After initially reading the reading the Massachusetts Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage ruling I found a peculiar loophole. Although the decision was intended to open civil marriage to gays and lesbians there was nothing that excluded heterosexuals from “marrying” someone of the same sex. At the time I argued that since sexual relations were not addressed in the court’s decision and that could lead to unique arrangements:
Two elderly sisters could decide to take advantage of the benefits of a civil union by entering into a marriage with each other. They could remain completely celibate and would never even have to change their maiden names. And what would be the argument against it? Why should relatives be excluded from marriages of convenience? We have leaped down the slippery slope and find ourselves all the way at the bottom.
Now I’m not so sure about my conclusion. Not because the ruling wouldn’t lead down this path, for I still think that is the case. But rather because it doesn’t go far enough. Civil unions should be completely “desexualized” and open to any two adults who desire to form a contractually dependent relationship.
I came to this conclusion not from listening to the arguments of civil union advocates but rather from a most unlikely source: the Bible.
I was reading the book of Ruth and was, once again, amazed by the dedication of the Ruth to her mother-in-law Naomi. Recently widowed and trying to survive during a time of famine, Ruth chose to stay with Naomi even though it would mean she would almost assuredly live the rest of her life in poverty and eventually die alone. Such love and compassion is so remarkable that many modern readers assume the relationship must have been sexual (it’s a sad commentary on our times that all filial relationships are assumed to have an underlying sexual motivation).
Again they cried openly. Orpah kissed her mother-in-law good-bye; but Ruth embraced her and held on. Naomi said, "Look, your sister-in-law is going back home to live with her own people and gods; go with her." But Ruth said, "Don't force me to leave you; don't make me go home. Where you go, I go; and where you live, I'll live. Your people are my people, your God is my god; where you die, I'll die, and that's where I'll be buried, so help me God - not even death itself is going to come between us!" When Naomi saw that Ruth had her heart set on going with her, she gave in. Ruth 1:14:18 The Message
But what if Ruth and Naomi lived in modern-day America? Would they be able to keep this commitment to each other without hindrance from laws that recognize only dependents, guardians, and spouses? The law may very well provide them “equal protection” under certain circumstances but with the labyrinth of rules and regulations how would they know what applied?
Some conservatives and libertarians may see no need for the government to expand the definition of civil unions in any manner. But the political reality is that the change is inevitable. The issue is no longer when civil unions will be recognized but what form they will take. By desexualizing the issue we preserve the government’s purpose (a social institution that brings stability to our society) without endorsing behavior that many of us consider immoral.
Besides, why should we extend social and government benefits to a group based on sexual orientation while excluding others who are equally worthy? Why extend civil unions to the lesbian couple down the street but not to the elderly sisters who live next door?
The State doesn’t create marriage; it only recognizes its value. It has no authority to redefine the term to make is more inclusive. Marriage should be reserved for the intimate, exclusive, sexually complementary relationship of a husband and a wife. The State also doesn’t create civil unions. But when stripped of any sexual connotation and reserved for binary, dependent, committed relationships, the State should recognize their value.
1
Recognize how, exactly?
One can already get and grant power of attorney and tons of other rights. What more do you want the State to do?
What do you think Ruth and Naomi would not be able to do? It seems to me they could fulfill their promise to each other just fine in modern America.
posted on 02.20.2004 8:56 AM2
Why limit civil unions to two people? Could three or more people form a civil union together? (Because a sexual relationship is not assumed, a union of three people would not be inherently immoral.)
Why limit civil unions to the unmarried? Could persons A and B, who are married, also have a civil union together?
Why require marriages and civil unions to be coterminous? Could person A, who is married to person B, also have a civil union with person C? (Related questions: If Ruth forms a civil union with Naomi, and then Ruth gets married, does Ruth still have a civil union with Naomi? What if Ruth and her husband want Naomi to be a non-sexual part of their family? Can Ruth and Naomi bring the husband into their civil union? Or can Ruth, Naomi, and the husband form a new civil union?)
Although the tone of these questions may sound hostile to your idea of civil unions, I don't know that I really have a position yet. It would be interesting to hear how these questions would be answered.
posted on 02.20.2004 9:39 AM3
I keep seeing this argued as a "Rights" issue. I don't get it. Where in any constitution is there a "Right" to marry? This is a LEGAL issue, currently married couples reap LEGAL benefits for being married. If this "discrimination" is going to be addressed, why not do away with all laws, which provide "preferential" treatment, regardless of reason. Be careful when you answer, I'm sure I can come up with LEGAL benefits, regardless of your particular social/political/racial standing.
This type of argument could very easily apply to ALL of the current tax laws, which are nothing more than LEGAL benefits provided to specific persons.
Laws are used to either encourage acceptable/beneficial behavior, or discourage un-acceptable/unbeneficial behavior.
Put this issue in the hands of the people, and let them decide what is acceptable/beneficial behavior.
BTW I happen to be against allowing gay marriage, but I am also against a Constitutional amendment. This is a social and legal issue, which should be decided by the people. This is the exact argument that I made to my brother, who is gay.
posted on 02.20.2004 9:55 AM4
Good points Joe. I believe the issue of the slippery slope certainly applies here. For my take, check On Marriage
posted on 02.20.2004 10:02 AM5
Let me qualify my position by saying that ideally there would be no expansion of civil unions at all. But since there eventually will be such a change this is my preferred position.
