The
Supreme Court has just issued its ruling on marriage equality, upholding the
right of same-sex couples to marry in any state in the United States. Even as
this becomes the law of the land, religious conservatives are trying to find
ways to thwart same-sex marriages in their own state. This seems like a good
time to reprise my essay from April 2013, when Rhode Island, where I then
lived, was still debating the issue.
Conservative
voices insist that marriage can only be between a man and a woman because the Church
(or the Bible) says so. It seems to me that they’re
confusing the sacrament of marriage with the sanctity of marriage. A religious
institution has the right to reserve its sacrament for heterosexual couples,
but not every marriage takes place in a church or a temple.
My
husband and I were married by a judge in a non-denominational chapel at Brown University. The Hinduism and Catholicism of
our youth didn’t interfere with our ability to become husband and wife in Rhode
Island. The judge didn’t confer a sacrament upon us, but he officially affirmed
the sanctity of our love.
It’s unlikely the conservatives who are arguing against same-sex marriage
would claim that our marriage isn’t legitimate. The Catholic Church might feel
that way and probably wouldn’t have ministered their sacrament to us. But
overall, even the holiest rollers would agree that we are husband and wife.
Many
of those who are against same-sex marriage claim that civil unions should be
good enough for these couples. They decry efforts to “redefine” the term
“marriage.” Actually, forcing gay couples to have unions instead of marriages
will ultimately muddy the terminology far more than recognizing their right to
be married will. Reserving “marriage” for the exclusive use of heterosexual
couples will only serve to take the concept of love out of the relationship.
What
should same-sex couples call their mates in a civil union? “Unionites”? That
sounds so political, so Norma Rae. “Partners”
isn’t much better; it sounds like a business arrangement. Like the very concept of a civil union—and in stark
contrast to the concept of marriage, both terms fail to convey the emotion
that’s the basis for the relationship.
If
we acknowledge that all these relationships are based on love, then the
singular fact that distinguishes a committed couple labeled one way from a
couple labeled another seems to be either anatomy or perhaps religion.
But
we’ve already covered the fact that a man and a woman can marry without
religious involvement. So, it gets down to anatomy. Which means the
conservative definition of “marriage” no longer has anything to do with love,
or even anything spiritual; it’s just about body parts. It’s not logical to
claim that this protects the concept.
I
think conservatives who are against same-sex marriage are mistaking Velcro for
love. It’s really quite easy to straighten out this misperception. Velcro is
the stuff where one side needs to have hooks and the other needs loops if it’s
going to work. Love has no such hooks-and-loops requirement.
Lasting
love is a matter of the heart, not the anatomy. The more the heart is at the
center of love and the less the hooks and loops are, the more likely the
connection will survive the stresses of today’s life. And the more love is
allowed to be at the center of marriage, instead of Velcro, the stronger the
concept of marriage will be.
As
Justice Kennedy’s words made clear in the Supreme Court ruling, it’s also about
dignity. When people recognize this, #LoveWins.
No comments:
Post a Comment