In the wake of the absolutely disgraceful passage of Prop 8 in California, there’s been a lot of talk around the airwaves, internet, and water coolers about how to fix the situation. A popular solution I’ve seen is to banish legal “marriage” altogether, give everyone “civil unions,” and let churches decide what to bless as a “marriage” outside the legal forum. This sounds reasonable at first glance, but something about this bothers me quite a bit. First, it feels like a word game. Second, if we’re going to play word games, I have a much more interesting game to consider.
Words can have multiple meanings based on context. In this very realm of discussion, we already have a very good example: divorce. The word is used to refer to similar concepts in the legal and religious namespaces, but each actually treats them quite differently. Legally speaking, a “divorce” is the dissolution and resolution of a union between two married people. Once complete, from a legal perspective, the two are disentwined and more or less allowed to go on their merry - or marry - ways. Of course, there may be conditions tied to custody of children or continued joint ownership of assets that cannot be cleanly divided, but the root message here is that for most intents and purposes, the two are now considered individuals again, not a couple. And that’s it. Issues of moral impairment may play a role in how the divorce proceeds, but not really whether.
In the religious sphere, divorce can have a longer lasting effect on your personhood. In some faiths, divorce is outright disallowed and, even if one is legally divorced, the church may not recognize you as such. In others, they may recognize the divorce but not afford you all of the rights and privileges due other members of their community; they may not allow you to remarry, they may require you to undergo various rites before you are allowed sacraments of the faith, or have other penalties altogether. Ultimately, these factors are simply matters between you, your church, and your god.
So there, in this very sphere of discussion, we already have one term that means one thing in a legal context, yet something far different in a religious context.
The term “marriage” should work exactly the same. Whether you believe homosexuality is a mortal sin or a small fact of life, from the law’s perspective we are talking about two people who wish to pledge their lives, burdens, and bounties to each other. The law already makes no allowance for the race, religion, or creed of the applicants, it should make no allowance for the sex or sexuality of them either. And, just like some religions enforce different meanings for the term “divorce,” they should make their distinction about “marriage” the same way - internally, among their followers.