I completely agree with Jim that this is a legal and not a rights issue. Unfortunately, the only choices left are to repeal civil marriage or extend some of the same legal benefits to civil unions. If we can justify civil marriage as being an institution that pormotes stability, it is hard to exclude others arrangements that fit the same criteria.
In my opinion, this is the best political comprise we can make given the present set of circumstances. Naturally, though, I'm open to other suggestions.
posted on 02.20.2004 10:20 AM6
Joe,
Interesting post. Nevertheless, I see a potential issue with your position.
If we create these contractual type relationships, I wonder if people will not see these as a form of marriage. "It is gay marriage." At the least, civil unions are related to marriage because they are an alternative means to the same benefits. This is important because the unions you describe will be emotional but not sexual. If people such as 2 sisters, 2 brothers, or any 2 people form such a union, inevitably the people will date and marry others. After all, is not that what Ruth did? What happens to the civil union at that point? Will the state allow one to be married to one person and have a civil union with the other? If so, how are the two others related? Seems like you are creating a marriage continuum, with sex divorced from the institutions of union.
If sex no longer becomes particularly important to marriage, then we can expect a lot more cheating, adultery, and open marriages, which are a destabilizing force in society. After all, it is not the sex but the emotional bond that matters. What do you think?
posted on 02.20.2004 11:09 AM7
it’s a sad commentary on our times that all filial relationships are assumed to have an underlying sexual motivation
I knew we had reached that point when Falwell (or someone of his ilk) insinuated that Bert and Ernie (on Sesame Street) must be gay. Way back before the Tinkie Winkie nonsense.
posted on 02.20.2004 11:31 AM8
The State doesn’t create marriage; it only recognizes its value. It has no authority to redefine the term to make is more inclusive.
Well, it has the authority to redefine civil marriage however it deems prudent (answerable, of course, to its constituents). Hence my stance that the government should only recognize civil unions, but that state-sanctioned civil unions would look identical to current civil marriage, just without the term "marriage," and with any two non-related people able to enter into them.
Of course, I don't really think that if we stop calling it "marriage," people will be any less divided over it. So it doesn't really do much to address the problem.
posted on 02.20.2004 11:37 AM9
JBP,
You bring up a great point. I think we could limit it so that the union doesn't have to be dissolved but would either (a) no longer be a of legal use or (b) transfer to a "dependent" status (i.e., in the form of a legal caregiver).
Laws could specify an either/or when it comes to civil unions and marriages. You could choose the legal benefits of one or the other but not both.
posted on 02.20.2004 11:47 AM10
You bring up a point i covered long ago - that "civil unions" or "marriage" or whatever you want to call it ARE discriminatory and unfair -- to SINGLE people.
If a civil union is created, you're absolutely right -- there is no good reason me and my brother should not be able to take advantage of it. Can you see what a nice case this will make to strike down the constitutionality of incest laws? (especially if my brother is disabled and i am his caregiver) On what legal basis could they co-exist with a desexualized civil union statue?
Marriage is unfair, because it favors the circumstances of procreation. They want to kill it altogther, not make it fair. Because it can never be "fair" as long as it's goal is favoring the well-being of future generations!
Can't you see the pure Evil behind this movement?
posted on 02.20.2004 12:39 PM11
Joe,
Since words mean, ideas persuade, and principles govern, what principle would you use to exclude multiple person unions or to exclude unions from marriage? If unions are divorced from sex, you need a intellectually coherent reason to maintain the suggested limitations. What you suggest is discrimination. So is imprisoning murderers and every other law that exists. The law exists to pick winners and losers: If you invent something you are a winner, but if you steal you are a loser. If the discrimination is not principled, let me suggest that it will not last. I see this frequently in the legislative process. When a group petitions the legislature for a new entitlement, it frequently will narrowly limit the entitlement to make it palatable to the assembly. An example would be an easy way for a public official to deny the right. They know they will never get the whole loaf, so they take half a loaf. In a legislature, compromise and accommodations are high virtues. Then a few years later, the excluded petitions the legislature for the whole loaf. After all, they argue, it is discrimination to exclude us from the benefits that the other group enjoys. In our example, they argue the public official was not fair, I did not get an opportunity to be fair. You deny us due process! Because the excluded group will return year after year, you need a persuasive principle or it is only a matter of time before the limitation is removed in either the legislature or the courts. Is that not what is happening with the marriage debate right now?
I can see the argument now, "The Mormons and many societies have been polygamous and they were fine. And, those were sexual union! Civil unions are not. Why should my love for one person exclude my love for another? Why should one brother be left out in the cold? We are one big happy family! Who does it hurt?"
Not to imply that you don't have or cannot formulate a principle, I am interested. I find your idea tempting. If you can give me a persuasive principle, then I will probably agree with you, if not, then I think your idea has a fatal flaw. What do you think?
posted on 02.20.2004 2:48 PM12
He says the last as if Joe really cared whether he agreed Arrogant fool!
posted on 02.20.2004 2:50 PM