Redefining Marriage (June 26, 2008)

Redefining Marriage
by Holly Vicente Robaina
“For better or worse” is taking a turn for the worse.

June 26, 2008 | Today's Christian Woman
Same-sex couples lined up to get marriage licenses in California last week, after my state became the second in the U.S. to allow gay marriage. Gay-rights activists, fighting for nationwide recognition of same-sex unions, want the same rights and privileges as married heterosexual couples'.

Previously, several states, including California, recognized same-sex civil unions to provide many of marriage's legal benefits, including property, parental, and medical rights. But more than marital rights, gay-rights activists want society to see them as legitimate couples. "Civil unions are unfamiliar; people don't understand them or know how to treat them … . Marriage is the ultimate expression of love and commitment; people understand and respect it," reads a publication from the Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) website. As Brad Sears, executive director of the Williams Project on Sexual Orientation Law at UCLA, explained in a PBS interview, civil unions "do not provide gay couples with the social recognition and support that the institution of marriage provides." The word marriage, gay-rights activists believe, is power.

Those activists may be in for major disappointment. Marriage no longer receives recognition as an esteemed, unbreakable bond. In the past, society viewed a couple as one person. A husband's and wife's signatures were synonymous, and either spouse could make decisions for both. These days, I can't request a replacement ATM card for my husband, and he can't change our joint accounts without my permission. (With one bank rep, I argued, "If we'd wanted our accounts limited to individual access, we'd have gotten individual accounts!") Spouses can also conceal medical information from each other; most states don't even require spousal consent for abortion or sterilization. Clearly, individual rights supersede a couple's commitment.

And why should the "institution" of marriage gain recognition when it gets entered and broken on a whim? Most researchers believe between 40 and 50 percent of all marriages eventually end in divorce. And, according to the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, the most common reasons given are poor communication, financial problems, insufficient commitment, dramatic priority changes, and infidelity. In other words, most people simply change their minds.

Society has largely accepted marriage as temporary. In my undergraduate college's online alumni directory, users can click a box that says, "Please remove spouse/partner from my record." Just that simply, the relationship is erased. This approach sounds frighteningly like real life. The celebrity marriage of Carmen Electra and Dennis Rodman lasted five months, Lisa Marie Presley and Nicolas Cage's union ended in three and a half months, and Britney Spears's "commitment" endured two days. But Christians can't cast stones. According to The Barna Group's most recent divorce poll, the divorce rate among born-again Christians (32 percent) was the same as the average rate for all study participants (33 percent).

Divorce's prevalence is a crucial issue for the gay community. Gay-rights activists see divorce as an important benefit available to married couples, and want it because of the difficulty in dissolving gay unions. For example, Rhode Island courts ruled the state can't issue divorce decrees on same-sex marriages because Rhode Island recognizes marriage—and thus divorce—only between a man and a woman. Meanwhile, however, Oregon created provisions allowing easier dissolution of gay domestic partnerships. The ability to divorce, gay-rights activists say, protects the rights of individuals involved.

The United States' emphasis on individual rights may come at a great cost to social morality. In a PBS interview about the fight over same-sex unions, Boston College Law School professor Thomas Kohler said, "Perhaps the best thing to do is legally to disestablish marriage and return it to the realm of civil society. The law would be entirely neutral to the institution, neither privileging it nor granting those within it any special benefits or status. As a wholly private relationship, parties would be free to contract whatever sort of relationship they wish, according to whatever rubric they desire. The law would recognize only individuals."

Kohler's best idea would likely mean legitimacy for polygamy, incest, statutory rape, and maybe even bestiality. This anything-goes attitude is already apparent on TV, with new shows such as Swingtown celebrating open relationships, and popular shows such as Grey's Anatomy, Ugly Betty, and Desperate Housewives glorifying premarital, extramarital, and homosexual relationships. Anyone who thinks my prediction couldn't really happen in America just needs to consider how Canada, after legalizing gay marriage three years ago, is debating whether to recognize polygamous unions, too. Extending rights through civil unions (where people can share their property with whomever they want) may quickly lead to embracing moral relativism (where people can marry their dogs).

Still, the gay community is blameless for the current state of marriage. Heterosexuals—including us evangelical Christians—are solely responsible for damaging God's holy union. We must admit our guilt, and our selfishness at the root of divorce and infidelity. If we Christians really want to restore God's plan for marriage, we need to channel some of the energy that's gone into fighting same-sex marriages into working on our own marriages.

Blessings,
Holly