Antiquated words fuel same-sex marriage debate

RYAN CANNON

Online Editor

US President George Bush’s announcements over the past two weeks that he refuses to support same-sex marriages has begun a flurry of debate over the legitimacy of a legal homosexual union. His view imposes a belief system upon the American public and denies a freedom most Americans vehemently protect: the separation of church and state.

Marriage is essentially a religious and cultural ritual. Although it has existed since almost the beginning of civilization, most cultures celebrate marriage as a religious institution. According to CNN News, Bush claims that we must protect the “sanctity of marriage.” One definition of sanctity from Webster’s Dictionary is a “religiously binding force.” The government protecting the sanctity of anything shreds this country’s Bill of Rights, which assures that the government cannot assert religious dicta onto its citizens.

The government currently regulates this sacred ceremony. A couple seeking marriage must also pay the government for the privilege. In Wayne County, where I live, the fee is $25 for in-state residents and $35 if one partner resides out-of-state. Michigan law also stipulates that only “an ordained minister of the gospel recognized by a church that has filed a charter with the State of Michigan, Corporation and Land Development Bureau or an elected government official” may perform a marriage. Essentially, the law equates the authority of a magistrate or judge—chosen by the people—as a priest or pastor chosen by God.

The ritual of marriage has transcended religion in American society to include secular benefits not enjoyed by homosexuals. Married couples can jointly files their taxes, automatically retain mutual possessions when one member dies, and can more easily apply for loans. Although divorce is a regrettable situation, at least there is legal help; if a same-sex couple breaks up, who gets the house? Current laws make perilous the fate of same-sex couples seeking a long-term monogamous relationship.

Homosexuals are not the only groups oppressed by current restrictions on marriage. While it may not be acceptable in Christian society, the Qur’an tolerates polygamy. Islam, the world’s fastest-growing religion, allows for men to have up to four wives, so long as they can provide for them all adequately and equally. A Muslim man can seek a union approved by God, should US law not forbid it. In Africa, many emerging Christian churches struggle with extinguishing the culturally embraced practices of polygamy. The structure of marriage laws in the US now not only restricts religious and cultural practices; it represents the hypocritical xenophobia of our society.

The problem resides not in a corruption of our society, but the word itself—marriage. Neither Bush nor his strongest opponent in the presidential race, Democratic Senator John Kerry, opposes “civil unions” for homosexuals, only gay marriages. If the US government stays true to its Constitution, where “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” then it has no right to federally regulate—or even offer—marriages. Civil unions of two (or conceivably more) people should be the only legal union for homosexuals and heterosexuals alike. Leave marriage to a higher authority.

Top