Marriage & Gay People

So I found out from my friend’s blog that Prop 8 has been overturned. Woohoo!!  For those not in the know, Prop 8 was passed in the last California election (November) and banned gay marriages in California.  Considering California considers itself such a liberal place and such a strong defender of gay rights, everyone was understandably shocked that CA had passed Prop 8.  Well, no longer; it has apparently been overturned.

However, all this talk of Prop 8 has made me think of the subject that started, well, Prop 8: gay marriage.  Originally I was strongly “yeah! Gay marriage!” and to a certain extent, I still am very pro gay marriage.  However, I don’t think I support “gay marriage” so much as “the freedom to unite with whoever you want and be equal in the eyes of the law.”  After all, (1) the USA is supposed to be based off of the concept of separation of church and state and (2) the USA is supposed to be the bastion of rights and freedoms, of which I’d think the right to be legally united in the eyes of the law is one of these rights and freedoms. 

However, as a supporter of “freedoms,” I have realized that just as I support gay people and their right to be married in the eyes of the law, I also support people’s right to believe in what they want in their religion.  As common as the term “marriage” has become, I also think (but don’t quote me on this) that “marriage” is a very religious term.  I may be completely wrong as I can’t be bothered to check this up, but I believe the word “marriage” stems from religious backgrounds and as such, it is impossible to wrestle the concept of ‘marriage’ away from religion.  If it’s not right that we’re forced to define “marriage” as a union between a man and a woman (which I’m guessing Christian, and other traditionalists, prefer), then in contrast what right does the US government then have to define “marriage” as something other than that?  Why must religious people be forced to accept “marriage” as including gay people when more liberal people don’t have to accept “marriage” as only for straight people?  This seems like a double standard to me.

I think my logic is getting a touch convoluted, mostly because I’m trying not to stereotype and call all anti-gay marriage people Christians.  Anyways, my (uneducated) opinion at the end of the day stems from the idea that the term “marriage” is inherently religious and we (the liberals/pro-supporters of gay marriage) have no right to define “marriage” to include gay people as it will inevitably upset a lot of people.

I do believe that gay people deserve the same rights in the eyes of the law as straight people; if gay people are ‘married’ in the eyes of the law, they should get the same rights as any heterosexual couple.  However, I think gay people are being a bit greedy when they fight over the term of ‘marriage.’  They complain about it being “unfair” that they don’t have the same rights as heterosexual couples, okay I understand.  However they think it’s fair that they force an inherently religious word (“marriage”) to take on a term many people don’t think it should and it’s not fair to the non-supporters they have to accept a convolution of their idea of marriage?  Right..

I understand the concept “marriage” carries many connotations with it (how it implies devotion and love and blah blah), but if the fight’s really about love (and equality in the eyes of the law), what does it matter to you if your civil union is called “marriage” or “revinosh” or any other word?  (And yes, revinosh is a made up word to my knowledge that way it avoids any inherent connotations and loses the p.c.-ness of “civil union.”)  As a group, gay people can support the concept of “revinosh” and create it to have as many nice connotations as marriage currently has.

. . . Or you could stop this stupid fight for the idea of “marriage” and focus on what I thought was the important part, being equal in the eyes of the law.  Why not (as impossible as this is) push for the government to abolish the institution of “marriage” in the legal sense, rename it “civil union” or something, and make it available for any two people who wish to be civil-union-ed.  Beyond that, each couple can then call it whatever they want (marriage/revinosh/together/etc.).  Doesn’t that take out the aspect of “the US should be separated between church and state” which so many people have problems with?

You can’t fight all the religious implications marriage has in it.  Even now as the world has become more interconnected and the word “marriage” has become a more everyday word, the word still clings to its heritage.  I don’t think it is right that we force any interpretation of marriage on anyone.  I believe gay people should have the same rights as a heterosexual couple in the eyes of the law but beyond that, seriously, stop trying to have your cake and eat it too.  The USA has greater problems to worry about than trying to make all Christians and traditionalists accept the concept of marriage as anything other than a union of a man and a woman.  (In fact, doing so would not be honoring a person’s freedom of religion and you’d see a blog post from me defending traditionalists right to define marriage however they want. ;P )