Civil Disillusion

Patrick Phillips wrote in his blog about a California man who has proposed a ban on divorce. In his post, and in the comments, he talked about the same-sex marriage debate, and “civil unions.”

I wrote the following in response to his post, and I am copying it here because I’ve often written in my blog about the same-sex marriage issue, and much of the content of my comment would be suitable fodder for my blog as well.

As I see it, the problem with the “civil union” concept is not with the legal rights associated with it – the issue is with its perception.

They started doing civil unions for same-sex couples in my native country in Europe a decade or so ago. Essentially the rights were exactly the same as those acquired by a legally wedded straight couple, but there was no church wedding (despite the fact that openly gay priests were everywhere, go figure).

Furthermore, while I had no objection whatsoever to these civil unions, I did not consider them “marriages.” In Finland, heterosexual people also occasionally get married through a “civil union” process, typically if a church wedding is not an option for them. A church wedding is invalidated as an option if one or both of the individuals seeking marriage have resigned from the church, or have not completed Confirmation at all.

A civil union therefore in my mind became just a legal term for a legally – if not socially or culturally – recognized marriage.

Now, granted, in America it’s not the same, as you don’t necessarily have to belong to a church in order to have a church wedding, as I understand it. However I do suggest that while homosexual couples base their claim for equality on legal status, it isn’t really so much about those legal rights as it is about social acceptance. As social acceptance is an abstract concept and hard to gauge, people offer legal standing as the backbone of their appeal.

After all, you can’t legislate public perception. Congress cannot pass a law mandating that all individuals embrace homosexual marriage or lifestyle. A law can be passed, however, to legalize it, so they’re going for what they can get.

It’s just that they don’t want “civil union.”

When women or blacks got the right to vote, what if we had decided to call that something else? What if we decided that to allow a black man to vote was threatening the sanctity of the legislative process – a crazy notion, but bear with me – and that the black vote or the women’s vote should be called “participation” instead.

White men vote. Blacks and women “participate,” or “cast their participation.”

We could argue that essentially it would be the same thing. You get to cast your participation, so what are you complaining about?

But in the eyes of public perception, it would never be a vote. That is discriminatory.

I truly believe that this whole same-sex marriage business is about seeking something that the legislation itself will not provide. That alone, of course, is no reason to deny it, though.

If I may, I’d like to add one more thing, and this is regarding this ban on divorce thing: I don’t agree with the concept. To me it is just as illogical as Proposition 8, and just as illogical as teaching abstinence instead of proper sex education.

There is a significant difference between the legal definition of marriage, and the religious definition of it. Just look at polygamy if you need proof of that. Catholics believe that divorce is a great sin. I personally believe that while it is not immoral, it is certainly an affront to the whole basic concept of marriage.

Many people don’t really place enough stock in marital vows. Certainly, if you are swearing to God in court to tell the truth, then swearing to God to join with another for life should carry the same weight. Yet while we avoid committing perjury at the risk of being found in contempt of court, we habitually ignore the wedding vows as something frivolous and procedural.

The trouble is, the legal definition of marriage is a contract. While infidelity may be illegal, when was the last time anyone was prosecuted for it – and no, Bill Clinton doesn’t count; that wasn’t the charge.

Legally, no one can be forced to marry anyone. Neither should anyone be legally forced to stay married to anyone. (Mind you, I have not read the specifics of the ban on divorce proposal so that may not apply here specifically.)

In a perfect world – one we should aspire toward – the state would not legislate morality. I have no problem with the church disapproving of divorce or strongly recommending against it. In fact, I quite agree.

However, I do not believe for a second that the church has any business using its influence to use the state to regulate its own moral agenda.

It is a tricky definition, because obviously some laws have to exist based not so much on logic as basic human decency; take animal abuse laws for example.

Here is what it comes down to: person X does not approve of homosexuality. Person X’s religion condemns homosexuality. Person X is not a homosexual. Person X’s relationship with God is between him and God. Whether Person Y is a homosexual or married to another homosexual has no bearing on X’s own life. Yet, because Person X believes homosexuality is “bad” in general, he wants the law to make Person Y’s lifestyle illegal. He wants Person Y to become a Person X.

I strongly disagree with it. People have the right to believe in whatever moral values they choose to believe in, but they should not be allowed to use the law to persecute others for not sharing the same values. I think we’re all better off if we push legislators to draft legislation which directly affects our own lives and our own rights, instead of using them to make moral decisions for other people.

Tagged as: church, Gay marriage, Legislation, LGBT, religion, Society