The argument against Gay Marriage, and for GLBT equality under the law (really!)

A few months back, I wrote a piece about how to reduce abortions, including strengthening adoption funding and birth control in the US.  Basically, what I said was that no one really likes abortions, no one celebrates them, and no one wants them to happen in record numbers.  Making them illegal won’t work, and but making them safe, legal, and cheap isn’t a great option at preventing them, either.  I wasn’t really looking at abortion from the moral perspective, just as an issue that we’d all like to reduce the instances in which it occurs.  Well, now it’s time for round two, only this time, with Gay Marriage.

I’m about to make two seemingly contradictory statements, and then I’m going to show how they don’t have to be contradictory.  One is, on its face, wildly socially conservative, and one is wildly socially liberal, and I believe them both:

1. I believe that gay and lesbian people should have the exact same rights as heterosexual people, including with regard to benefits for uniting in love in the eyes of the Government.
2. I don’t think that the government should recognize Gay Marriage.

 Everyone ready? You may now begin to freak out.

Now, settle down. I’m going to bury the lead here, and say that I don’t think the government should recognize ANY marriage.  We don’t have a problem of morals here in this country.  I understand that the religious right would say that we should be upholding our Christian tradition, and that we are founded on strong Christian principles.  I don’t believe that for a second – Christianity is 2013 years old, give or take.  Society wasn’t the Thunderdome in the thousands… millions… whichever you believe… prior to Christ being born. We would’ve come across the common principles of don’t kill me, and I won’t take your shit sooner or later, which, by the way, are the only two of the ten commandments which are ACTUALLY illegal in our country. Societies that existed outside the realm of Judaism weren’t barren wastelands of roving marauders raping and pillaging at the drop of a hat, though, it’s hard to know what Boston would’ve done back then.  That place is like Springfield on the Simpsons. They’ll riot over anything, and that’s a FACT.  But that’s neither here nor there.

Additionally, even if we are descended from the Judeo-Christian tradition, we have a separation of church and state in the Constitution.  Don’t do a word search for “separation of Church and State” in a text version of the Constitution.  It’s not there.  But, just because it doesn’t say “Wherein we, the acclaimed whore-mongers and syphilitic slave owners who shall cast forth the laws of this nation, recognize that there mayhaps be, at some ill-begotten time, an existence of filthy Jews and swarthy Muslims; we do in good faith place an impermeable barrier separating our fair federal state and any subordinate states of the union from any church or place of worship, formal, informal, large, small, recognized, or not,” doesn’t mean it’s not there, in other words.  The official text that is recognized as the separation of Church and State has been there since the beginning.  Well, almost the beginning.  The Bill of Rights, which wasn’t there in the beginning, but they added in right away.  The first lines of the 1^st Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof[.]” The period is added for my purposes.  After “thereof” it gets in to talking about freedom of speech, the press, the right to peaceably assemble, and petitioning the government for a redress of grievances, the latter of which sounds an awful lot like a Festivus celebratory event.

The Supreme Court has ruled (Wallace v. Jaffree, 1985 and Edwards v. Aguillard, 1987) that laws made for religious purposes are by nature unconstitutional.  As an example, after the Warren Court ruled it was unconstitutional for the state to compose a prayer for students to say in school (Engel v. Vitale, 1962), one might decide, well, we’ll have a “moment of silence for students to pray, and make it a law for public schools to implement this moment of silence.  Students can pray, or they can choose not to pray.”  Unconstitutional, says the Supreme Court.  The rationale that the purpose is for students to pray if they choose is still state sponsorship of religion, and in violation of the Establishment Clause of the 1^st Amendment.  Instead, if you want a law that says, “All public schools must implement a moment of silent reflection,” you may do so.  Nowhere is the intent (though it is probably in your mind…) for students to pray.  Rather, it is for students to reflect.  This is semantics, but it is important for the purposes of my two seemingly dichotomous statements seven hundred words ago (sorry, I’m a blowhard.) Making something illegal because it is deemed immoral by a religious institution is by definition unconstitutional.

What does all of this have to do with gay marriage?  Well, it comes right back to semantics.  Marriage, as an institution, has existed for longer than the United States has existed.  It was the reason for the creation of the Anglican Church – Henry the Somethingth (Note: It was Henry the VIII, you dullard) wanted to divorce.  The Pope said no.  Henry said, “eff this noise, England is a country, and now Anglicanism is a religion, and I’m the head of it.  Other than God.  Props, big guy!”  At this point, he poured out a cask of Brandywyne and kissed his index and middle fingers, thrusting them skyward like Sammy Sosa after a dinger. McGwire was there to hug him as he went in for high fives. There are entire tapestries devoted to this moment in history in England.  Google it if you don’t believe me (don’t Google it.  It’s a colossal waste of your time, and fully untrue.) Marriage is not an American institution, it is a religious institution.  By recognizing “MARRIAGE” as something that the state grants, the United States has made laws that respect the establishment of Religion.  Marriage is unconstitutional, other than the fact that we have a bunch of laws that talk about marriage.

