Should Marriage Be Redefined?

An essay by Fortune Cookies

The one constant in the definition of marriage is simply the joining of two entities to become a combined unit. In requiring marriage to be contingent upon the parties meeting certain gender specifications, the definition is then changed to suit an agenda.

Should Marriage be Redefined?

Are gays and lesbians asking for marriage to be redefined, or are conservatives calling for a redefinition by adding gender stipulations to its constitutional definition? According to the American Heritage Dictionary, the definition of marriage is varied, and includes the following:

1. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
   
2. The state of being married; wedlock.
   
3. A union between two persons: same-sex marriage.
   
4. A close union: "the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comics" (Lloyd Rose).
   

(American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 2000)
Clearly, this dictionary does not stipulate that marriage is only applicable when the two parties are of opposite gender. Dictionaries will vary in their definitions as will personal interpretations. However, the one inference that repeats is "to unite in a close, usually permanent way. " (Webster's Dictionary, 2008, American Heritage Dictionary, 2000, Oxford Online Dictionary, 2008) Therefore, the most logical conclusion to reach is that people who demand a constitutional amendment to define marriage as "one man and one woman," are redefining the word for everyone.

There are many arguments against gay marriage. Here, we will discuss the most prevalent and popular claims against marriage for same sex couples and examine the fallacies behind them. The primary call to action against same sex marriage is the proposition that marriage should be defined as "one man, one woman." Does justice not demand that if the straight community can not show a compelling reason to deny
the institution of marriage to gay people, it should not be denied? (Eskridge, 1996) Such nebulous declarations, without any solid moral argument behind them, are hardly compelling reasons. They seem to be more of an expression of prejudice than any kind of real argument. The concept of not denying people their rights unless there is a proven, compelling reason to deny them is the very basis of the American ideal of human rights.

It is well documented in American history that African American slaves who married were not married "Until death do us part, "rather, "Until death or distance do us part…" (Racha- Penrice, 2007)The American government did not recognize such unions, and allowed slave owners to sell a husband to one man and his wife to another. Families were torn apart at the auction block day after day. Not until after the Civil War, when marriage was redefined, were blacks allowed the right to legally marry in the United States. Thus began the fear based, ideological campaign to protect the white race from marriage to other races. A flurry of states passed laws to outlaw interracial marriages, and some states even banned interracial intercourse. (Racha- Penrice, 2007)

Similar bans, already in existence throughout the United States, did nothing to slow the growing fears of racial mixing. From the late nineteenth century and throughout the early twentieth century, fourteen states, primarily in the West, extended the ban to include marriages between whites and Asians. Twelve states extended these segregationist prohibitions to include marriages between whites and American Indians. By 1913, forty one states or territories had enacted such laws, and had included in them, a prohibition of couples from leaving their home states to travel to other states that did not have such marriage bans. (Zinn, 2005)

In the mid-twentieth century, the tide began to turn against race-based marriage bans. Nazi laws forbidding Jews from marrying non-Jews were discredited along with many other expressions of state racism. The General Assembly of the United Nations unanimously adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, which cited the "right to marry" as one of the fundamental rights of humankind. (U.N. General Assembly, 1948)

Nineteen years later, in 1967, the historic Supreme Court decision was made in the case of Loving v. Virginia. It proclaimed that the ban on interracial marriage was "designed to maintain White Supremacy" and therefore, unconstitutional. In denying the right to marry the person of one's choice, the fundamental civil right to marriage had been denied. Later, the Court even extended the right of marriage to prisoners, citing the civil right as one that could not be denied to any person. (U.S. Supreme Court, 1967)

Still, the argument is often made that same sex marriage would threaten the institution of marriage. This is a contradiction, in and of itself. Allowing people to commit themselves to each other regardless of gender, is not a threat to marriage. When homosexuals are allowed to marry, they are less likely to attempt heterosexual marriage first, just to fit in with society's norm, causing them to be matched with an incompatible partner and possibly raising children in a loveless home, only to end in divorce. Further, studies have shown that children of divorce are more likely to have failed marriages themselves. (Sterkle, 1987) Denying gays the right to marriage contributes to the divorce rate, rather than protecting the institution of marriage.

