Footnote to the previous post

The news about the Massachusetts court decision on same-sex marriages prompted an IM exchange between me and a dear friend, which follows (with irrelevant side chatter edited out and syntax cleaned up for clarity).

HER: How do you feel about same-sex marriage?

ME: I think a)the Court decision was good news and b)it will almost immediately lead to a move to amend the state constitution, which is what happened in the two other states that had the same kind of court decision.

HER: Oh, how did they amend the constitution?

ME: Just changed it to constitutionally define marriage as 1 man + 1 woman.

HER: I have mixed feelings about the whole thing; not sure if it should be called a "marriage" but I think a partnership of some sort with rights to medical coverage, etc.

ME: Two questions: If it's the same in terms of rights, protection, insurance matters, etc., etc., why not just call it a marriage? And if it's not the same, doesn't that still mean that heterosexual couples have rights that gay [and, I should have added, lesbian] couples do not?

HER: I believe the term marriage is defined in the Bible as between a woman and a man. That's the reason I hesitate on calling it a marriage. Maybe, if you get married in a church it should be a marriage, if not it should be called a partnership - no matter the sexes? It's back to the difficult process of separating church and state.

ME: I don't know if the Bible defines marriage that way or not, but even if it does, that should be irrelevant to the State. The question is still, is there a difference in rights and privileges afforded to gay and straight couples? If so, why? Whether we call it a marriage or a union is unimportant.

HER: As far as the rights, that's exactly what I think is wrong with the way it is - as I said, I think they SHOULD get all the same rights.

ME: So if it's the same, why apply a different name?

HER: Again, I'm going by the religious term of marriage - as defined in the Bible (and it is). I don't have an answer, I'm just telling you my feelings about it.

ME: And I guess my feeling is that the State - the civil government - should not be defining marriage based on what the Bible says. As you noted, that really brings up Church-State entanglement issues.

HER: OK, so we have different feelings, right?

ME: Apparently, although I'm not sure how far that difference extends beyond what label to use for a legal union of a same-sex couple or even if it goes beyond that at all.

HER: No, I don't think it does, which goes back to the very first thing I said to you. And, I think we agree on the fundamentals of the issue.

Unfortunately, my friend had to take her leave at that moment, while I was typing what I intended as a closing comment, which was to be:

ME: My concern is that as long as we use different terms, there will always be the notion that one ("marriage") is somehow better, superior, to the other ("civil union"). "Oh, well, we're married, you see. You just have one of those civil union things." It implies a judgment.

I'd add here that it's been nearly 50 years since the Supreme Court ruled in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka that "separate but equal" is actually "inherently unequal." I do not want to see us repeat that mistake in the case of same-sex marriages (yes, marriages). As long as we allow different terms, we allow the perception - and thus justify the practice - of actual difference.

On the other hand, it wasn't all that long ago that there was a sense that getting married in a church was in some inexpressible way better, realer, truer, than getting married by a judge or a JP. That's a difference that I expect nobody really bothers about any more. (My wife and I were married by a County Clerk, and no one seems to think we're not "married.") Maybe if "civil unions" are indeed made genuinely legally identical in terms of rights and privileges to "marriages," maybe the perceived difference between those two will also fade in time.

Footnote: I checked on the notion the Bible defines marriage as one man and one woman. While it in fact does not do so explicitly, you can infer it from certain passages; it's less like a definition and more like a presumption, a "that's just the way it is" attitude.

For example, in 1 Corinthians 7:2 Paul says "Nevertheless, [to avoid] fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband," while Leviticus 20:13 seems to bar Biblical approval of gay marriage, saying "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them." (Quotes from the King James version.)

On the other hand, we may not want to push this Biblical definition business. Paul says, in the verse immediately prior to that quoted above (i.e., 1 Corinthians 7:1), "Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: [It is] good for a man not to touch a woman." And Leviticus 20:18 says if a man and a woman have sex during her period, "both of them shall be cut off from among their people," something I haven't heard too many people advocating of late. And how many women among us are going to embrace "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, ... for all that do so [are] abomination unto the LORD thy God?" (Deuteronomy 22:5)

By the way, Leviticus 20:27 declares "A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death." Apparently when Chesterfield County, VA, refused to allow a Wiccan to be among those giving opening invocations, they didn't go nearly as far as they should have, according to the Bible.