don's report archive

One of an endless number of contentious issues in our society, and even in sensible cultures like Canada, is that of gays marrying each other. Whereas some gays (and lesbians) desire to wed, legal jurisdictions everywhere countenance only those couplings involving a man and a woman, as most of us understand these gender distinctions.

Why gays and lesbians would want to make "sacrifices at the altar" is a mystery to me--have they not noticed the calamitous carnage visited upon so many heterosexual couples? We all know folks in this latter category who have risked the perils of marriage, to their everlasting chagrin. No matter--the desire is there. Maybe the gays who want to marry seek such a state with eyes wide open; then again, maybe they are simply besotted with affection for each other (common BEFORE marriage) AND determined to access and enjoy the same rights, privileges and pomp and circumstance as the rest of society. The latter is much more understandable. Another part of all this must be the urge to let everyone know they love and cherish each other and promise to forevermore do this and that, etc. ad nauseam. In any case, the desire to marry is a powerful instinct in Western cultures for straights AND gays. Canada, Vermont and a few other jurisdictions are leading the way toward acceptance of gay marriage in one form or another. To some (other homosexuals, liberals), this trend is just peachy; to others (religious conservatives), it signals the doom of civilization.

All this fuss is a monumental waste of energy. It is absolutely unnecessary--for the most sensible remedy will cost nothing and please everyone. I think.

Conservative Republican Bob Barr, who wanted to impeach Bill Clinton for messing around with an intern, favors allowing each state to make its own decisions about who can marry whom without federal interference. This is a good start, but does nothing to prevent abuses by states all over the country. Even Dick Cheney has a sensible take on the matter, having made this statement on the issue (quoted approvingly by former Rep. Barr in a special to the Washington Post column entitled "No Need for A Marriage Amendment"): "The fact of the matter is we live in a free society, and freedom means freedom for everybody...And I think that means that people should be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to enter into. It's really no one else's business in terms of trying to regulate or prohibit behavior in that regard."

The solution is simple: Think of marriage as a sacrament, and treat it accordingly, namely, as the business of religious officials, not the government. A sacrament is defined as "a Christian rite (as baptism or the Eucharist) that is believed to have been ordained by Christ and that is held to be a means of divine grace or to be a sign or symbol of a spiritual reality." Religions other than those of a Christian nature have their own special rites, signs and symbols just as sacred to their believers as sacraments are to Christians. Marriage is one of them--all religions seem to endorse and "sanctify" this institution to those who follow the rules of a given dogma or creed. If marriage were taken out of government auspices, then only religions would have any standing as to who can or cannot marry in a particular order. If Southern Baptists, for example, won't marry gays, the gays are quite free to find a Unitarian or other church that will gladly accommodate them.

By getting the government out of religion, we would be safeguarding the separation of church and state. In America, governments have no role in handing out sacraments. Let the individual religions manage the "sacrament" of marriage; unions between consenting adults as legal contracts recognized and enforced by governments would be done as civil unions. If gays want to enter into contracts with each other, they would have every right to do so that heterosexuals enjoy, just as they have a right at present to buy homes, cars or whatever else they wish to share. On the other hand, if gays or others want to marry, all they have to do is find a religion (church) willing to host the event and "bless" it. Considering the wide range of religious denominations out there, how hard can that be, for anybody?

The role of government in all this is to issue state licenses for civil unions. Any given church group is free to recognize such a license or union, or not, as its beliefs warrant. A simple change in words and jurisdictions would solve this conflict. The unions of all folks, including gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered--all who are citizens of this country, deserve the right to have their relationships recognized and guided by the conventions of government, but as contracts (civil union licenses), not sacraments (marriage.)

Be well. Look on the bright side of life.