Gay marriage has been legal in Denmark since 1989. A proposal now exists in the Danish parliament to allow adoption rights and church weddings, which are currently prohibited. Most other Scandinavian countries have followed suit.

Full marriage rights have existed in many Dutch cities for several years, and was recently made legal nationwide, including the word "marriage" to describe such unions. Opposition to the Danish law was led by the clergy, much the same as in the United States. A survey conducted at the time revealed that 72 % of Danish clergy were opposed to the law. (Graff, 1996) It was passed anyway, and the change in the attitude of the clergy there has been dramatic, a survey conducted in 1995 indicated that 89 % of the Danish clergy now admit that the law is a good one and that it had many beneficial effects. Some of which include reductions in suicide, the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, and in promiscuity and infidelity among gays. (Kendall, 2007) Far from leading to the destruction of western civilization, as some critics have warned, the result of gay marriage in Scandinavia has actually been civilizing and strengthening, not just to the institution of marriage, but to society as a whole.

The argument that marriage is a sacred institution is biased in design and based on the assumption that the state has the responsibility to "sanctify" marriages - a fundamentally religious idea. This is an example of one set of people trying to enforce their religious doctrines upon others. In this instance, it is an attempt to do so through weakening the separation of church and state, by undermining the Bill of Rights. (Sullivan, 2008) Although this is not a new concept in American politics, the attempt itself opposes the foundations, the very fiber of the First Amendment - one does not truly have freedom of religion if one does not have the right to freedom from religion as well. The only marriage affected by two people marrying, is the marriage being entered into by the two people marrying each other.

Historically speaking, the word marriage originally identified a merger between two families. It was a type of trade. Essentially, marriage identified the barter of one man's daughter, in exchange for another man's livestock, crops, or other valuables. It could be argued that marriage was already redefined by churches, to be a sanctimonious event, and again redefined, by corporations to indicate a merger of businesses. It was certainly redefined in the Post Civil War era, in order to grant former slaves their fundamental civil right to marry and be happy. Once again, in the 1960's, the definition was changed to allow persons of differing races the right to marry each other. Without this word's definition periodically being altered throughout our history, our current president elect, Barack Obama's mother and father would not have been allowed to marry. In many states, his mere conception would have been illegal, with a penalty of felony charges stemming in a sentence of one to five years imprisonment.
There are many who argue that allowing same-sex marriage would create an environment in which churches would be required to perform ceremonies for same sex couples against their religious beliefs. This simply is not true. Today churches already have the right to refuse marriage to any couple, for any reason. They can deny marriage to a couple because of a large age disparity, a difference in religious backgrounds, or even for being of different races. There is nothing in any marriage law, existing or proposed, that does or would have the effect of requiring any church to marry any couple they do not wish to marry. Couples would continue to do as they always have: they get married by a Justice of the Peace, in a Mayor's Court, or have a family member or friend who has obtained a license from the state marry them. Same sex couples are simply asking for the same opportunity.

To many people, the word marriage connotes various ideas that are not readily identified in a dictionary. The church sanctions a holy matrimony, while the courts legalize a civil matrimony. Corporations marry each other when entering a merger, to form a larger, more formidable business. The joining of two parties to become one, to be better together, to help each other, and to stay together permanently, is the core meaning of marriage. This basic human right has been sought after in civilization for centuries.

Denying homosexuals the right to marry deprives them of thousands of legal rights that married heterosexual couples freely enjoy. (Kendell, 2007) Among these rights, at the state level are hospital visitation, control of burial and funeral arrangements for a partner, inheritance rights and insurance benefits, just to name a few. At the federal level alone, the General Accounting Office has identified over one thousand provisions that heterosexual married couples enjoy, including social security benefits and federal tax exemptions, that would be granted to same-sex couples if they were allowed marriage.

