no on prop 8..... or vote yes if you really feel that way

This is an extremely long blog entry, quite different from my norm of only a few sentences.  If you decide to  read this, please do not feel that I am anti-marriage, anti-gay, anti-religious.  Although Agnostic, I do have gay friends and would support their decision and struggle to marry if they chose to do so.  I myself have recently gotten married as well (oh, I didn’t blog about that?  I guess that is an entry for another time )

____________________________________________________________________

Super Tuesday is here and people are clamoring out in droves to vote on elected officials, measures, potential laws, etc.  In California, of particular interest is proposition 8. 

For those of you not aware, California Supreme Court ruled that homosexual couples can legally marry instead of simply filing for domestic partnership.  This has allowed them full rights as a married couple instead of only some of the rights as domestic partnership entails (http://www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/press/rightsobligations.html).

Proposition 8 is here because many conservative groups do not like the idea of gays “marrying” and feel that marriage is defined specifically as the holy union of a man and a woman.  As such, this challenges the concept of the traditional family and based on reactions by this idea has proven to be quite threatening.

What should be considered really should be the examination of what exactly is the definition of marriage, who defines it as such, and most importantly, should committed couples be allowed full legal rights upon entering in a “civil union.”

            Main Entry:

                mar·riage

                Pronunciation:

                \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\

                Function:

                noun

                Etymology:

                Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry

                Date:

                14th century

1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law 2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b: the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage

2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected ; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities

3: an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>

Looking at the accepted definitions (not counting the new definition for same-sex marriage), the historical meaning of marriage derives from religious and cultural ideals; two people joining into a union for the explicit purpose of procreation and sustaining a family.  However through common usage, the term of marriage can simply mean the joining of anything (i.e. a marriage of colors, flavors, odors, ideas, etc.).

Based on these cultural and linguistic definitions, can homosexual marriage be accepted?  A simple objective answer would seem to be yes.  Two people that love each other, joining together in a union to spend their lives together; two people figuratively joining together, blending together to create something new.  The more subjective viewpoint comes when looking at the idea from cultural and religious perspectives.  By tradition and by religion, a man may only take a woman to be wed.  The extent of this is even written in the Old Testament in the Book of Leviticus where it is explicitly stated what a man may enter into relations with (no animals and no men… it also tells us not to eat animals with split hooves, but who’s listening to that?). 

I have a feeling that many people, even if they have a problem with homosexuality, probably don’t truly have a problem with a gay couple living together.  Additionally I believe that people also wouldn’t have a problem with committed homosexual couples receiving the same full legal benefits that traditionally married male-female couples receive.  This is the exact reason no one really challenged the idea of a “domestic partnership” that was created for the sole purpose of allowing same sex couples to receive certain legal benefits.  Because not all legal benefits are allowed under that title, it is still not truly an equal designation.  Had the agenda been to solely push equality for all, then I really don’t feel there would be much of a debate.

Gay Americans just like everyone else have been brought up in a society that utilizes the terminology of “marriage” to signify a unity of committed individuals into a lifelong relationship.  There are grooms, and brides and best men, and bridesmaids, and a cake, and everything else that goes along with a typical marriage ceremony.  This is where the problem arises; an unpopular minority seeking the whole nine yards from a conservative majority that shuns them on moral grounds.  It’s a very bad position to take, an almost unwinnable scenario.  Again, it’s all about the whole nine yards.  If we can have equal footing and get all of our benefits, why can’t we call it the same thing?  Simply put it’s because many do not wish to redefine an incredibly old ideal.

My solution, though controversial in its own way would be this: exchange the terminology of marriage to a blanket statement of “civil union.”  By removing these terms “marriage,” “groom,” and “bride,” from the legal and political lexicon you remove sex and gender from this landscape.  Anyone that chooses to enter into a civil union enters into a relationship that has all legal benefits and pitfalls as those of the former traditional marriage.  Many would decry this as a desire to destroy marriage and exterminate its existence.  But let me assure you that it does not.  Again, all of the traditional aspects are there, all rights to benefits for parties involved are there.  The only things missing are the terms that people fight for on a purely conservative and/or religious level.  Doing this, the state absolves itself from the controversy as it shows true acceptance and equality.  Recognition of a marriage under God and the Church becomes a completely separate fight and one that conservatives can feel free to deny.