Some have argued that in addressing the issue of same-sex marriage, the state cannot escape dealing with marriage in religious terms and hence the definition should remain that of religious tradition, i.e. no same-sex marriage. However, the assumption that marriage is a theological or religious invention is fundamentally invalid, as is what may be seen as a corollary proposition that morality itself is sourced in religion.
Indeed, while religions have universally grafted themselves onto the institution of marriage and while some individuals may view their marriage in a religious context, this in no way alters the fact that marriage has biological, social and legal foundations outside any theology and which predate any extant religion.
Marriage is at its base a social and psychological structure with biological roots. Clearly, the impulse to pair-bond evolved to address the demands of a prolonged human maturation process. Other animals have different reproductive strategies mandated by different biological realities reflected in different relationships. Geese are famous for their lifetime bonding, but this has nothing to do with goose religion. That the black widow spider eats her mate is a biological, not a theological outcome. In marriage, religion and the law are endorsing something not creating it and they each have different considerations in doing so.
The state's approach to marriage must reflect its purposes in the institution. Obviously, promoting the welfare of children is one, but the state's interest involves issues of property rights, contracts, agency, estate law etc., that people expect to arise from marriage. Even overtly atheistic states impart legal significance to marriage and in many places, including in parts of "Christian" Europe, the clergy is not empowered to perform a legal marriage; one must have two ceremonies to be married in the eyes of church and state in such places.
So what does all this say about same-sex marriage? While the pair bonding instincts and associated emotions that underpin marriage have evolved from a reproductive foundation, it is clear that they have developed an existence independent of that end - socially, culturally and emotionally. Neither the state nor any religion limits recognition of marriage to fertile couples. Marriages are not dissolved automatically for want of issue nor upon menopause. Some people marry without any intention or even ability to have children. None of this changes their desire to bond, nor the character of the commitment made, nor the various issues of concern to the law dealing with property, agency and the like that arise from such bonding.
It is apparent that gay people have the same impulse to pair-bond as the rest of us. That this impulse has been repressed in a less understanding past does not answer the question of whether such persons should be able to form a marriage, now that we realize that homosexuality is a biological condition, not a behavior. The whole import of the enlightenment is that in substituting reason for faith we have opened the door to progress in human understanding. It should be obvious, that such matters as this, the law should conform to human nature, not try and force human nature to conform to it.
In the end, at its core, marriage is first a contractual commitment to become one in the eyes of society and the law, and for some also in the eyes of a church. In reason, it is plainly obvious that who should enter such commitments is an issue for those involved, and the legal benefits and burdens that go with the commitment should be the same for all who chose to make it. There is no rational basis for discrimination in the law.
Religions are free to define marriage as they choose. However, the flip side of that right is that secular law is free, indeed obligated to ignore such judgments in pursuit of its purposes, which includes a goal of equal treatment before the law.
Marriage is at its base a social and psychological structure with biological roots. Clearly, the impulse to pair-bond evolved to address the demands of a prolonged human maturation process. Other animals have different reproductive strategies mandated by different biological realities reflected in different relationships. Geese are famous for their lifetime bonding, but this has nothing to do with goose religion. That the black widow spider eats her mate is a biological, not a theological outcome. In marriage, religion and the law are endorsing something not creating it and they each have different considerations in doing so.
The state's approach to marriage must reflect its purposes in the institution. Obviously, promoting the welfare of children is one, but the state's interest involves issues of property rights, contracts, agency, estate law etc., that people expect to arise from marriage. Even overtly atheistic states impart legal significance to marriage and in many places, including in parts of "Christian" Europe, the clergy is not empowered to perform a legal marriage; one must have two ceremonies to be married in the eyes of church and state in such places.
So what does all this say about same-sex marriage? While the pair bonding instincts and associated emotions that underpin marriage have evolved from a reproductive foundation, it is clear that they have developed an existence independent of that end - socially, culturally and emotionally. Neither the state nor any religion limits recognition of marriage to fertile couples. Marriages are not dissolved automatically for want of issue nor upon menopause. Some people marry without any intention or even ability to have children. None of this changes their desire to bond, nor the character of the commitment made, nor the various issues of concern to the law dealing with property, agency and the like that arise from such bonding.
It is apparent that gay people have the same impulse to pair-bond as the rest of us. That this impulse has been repressed in a less understanding past does not answer the question of whether such persons should be able to form a marriage, now that we realize that homosexuality is a biological condition, not a behavior. The whole import of the enlightenment is that in substituting reason for faith we have opened the door to progress in human understanding. It should be obvious, that such matters as this, the law should conform to human nature, not try and force human nature to conform to it.
In the end, at its core, marriage is first a contractual commitment to become one in the eyes of society and the law, and for some also in the eyes of a church. In reason, it is plainly obvious that who should enter such commitments is an issue for those involved, and the legal benefits and burdens that go with the commitment should be the same for all who chose to make it. There is no rational basis for discrimination in the law.
Religions are free to define marriage as they choose. However, the flip side of that right is that secular law is free, indeed obligated to ignore such judgments in pursuit of its purposes, which includes a goal of equal treatment before the law.
No comments:
Post a Comment