We also have civil unions.  For you granola types, and people who want to do skydiving weddings or scuba weddings, or whatever kind of weddings you want, we have this thing which says “We love each other or want tax breaks, but we don’t want God involved.”  Several state governments around these United States say “Hey, awesome!”  The Federal Government, however, does not recognize civil unions as civil unions.  They recognize civil unions as marriages.  Everything is all the same in the eyes of the Federal Government.  That’s the right idea, only it gets it completely backward.  The Federal Government just takes its cues from the State Government as to what is a marriage and what isn’t.  Instead, the Federal Government should apply some filter to unions.

The problem with recognizing everything as a Marriage is that those who do not support gay marriage do not appreciate the term “Marriage” being utilized to describe something they do not support, and it’s not the kind of “do not appreciate” that is “I don’t appreciate it when you leave your shoes by the closet door for me to trip over when I’m going for my hoodie to run out and buy you milk because you’re halfway through making a cake for work and I don’t even get to have any of it, and I’m pretty sure it was you who had cereal each of the last three days, and, oh, by the way, I’m partially lactose intolerant, so I don’t think I was drinking this milk, but whatever, I’m going, and I’m going to buy some Sprees at the store, and eat all the red ones before I get home” kind of lack of appreciation.  It’s the “make a damn law about it” kind.  It’s called the Defense of Marriage Act.  You see, back in the early 2000s, President Evil McEvilson, George W. Bush, and his Gay Hating Vice President Richard Cheney decided to really hose Gay People and… KIDDING!  It was enacted in 1996, under the Clinton Administration. It was a Republican controlled House and Senate, and they slammed it through, forcing Clinton to veto the Legislation promptly sign it into law without question.  And all of the DOMA posturing during W’s time in office was about a Constitutional Amendment to prevent Gay Marriage.  Also, Dick Cheney is pro-gay marriage.  His daughter is gay.  Let’s not shit all over the Republicans for things the Democrats did. (Yes, a conservative authored the law, but the Democrats voted in favor of it, too. Credit where it’s due.)

What to do, then?  How do we stop this cycle of idiocy where we say “Gay marriage should be legal!” and respond with “I don’t support same sex marriage, because it is not God’s will!”  Well, we stop calling marriages “marriages” at the Federal level.  Like I said, its semantics, but it’s important.  In the eyes of the Government, on the state and Federal level, the rule should be this:

“All marriages are civil unions. All civil unions are not marriages.”

Marriage is a religious institution.  Civil Unions are a secular institution.  Religious institutions should define marriage as they see fit.  If the Episcopal Church, or the Lutheran Church, or the Presbyterian Church wants to define marriage as one man and one woman, so be it.  The Federal Government should have no say in what they do – its’ the free exercise clause of the 1^st Amendment.  Similarly, the religious institutions should have no say as to how their marriages are viewed by the Government, so long as they are recognized for the purposes of the benefits that our government provides for married couples.  That is the establishment clause of the first amendment.

What are the possible repercussions of such a law?  Well, everyone will freak out that they are no longer “married” but are, in fact, civilly united.  Except, it doesn’t matter what the government calls it, it stays exactly the same.  It matters what your church calls it.  Libertarians will not like recognizing (and don’t like that the Government currently recognizes) marriage or civil unions.  It’s not the role of Government to do so.  That’s sort of already where we are.  Some people like the Government recognizing their union or marriage.  People who do not believe that Gays and Lesbians should be equal will be upset that, should they have a civil union or marriage, it is viewed exactly the same as their marriage.  Unfortunately, our government does not allow for exclusion based on something that is not illegal (being gay, which isn’t illegal, says Lawrence v. Texas, 2003.)

So, why does this piss everyone off?  Well, it probably pisses off conservatives more than liberals.  The more inflammatory part for liberals was the part where I said “Government Shouldn’t Recognize Gay Marriage,” but that was more of an incendiary statement designed to angry up the blood.  But, this isn’t just a “get over it, conservatives.  Gay Marriage is a thing, and it needs to happen” kind of argument.  We have laws that protect against discrimination, and we have laws that protect against the Government respecting laws made for religious purposes. We also have laws that protect against state imposition on religious institutions.  This allows religious institutions far more control over the definition of marriage in their own communities, respect from the government when they report a marriage to the government for recognition of the benefits and rights granted, and recognition for law abiding citizens who are exercising their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happyness happiness.