Our government was set up as an institution whose goal is the preservation of the rights of its citizens. By upholding the ideological or philosophical prejudices of one group, our government is failing to protect another group's basic human rights. Rights which are defined by the United Nations' Declaration of Human Rights as well as the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. It proclaims, "…No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Is marriage being redefined? Yes, and it matters more today than ever before. There exists a precedent of redefining marriage throughout human history, without which many of today's marriages would be null and void in earlier contexts.

As humans inhabiting an ever changing world, we too must adapt. An engineer will say that the bridge that does not bend with the wind is destined to crumble and fall. So too, it goes with ideologies. Our founding fathers defined our country as a place where all men were created equal, and endowed with an unalienable right to the pursuit of happiness. It is an infringement upon this very pursuit, if two consenting adults are denied the right to marry. The arguments supporting gay marriage outweigh the negatives. Strong family units strengthen society. Tolerance for differences diffuses strife and fosters a closer knit community. Church and state separation do not preclude working relationships between the two. The realization that we are all human, all one race and one world brings us to the conclusion that we can all live together in empathy, peace, and with our chosen partner in marriage.

References

Columbia Law Review, April 1999. [Social Norms and Judicial Decision-making: Examining the Role of Narratives in Same-Sex Adoption Cases. Lexis-Nexis 3/27/01]

Eskridge, William Jr, The Case for Same-Sex Marriage, ( 1996). p. 96 The Free Press, New York

Graff , E.J. What is Marriage For?, 1996. [The Challenge of Same-Sex Marriage, Praeger Publishers, Connecticut 1999 p175]

Kendell, Kate. "The Right to Marry, the San Francisco Experience, and Lessons

Learned." In Defending Same-Sex Marriage, volume 1, "Separate Bu Equal" No

More, edited by Mark Strasser. West Port, CT: British Library Cataloguing, 2007.

"Marriage." The American Heritage^® Dictionary of the English Language, 4th ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2000. Retrieved from www.bartleby.com/61/. downloaded 10/02/2008

Meyer, Cheryl L.; "Legal, Psychological, and Medical Considerations in Lesbian Parenting," 2 Law & Sexuality: A Review of Lesbian & Gay Legal Issues 237 (1992)

Penrice, Ronda Racha (2007), African American History for Dummies, pp. 207-218. For Dummies, 2007

Sterkel, Alisa; "Psychosocial Develpment of Children of Lesbian Mothers," Gay & Lesbian Parents 75, 81 (Frederick W. Bozett, ed., 1987)

Sullivan, Andrew. The New Republic, 5/8/00. ["Why 'civil union' isn't marriage." http://www.indegayforum.org/articles/sullivan4.html downloaded 10/02/08]

U.S. Supreme Court, LOVING v. VIRGINIA, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), retrieved from http://laws.findlaw.com/us/388/1.html , downloaded 11/10/2008

United Nations General Assembly, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, internet source, retrieved from http://un.org/Overview/rights.html , downloaded 11/02/2008

Zinn, Howard.(2005) A People's History of the United States 1492-Present pp 171-190. New

York: Perennial, 2005.

I'll Be Looking for You!

"We cannot accept the view that Amendment 2's prohibition on specific legal protections does no more than deprive homosexuals of special rights. To the contrary, the amendment imposes a special disability on those persons alone. Homosexuals are forbidden the safeguards that others enjoy or may seek without constraint"

-Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority of the U.S. Supreme Court in the decision overturning Colorado's Amendment 2 referendum

So keeping with the theme of my outrage over the same sex marriage issue, I wanted to let you know about a Marriage Equality Rally that will be happening this Saturday, in front of the Metro Courthouse, downtown at 12:30. So far, local organizations supporting marriage equality and equal rights include:
-Lipstick Lounge
-Hustler on Church st
-TN Equality Project
-Americans United for Seperation of Church and State www.au.org

for more info about the Rally, click here.

