This commentary was written by the lovely and talented Lady_E
So, the Indiana legislature passed a resolution amending the constitution to ban gay marriage and civil unions. More bluntly, they passed a resolution to insert discrimination and hate into the state constitution.
Reactions to the hate resolution have run the gamut from sadness to seething anger. Some are making plans to leave Indiana behind for less backwards jurisdictions while others have pledged to stay and fight. In the coming week, Antinickname and I will be debating the cri de guerre issued by the founder of the LGBT blog bilerico.com, Bil Browning, threatening to expose the moral failings, sins, and even covered up criminal activity of the ‘yea’ voting legislators.
But, before that, I want to comment on Indiana’s proposed amendment. The text would read, “Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Indiana.”
Supporters of this point to the Bible and “traditional” values. We’ve all seen the bumper stickers
“Marriage = one man + one woman.” But, is that really all that marriage equals, from a religious or “traditional” viewpoint? I don’t think so. I would say that traditionally, and certainly religiously, “marriage” is defined by 3 parts: 1) between a man and a woman, 2) a life long commitment that 3) is entered into under the eyes of God.
Let’s use my family as an example. My parents are of different faiths, Jewish and Catholic. They were “married” in a civil ceremony because, even though they are one man/one woman, their marriage violates Part 3. According to the Catholic Church (and in God’s eyes as they say), my mother has never been married. After 35 years of marriage, if my father passed away, my mother could marry in a Catholic ceremony as if my father had never even existed. However, if my parents had been married in the Church and got divorced, any remarriage (and the divorce itself) would not be recognized (unless they got an annulment) because it would violate part 2.
Now, let’s look at my brother and his partner. They are both Jewish. They could get married in a reform temple regardless of the fact that they are both men. Why? Because what matters the most in this particular equation is again Part 3- they are both Jews. Were one of them not Jewish, they would be in the same boat as my parents, regardless of their sexual orientation.
Now think about what this means. My parents receive all the government benefits of being in a recognized marriage even though their marriage is considered harmful and illegitimate by both of their faiths. My brother and his partner, on the other hand, could be married in a temple by a rabbi before their congregation and before God, but would receive none of these same government benefits.
So, here’s what I think. If you want to define “marriage” as it is traditionally and religiously understood, then it shouldn’t be limited to just one of the three parts. Why should a second marriage be rewarded with tax benefits if one of the couple has already violated the “sanctity” of marriage- the life long commitment part? Isn’t that encouraging bad behavior that is harmful to traditional values? And, if we really want to get right down to it, the greatest sin of all from a Christian perspective, well above homosexuality, is to deny Christ the Savior. Well, guess who does that every single day? My dad (love ya, pops!). So, why should a union considered invalid and one that undermines the very purpose of a Christian marriage be recognized and rewarded by the State?
Of course, this will never happen (and I wouldn’t support such a proposal). It won’t happen because the gay marriage debate isn’t about the definition of “marriage.” It isn’t about traditional values or what the Bible says. It’s not even about what kind of relationships are harmful to society. To me, the gay marriage debate is very simple. A hate-filled majority is targeting a minority of fellow citizens for one simple reason- because they know they can do it with impunity. Because they know the same degree of scrutiny will never be applied to their relationships.
“Marriage = one man + one woman.” But, is that really all that marriage equals, from a religious or “traditional” viewpoint? I don’t think so. I would say that traditionally, and certainly religiously, “marriage” is defined by 3 parts: 1) between a man and a woman, 2) a life long commitment that 3) is entered into under the eyes of God.