who consecrates the union before the deity and in accordance to the individual religion's traditional beliefs. All to recently though there have been challenges to this approach, as more people are exposed different belief systems that challenge their own traditional religious views. Today a second reality has emerged. Marriage ceremonies are held in courthouses just as often as in churches, no doubt to accommodate those people who reject the Christian God or any religious belief altogether.

Acceptance of this second reality is critical for traditionalists to accept. The state does not guarantee a right for a Christian wedding, just as it does not guarantee the right to a Buddhist wedding or an atheist ceremony. The state is dutifully bound to secularism and not encourage or detract from any religious institution. Ministers are also required to be officers of the state before the marriage ceremony performed in the church is seen as a legal union.

This shows what I believe to be obvious to most, yet difficult to accept for more: the only right that the American government provides its citizens is the right for a civil union that will be recognized by the state. The state may have its own requirements and restrictions for what constitutes a civil union (e.g., license, only two individuals of the same species and who are not closely related, requirement of legal responsibilities towards the other individual). The state also holds the right to recognize certain religious rites as ceremonies resulting in a civil union. This is where marriage, as a religious ceremony, is seen as the standard civil union.

What does this clarification mean for the future of the country?

Firstly, that the definition of marriage and who might have a marriage ceremony is confined strictly to a theological level within religion. The state grants the right to civil unions for all types of couples, not the right of specific religious ceremonies. Government cannot mandate that churches perform the marriage ceremony for a homosexual couple, for instance, when that church's doctrine is against homosexual unions. The actual legal right which is granted for homosexual couples is the right of a civil union. This is the exact same right granted for heterosexual couples as well. No rite is ever guaranteed as a legal right in America.

Secondly, this means that different religions should move to accurately define what is the appropriate definition of marriage should be for themselves. Many traditional religions no doubt will wish to keep the standard definition that marriage is between a man and a woman. As well we should not be surprised when some individual groups decide to break with the traditional view and open marriage ceremonies for homosexual couples. My wish would be that dialog between these two groups would take place, instead of an abject rejection of the other point of view. Another right that we have in America is the right to disagree with each other, as long as it is done peacefully. Let us observe this right as we move forward in this conversation.

Thirdly, this means that nomenclature must change for our government. We should not expect to sign a marriage license. Instead the state should switch to standard civil union licenses.

As well we should look forward towards definitions that are religious neutral. The term "partner" has no sacredness to it, and is currently only used in conjunction of homosexual relationships. The term "spouse," however, is religious neutral, and filled with its traditional sacredness that it stands ready to bear the burden of not being confined as a secular term, but not being weighed down with religious doctrine. The terms "husband" and "wife," are laden with gender specific expectations that have not been subjugated to the secular standards that the government requires. In short, while privately one may refer to his/her spouse as "partner," "husband," or "wife," publicly (i.e., legally) the term "spouse" is to be preferred.

Fourthly, the government must move forward to accurately define what responsibilities a civil union brings. While many potential changes are possible, I will provide three examples: tax benefits for spouses who are dependents, bedside rights (i.e., life support decisions), and next of kin requirements for wills and insurance policies. With the new nomenclature in place, it should be easier to specify how these areas of responsibility work for the union.

This plan has very large advantages for both sides. By separating the religious rite from the legal right guaranteed, both religions and the government are pushed to take responsibility for accurately defining their nomenclature. The burden of confusion that comes with muddled definitions will be lifted from American society as a whole. Both institutes will be forced to seriously consider these issues and take appropriate action. We will finally be able to move forward in our thinking and attitudes in unity, instead of fighting a losing battle between opposing ideologies that will never come to agreement.

~Clay

I don't know that this was completely true. I don't care to dig up the quotes, but the abolishment of miscegenation laws (laws that made it illegal for different races to marry) was struck down by courts through recognizing marriage as a basic right for people. In addition, the state does not reserve the right to grant any rights to anybody without granting the rights to everyone similarly situated. Further, there must be a legitimate state interest in creating a dividing live between those who do not get the rights. (I.e, the government may say that a white person is not similarly situated to a black person because they are different races, but the state does not have a legitimate state interest in promoting this division through granting rights only to whites on this basis).
This I'll have to disagree with you on. It's one thing to have a definition for marriage, based on tradition. It's another to codify it into law and grant rights based on that definition, and deny it to others who do not fit that definition.... unless, of course, there is a legitimate state interest in maintaining that division. Promotion of a religious value is not a legitimate state interest, so either nobody must be married by the state (and everyone gets civil unions) or everyone must be allowed to get married by the state. What if I told you many religions would not marry blacks to whites? Would this be okay for the government to then not allow blacks to marry whites, but only to allow them to get a civil union?

Which, through separation of church and state, means the government has no legitimate state interest in upholding.
No church is ever mandated to perform any union between any couple.
True, though as said before, America does guarantee that any right given to one must be given to all who are similarly situated, and that any division must be based on a legitimate state interest. (equal privileges and immunities)
The law is a functional document, not a dictionary, and as such I don't really care what's called what, only so long as it functions correctly.
The easy solution, of course, is just to make it identical to marriage as far as the law is concerned. May religions may carry their own special requirements, but the law does not recognize any of them.

__________________
True knowledge exists in being aware of what you don't know.