At the moment, in Australia, there is a ruckus about the issue of gay marriage.
In my mind there are two main things worth speaking about.
First, i heard a lady say to the PM that she wants to ask her partner if she wants to get married not "civil unioned." Here, i believe, is a big part of the issue. The title of marriage.
I would ask the woman what she really wants. Does she desire a title or the recognition of her feelings and commitment to the other person.
The government's response to gay marriage is a civil union. Two same gendered people can be recognised as a couple and have all the legal trappings that come with that union being recognised (eg access to superannuation). The government amended the laws to make this the case.
If there was not a hangup over the title of "marriage" would there still be an issue? I don't see what the gay community really gain in the whole argument except a ceremony with a slightly altered title.
But second, is marriage really a legal or a religious ceremony?
I believe, in today's society, it is seen more as the former than the later. This is especially true with the prevalence of weddings being performed by celebrants and the open decline of mainline Christianity.
What would happen if, no matter what gender you were or what kind of partnership you were entering into, it was all deemed a civil union? Would this greatly dissolve the issue?
If marriage was a separate religious ceremony, would heterosexual couples kick up a stink? And what would be the reasons?
If marriage is a committing, into covenant, to another person before God, isn't it inseparably a religious ceremony? If you don't believe in God, then what are you really saying?
I'm just not sure a religious ceremony this is what some gay couples are actually wanting to enter into...
5 comments:
Before I get started on the points you’ve made, I’d just like to say that in Australia we don’t have civil unions. As a gay person, the best you can hope to get at the moment is a registered partnership, the same legal recognition given to “cohabitating” heterosexual couples. Can you imagine being a gay person, having shared years of your life with another person and the best you can be is “cohabitating”?
Firstly, “ what the gay community really gain in the whole argument except a ceremony with a slightly altered title”. Marriage is not a slightly altered title. By allowing gay people to have civil unions, and not marriages, they’ve already got the slightly altered title. What they gain by being able to use the word marriage is social recognition, that their committed monogamous same-sex relationship is the same as your relationship. It’s a validation of the same commitment and love between same-sex couples as there is between heterosexual couples. Would your opinion be the same if conservatives wanted to call inter-racial marriages civil unions?
It’s not about the word. It’s about there being a separate, lesser, archetype for gay people. Imagine being gay and having to explain to your children why you couldn’t marry their other parent. “It’s the same thing with a different name” won’t mean much to a kid who’s friends all have married parents. As children, we’re talked to and taught about marriage. You grow up, marry someone you love, raise children, grow old together. As kids we all dream about this stuff. But if you grow up to be same-sex attracted, you can’t have that. You have to settle for something else. Something less. Civil unions.
So it’s not about the word, but in the end, it’s all about the word.
Now, if you made it illegal for all non-religious heterosexual couples to use the word marriage (the way it is illegal for gay people to use it now), then I think it would dissolve the issue for secular same-sex couples. Most would be happy to be considered equal. The irony here is that heterosexual couples, even those that want nothing to do with religion, would never allow their relationship to be considered in a different category from a religious one, yet that is exactly what you propose for gay people. As a society, we always have and will continue to allow non-religious marriages for heterosexual couples – I fail to see any basis for denying it to same-sex couples.
Graham, my biggest problem with the second part of your argument is that you assume gay people aren’t Christian people. As someone that recently got engaged to the girlfriend I met at church, I’m kind of offended by that. God is a big part of my life, and I’d like God to be a big part of the life I share with the woman I love. Even if you believe marriage is a religious institution, there are mainstream churches that believe God blesses same-sex marriages just as he blesses heterosexual ones. I would never want a church to be forced by law to perform a same-sex wedding if they considered it against their beliefs, but if I belonged to a church that was willing to see me married in the eyes of God, why shouldn’t I be allowed to? I doubt a fair God would judge you harshly for accepting that my interpretation of scripture is different to yours, and therefore allows me to marry the person I love, male or female. Why would it matter to you whether I get married?
