“TRADITIONAL” MARRIAGE
Next, it’s important to discuss what this issue is supposed to be about: marriage. Anti-gay advocates love to use the word “tradition” because it is emotionally prejudicial as it plays into people’s inherent fear of change. However. this is not a legal argument nor is it a valid argument for denying rights to a group of individuals. Neither is it a tenable argument. for it relies on the faulty premise that history has provided us with a consistency in the foundation of marriage. Marriage as is commonly known today is actually a relatively novel concept in the history of mankind. Depending upon the culture, religion, politics, and period of history, one may find a myriad of formations. Even among Christian people. marriage has undergone a metamorphosis contingent upon the needs of the people.
When anti-gay advocates use the term “traditional’. 1 always wonder what tradition and what time. Do we support early 19th century traditional marriages when married women had no legal standing, could not own property, sign contracts, or legally control any earned wages? When the minimum age of consent for sexual intercourse in most states was 10 years old and in Delaware seven? When some states allowed boys as young as 14 and girls as young as 12 to marry with parental consent? Or do we support mid-1900 traditional marriages when in 12 states a woman could still not make legal contracts? When it was illegal to sell contraceptives? When in 13 states interracial marriage was forbidden and punishable by prison? Or do we support 1977 marriages when no states outlawed rape in marriage? Or in 1990. when only 10 states outlawed rape in marriages? I also find it somewhat hypocritical for the Church to appeal to people’s emotions and use the “tradition” argument when it was on the receiving end of such abuse during its polygamy era. The Church more than anyone in this country should know how persecution feels.
There are actually two kinds of marriages that people in America maintain: a legal marriage and a ceremonial marriage. Legal marriage is a relationship between three parties — the two individuals plus the state. (Ceremonial marriage, often called a “wedding,” is quite distinct from legal marriage and is a relationship, not with the state. but between the couple. their religion and usually their familial and social circle. While many opposite-sex couples engage in both legal and ceremonial marriage, these two forms of marriage are entirely distinct legally and functionally — under the United States’ Constitutional separation of church and state.
The word “marriage” is so emotionally charged that people fail to recognize the difference between legal and ceremonial marriage. To them it’s one and the same. The Knight Initiative, however, actually only precludes same- sex legal marriages not ceremonial marriages. Currently. many same-sex couples receive ceremonial marriages (weddings) each year by gay-friendly churches. If Knight passes, gay couples will continue to manifest their love in front of their friends and family by getting married in these churches. However, their marriage will not be legally recognized by the state of California (incidentally, they are already not recognized in California or in any state — the Knight Initiative merely codifies into law the status quo). They will be denied legal protection and benefits that are accrued to all opposite-sex marriages. In sum, they will be treated as unequal members of our society.
On the other hand, if same-sex marriages were legally recognized. the state could never three any church or institution to offer same-sex ceremonial marriages. The separation of church and state completely allows this. Mormons. Catholics and Southern Baptists could continue to deny ceremonial marriages to same-sex couples.
The state-enforced prohibition on same-sex marriages is nothing but the result of mob rule. There is no valid moral argument to deny equal rights to people simply because you dislike or fear them. As Oscar Wilde wrote, “Morality is simply the attitude we adopt towards people whom we personally dislike.” The same can be said of the Knight Initiative.
Many claim that the state should forbid same-sex marriages on moral principles (read: Biblically interpreted laws). These arguments are worn and tired. Biblical laws were used to validate slave ownership in America. They were used to deny women’s rights. They were used to forbid interracial marriages. The arguments are always the same:
it’s the persecuted group that changes. Hate, fear and prejudice have always been traditional human values but why should be uphold them? It’s time we change this tradition!