BEWARE OF writers who try to resolve an issue like same-sex marriage in 800 words. I won't try to do it, nor should anyone else be so foolish. I will, however, ask questions that hopefully help coax the debate beyond the typical, rehearsed talking points about equal rights and American family values, whatever each of those means. That is not to say they mean nothing, but considering the importance of this decision -- to permit homosexuals the same right to marry as their heterosexual counterparts -- there are, I think, some questions worth asking whose answers may exceed the collective attention spans of Fox News or CNN.
To discuss this matter seriously, we ought to first define what, exactly, we're discussing. Is marriage fundamentally a religious rite or a legal partnership? Can it be both? Nearly every church claims the right to administer marriage ceremonies, but, at least in the United States, the officiant must conduct the religious marriage and the civil marriage simultaneously in order for the marriage to be considered legitimate by both church and state.
A religious ceremony itself isn't sufficient unless accompanied by a civil ceremony -- even if that ceremony occurs in conjunction with the religious one. Put simply, the religious ceremony -- at least from the perspective of government -- is completely superfluous. It doesn't matter. Only a civil document, with no religious connotation whatsoever, can join man and women in official matrimony.
So, in the traditional sense, marriage exists both within the church and between a couple and the state. But from a legal perspective, the only real marriage occurs during a civil ceremony -- no religion needed. It seems odd then, at least for me, that religious ideology contributes such a huge share of the arguments against same-sex marriage. If one could paraphrase the most prolific arguments of opponents to same-sex marriage, they would certainly include: Same-sex marriage undermines the institution of marriage; homosexuality is immoral, therefore to recognize their marriage condones sin; and permitting same-sex marriage will, eventually, degenerate into pedophilic marriages, polygamous marriage, and state-sanctioned unions between men and goats.
Why, if the only state-sanctioned marriage neglects any religion, do any of these objections matter? Even if these objections weren't bigoted and ignorant, they would still be irrelevant. Equal rights supersede delicate sensibilities.
If one thinks of marriage as solely a religious sacrament, one that forms a holy partnership between a man and a woman, I can't object to that, because legally speaking, marriage is not a religious sacrament. It is, by definition, a civil union.
That said, those who attempt to poison a secular Constitution with reactionary intolerance combine lunacy with unconstitutionality. And, as the last few election cycles proved, conservative Christian ideology consistently seems to escape the parish and find its way to the floors of Congress.
The First Amendment to the Constitution states clearly: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." In other words, if a church wants to marry individuals according to its own standards of decency and piety, however detestable and offensive they may be, government generally ought to mind its own business.
But, if marriage constitutes part of government's "business," then the role of religion in determining who can be married, or under what circumstances, should not exist.
As I'm sure you now realize, it's nearly impossible for a writer of my admittedly amateur skill and wisdom to discuss this matter with any finality. So, rather than leaving you with some pseudo-profound conclusion, I'd rather remark on the issue generally and see what, if any, wisdom the future may hold.
A writing teacher of mine once told me to write as though all my work was to be read posthumously. Write as though you're dead and see if that doesn't make you more attentive to grammar and punctuation and whatnot. I'm not sure whether the advice helped my writing at all, but it has changed the way I think about issues like same-sex marriage. When considering something of such social and constitutional importance, I try to imagine my position being examined 30 or 40 years from now, after history judges my judgment -- doing this, I've found, lessens the temptation of ethical trendiness.
It's difficult to envision, in the future, those who oppose same-sex marriage described with any words but contempt and regret. Most opponents of marital equality probably realize the ultimate futility of their efforts. Over time, when same-sex marriage no longer warrants its prefix, those who opposed it will likely face the same sort of scorn reserved for the great obstructionists of history. Quite unpleasant company, if you ask me.
Dan Keyserling is a Cavalier Daily associate editor. He can be reached at dkeyserling@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 4 days agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 5 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | January 9, 2025Every student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