I am hoping to gather up some more support and some more bodies to stand in solidarity with us to tell our government that marriage is a right, and to prevent people who love each other that right is standing in the way of their pursuit of happiness.

The Arguments:

Marriage is an institution between one man and one woman.
UGH! This is the most often heard argument, and the one that is getting the states' constitutions re-written to re-define marriage as one man, one woman. But as I am exploring in my research paper, Who says what marriage is and by whom it is to be defined? The married? The marriable? Webster's Dictionary? As one essay I recently read on gay marriage said, " Isn't that kind of like allowing a banker to decide who is going to own the money stored in his vaults? It seems to me that justice demands that if the straight community cannot show a compelling reason to deny the institution of marriage to gay people, it shouldn't be denied. And such simple, nebulous declarations, with no real moral argument behind them, are hardly compelling reasons. They're really more like an expression of prejudice than any kind of a real argument. The concept of not denying people their rights unless you can show a compelling reason to deny them is the very basis of the American ideal of human rights."

Gay relationships are immoral.
Again, we need to ask, " Says who?" The Bible? Well, this is precisely the reason that our founding fathers included that pesky little clause, you know the one, tacked in the First Amendment, it discusses freedom of religion. That doesn't just mean you can practice whatever religion you wish, it also means you have the right to freedom from religion as well. The Bible has absolutely no standing in American law, as was made clear by the intent of the First Amendment (and as was very explicitly stated by the founding fathers in their first treaty, the Treaty of Tripoli, in 1791) and because it doesn't, no one has the right to impose rules anyone else simply because of something they percieve to be a moral injunction mandated by the Bible. Not all world religions have a problem with homosexuality; many sects of Buddhism, for example, celebrate gay relationships freely and would like to have the authority to make them legal marriages. In that sense, their religious freedom is being infringed. If one believes in religious freedom, the recognition that opposition to gay marriage is based on religious arguments is reason enough to discount this argument.

Same-sex marriage would threaten the institution of marriage.
I've got 5 words for you: Cher, Larry King, and Brittney Spears.
Threaten marriage? By allowing people to marry? This one is laughable. If it is the stability of the institution of heterosexual marriage that worries you, then consider that no one would ever require you or anyone else to participate in a gay marriage. You would still have freedom of choice, of choosing which kind of marriage to participate in -- something more than what you have now. And speaking of divorce -- imagine how the divorce rate could drop if gay people stopped trying heteresexual marriage because that's what's expected of them, only to end in divorce because they have to be true to themselves and their sexuality. To argue that the institution of marriage is worth preserving at the cost of requiring involuntary participants to remain in it is a better argument for reforming divorce laws than proscribing gay marriage.

And the one that got Prop. 8 passed in California:

Gay marriage would force churches to marry gay couples when they have a moral objection to doing so.

Just like in CA, this argument is usually advanced by churches that oppose gay marriage. To be blunt, it is a big fat lie. There is nothing in any marriage law, existing or proposed, anywhere in the United States, that does or would have the effect of requiring any church to marry any couple they do not wish to marry. Churches already have the right to refuse any couple they wish, and for any reason that suits them. Many often do. Some churches continue to refuse to marry interracial couples, others interreligious couples, and a few refuse couples with large age disparities and for numerous other reasons. Gay marriage would not change any church's right to refuse to sanctify any marriage entirely as they wish - it would simply offer churches the opportunity to legally marry gay couples if they wish, as some have expressed the desire to do - the freedom of religion would actually be expanded, not contracted.


Soap box removed, Fortune Cookies climbing down.
I hope to see you Saturday, in front of the Metro Courthouse.
I'll be holding a poster, look for me!

...So I be written in the book of love...