Much of the debate over same-sex marriage centers around the question of whether or not the issue is one of same-sex couples receiving the full rights and benefits of citizenship, or is an affront to the “sanctity” of marriage. Activists for gay marriage argue that their relationships are not fully protected without legal recognition. This line of reasoning has gained some traction over the past decade, as about a half dozen states have legalized same-sex marriage, and some others recognize such marriages performed in other states.
Fundamental Issue of Same-Sex Marriage
By M. C. Wood
FEBRUARY/MARCH 2010 CONDUCIVE
For those who agree that same-sex couples should be guaranteed legal protection and rights, but oppose granting those same couples that status of a legal marriage, there has been the compromise of civil unions. The distinction between the two is significant. It typically reflects the religious discomfort many feel over the idea of gay marriage. These folks face a serious problem in that their position reveals their inability to divest legal marriage from its religious roots.
The fundamental dilemma for the same-sex marriage debate is one of conflict between church and state. It’s a conflict most Americans aren’t willing to face head-on, but this issue forces us to realize how much American society relies on religious belief as a basis for civil law.
Whether they are religious or not, Americans have historically taken the religious concept of marriage — one man and one woman — as a natural part of life’s course. This attitude also reveals how utterly embedded the religious practice is in our culture — so embedded, in fact, that the religious practice has been codified in civil law. Massachusetts, Iowa, Connecticut, and Vermont, recognize that, legally at least, there is a separation between religion and law. The District of Columbia and New York now recognize the legality of same-sex couples wed outside the district or state. This means that, even if the concept of marriage in the U.S. has religious origins, it does not have to follow particular religious dictates.
Any attempt to ban same-sex marriage as a way to “preserve the sanctity of marriage” betrays ingrained ideas about the institution as fundamentally religious. As such, it should not be a matter of legality. Instead of arguing about whether or not same-sex marriage should be legal, there should be a debate on whether or not any American’s civil rights ought to be circumscribed by religious belief. We spend so much time decrying theocratic rule in other countries, but what else is the outcry over granting rights and protections to every American regardless of race, gender, disability, or sexual orientation? Some may claim that the issue is a moral one, but they often conflate religion and morality where the two need not be treated the same.
Even if the anti-gay-marriage group is right to decry same-sex marriage as harmful to the institution, we may already be on our way toward its end — or at the very least a revaluation of its value in its current form. After all, there is certainly a correlation between the emancipation of women within the institution, such as the right to own property and accuse her husband of rape, and the divorce rates we see today. Nevertheless, changes in the concept do not necessitate the dissolution of the institution or society itself, as some maintain.
If nothing else, this issue forces us to think of the foundations of our ideas, beliefs, and practices. If we don’t do that, then we become a calcified citizenry, and that, to be sure, would prove far more harmful to American democracy than the thought of same-sex marriage.
Mia Wood is an Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Pierce College in Woodland Hills, CA. She teaches introductory courses such as critical thinking and writing, logic, ethics, moral issues, and topics in the history of philosophy. Mia is also completing a draft of her dissertation (“The Standpoint of Critique: The Epistemological Significance of Metaphor in Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason”) for her Ph.D. at the University of South Carolina. She holds an M.A. from the same institution. Her main non-academic research interest is in the intersection of philosophical analysis and contemporary issues, such as same-sex marriage, economic virtue, and the death penalty.
Mia lives in Los Angeles with her partner, Nathan Lowe, an audio specialist and voice actor, and their three cats and two dogs.
Copyright ©2009 Conducive. All rights reserved. Do not reproduce without permission from CONDUCIVEMAG.COM