I am a Christian woman, and I try to live my life in a way that honours that. I also believe that God has created me the way I am, not to suffer or to be less than others, but as an example that we are different but we are the same. If your objection is a civil one, there is little else to say except that the government has a responsibility to provide equal rights to every citizen. If your objection is a religious one, I can only ask that you to see this: while I share your God and your church, our understanding of God is not the same. If you can truly accept that, and allow for my marriage to be a marriage in the eyes of God just as yours is, then we’re not so different in the end.
I totally agree Cate!
In terms of civil law, the term ‘marriage’ is currently used to describe unions between a man and a woman. If Australia is seeking to provide equal relationship rights to gay and lesbian couples then ‘marriage’ rather than ‘civil union’ needs to be used, as ‘civil union’ seems to just be a second-class marriage. Legally, de facto status in Australia is essentially the same legal rights for property, finance, parenting etc as marriage and some state & territories have registers set up for gay & straight couples who do not wish to get married. So a lot of the discussion is about equality rather than just legality.
In 2008, only 35% of all weddings were actually performed by religious celebrants. Graham, you mentioned in your post that ‘marriage’ should be religious and I actually agree with that. I would be happy if all marriages become civil unions unless performed by a religious group and to take away the marriage as a legal issue vs religious issue debate. But realistically, people who are married don’t want to suddenly not be married so legally it is better to extend the rights to same-sex couples instead of taking them away from heterosexual couples.
The next big point is - what about those religious gay and lesbian people who want to be married in their religion? Some have or want commitment ceremonies to feel like there relationship is valued to God and their worshipping community. Why can't there be a covenant between these two people and God that is marriage? A number of faiths and denominations already affirm same-sex couples and would extend their liturgies to be marriage services if the laws changed. And of course if the law did change, religions would still have the right to choose if they do or don't allow same-sex couples to marry as they do now with divorced or interfaith couples in a number of traditions.
But essentially, doesn't the whole gay marriage debate come down to celebrating love. Two people, whatever gender, who wish to commitment to each other for life, should be able to do so and have their friends and family there to witness love and the legally commitments they make along with it. What makes homosexual love any different to heterosexual love and why can't the relationships that evolve out of it be valued equally too?
Cate and Hannah,
I knew this would be a controversial topic going in, so thanks for your comments. I actually didn't have either of you in mind, but the person who questioned the PM. She was not religious (as far as i could tell). Thus my second point.
My belief is that the marriage ceremony is primarily religious thing (Hannah, I’m glad you agree!). That is why God gets such a mention and the promises are based about what God requires of marriage.
If everyone started at the same level of a civil union, wouldn't time determine that the "lesser class" of the term be annulled? Maybe not. But there is a chance that the "stigma" of a civil union would be eroded with an equal service that celebrates love, no matter what gender of the person you are committing yourself to? It's just a thought...
How this would apply to people already married is a quandary that makes my brain hurt.
For a believer who is gay, I’m still undecided about the issue. But if you church is fine with it and the minister is okay with it, then i may be on shaky grounds to object.
Remember, above all, this is not a salvation issue. We can all be in disagreement, still love God and get into heaven.
But this post was intended in the background of someone who is not of faith, but desires a marriage. I'm still not sure i get it...
Hi Graham,
I'm actually really glad you've tackled such a controversial issue. Since you came to church, I've kind of wondered where you stood on the issue, and I'm really happy to see you approach the issue so thoughtfully.
I think the bottom line is this: I don't think we live in a society that will ever restrict use of the word marriage to religious couples (although I also agree that it's a primarily religious institution). Mainly because, at the time the argument happens, non-religious couples will see anything but marriage for them to be a lesser union (exactly how gay people see it).
Following from that, even if you allowed heterosexual couples to chose *between* marriages and civil unions, if you prevent gay people from marrying (even religious gay people), you're relegating them to a different category.
Allowing gay people anything but marriage is giving them something less than everyone else has, *especially* if they are religious.
Post a Comment