With all of the furor over Prop 8 in California, it seems that the civil rights issue most likely to find its way to the Supreme Court in the near future is the issue of gay marriage. If this is the case, it is hard to imagine a scenario in which a Supreme Court - no matter what their ideological makeup - does not come down on the side of marriage rights for citizens who happen to be gay.
An affirmation of the rights of gay people to marry by the US Supreme Court will not mean the end of this issue. Quite the opposite. The country will be bitterly divided over such a decision. More divided than after Brown v. Board of Education. Why? Because Brown was a decision that overturned a practice contrary to the tenants of our national conscience and the secular constitution that governs us. Like it or not, American's knew in their hearts that the Warren Court was right. I'm not convinced that the national conscience is yet attuned to the injustice of denying gay citizens the right to be married.
An affirmation of the rights of gay people to marry by the US Supreme Court will not mean the end of this issue. Quite the opposite. The country will be bitterly divided over such a decision. More divided than after Brown v. Board of Education. Why? Because Brown was a decision that overturned a practice contrary to the tenants of our national conscience and the secular constitution that governs us. Like it or not, American's knew in their hearts that the Warren Court was right. I'm not convinced that the national conscience is yet attuned to the injustice of denying gay citizens the right to be married.
Ironically, the path beyond Prop 8 is made murkier by virtue of the fact that we have as a nation already - long ago - made the legal misstep of codifying a religious tradition - vesting it with legal rights. Granted, there is a long tradition of codifying the religious institution of marriage in the US and in other nations and until gay people began looking for this specific piece of the American dream, it seemed to be a relatively tolerant tradition with people of all religious persuasions gaining acceptance into the fold.
But what if it were otherwise? What if the legal precedent had always been some kind of civil union contract and the change being sought was to adopt a set of religious codes as law? Would Americans accept this? Not likely. In fact, I'd go so far as to speculate that such a proposal would be dead on arrival in the halls of Congress, with the fundamentalist sectors of every religion and denomination fighting for the adoption of their prescriptions - and unwilling to accept the outcome on any other terms - and the rest of America simply opposed to it on principal.
Its time for us to consider the idea of making civil unions the law for everyone.
Make no mistake about it. "De-codifying" marriage, making it only a religious institution, with no legal authority will not eliminate the controversy. But it will place that controversy squarely where it belongs - in our homes and churches and not in our courts. Each church will determine what the "rights" and privileges of marriage will mean for those married in their churches and each family will decide what church(es) speak to their beliefs and to whom they should look for spiritual guidance. Likewise no religious order may infringe upon the rights of other orders to define marriage in their own terms.
Stripped of its legal authority, marriage will instead become a more deeply personal and religious decision for each couple - straight or gay. Entered into not because it was required by the laws of men and women, but because it carried the imprimatur of a higher moral authority.
Make no mistake about it. "De-codifying" marriage, making it only a religious institution, with no legal authority will not eliminate the controversy. But it will place that controversy squarely where it belongs - in our homes and churches and not in our courts. Each church will determine what the "rights" and privileges of marriage will mean for those married in their churches and each family will decide what church(es) speak to their beliefs and to whom they should look for spiritual guidance. Likewise no religious order may infringe upon the rights of other orders to define marriage in their own terms.
Stripped of its legal authority, marriage will instead become a more deeply personal and religious decision for each couple - straight or gay. Entered into not because it was required by the laws of men and women, but because it carried the imprimatur of a higher moral authority.
No comments:
Post a Comment