By Jared Chausow
By Katie Toth
By Elizabeth Flock
By Albert Samaha
By Anna Merlan
By Jon Campbell
By Jon Campbell
By Albert Samaha
Throwing a bone to his base, Bush wasn't just making a cynical election-year calculation. He was speaking as a true believer, taking some faith-based initiative to try to write discrimination into the Constitution. At least he has the courage of his convictionsunlike the waffling Democratsand thus Bush revealed the key trouble at the heart of the issue: Marriage itself violates the establishment clause by defining matrimony according to particular religious beliefs.
Take the sacral out of the state, and what reason can it give for preferring hetero to homo couplings? Not a one. It can only cite, as the president did, "cultural, religious, and natural" traditions. But not all religions forbid same-sex nuptials. (I, for one, was hitched under a chuppah to another woman in 1992.) As Rabbi Arthur Waskow puts it, "God forbidand I do mean God forbid!that as a country we dig ourselves into a pit where Orthodox Jews and Southern Baptists are affirmed by the Constitution while Reform Jews and Episcopalians are ghettoized." Besides, various religions restrict rites in other waysmy rabbi won't perform interfaith marriages, for example. But should endogamy be the law of the land? Evangelical activists see gay marriage as a wedge issue for driving their theology into the Bill of Rights. The spirit of sharia law has been written into the new Afghan constitution, and apparently is making its way into the Iraqi one as well; Bush and his flock see no reason not to have their own version inscribed in ours.
The prospect of a "defense of marriage" amendment proves how urgently the state needs to sue the church for divorce. And there is one clear way to do it: Grant civil unions to allincluding straights. If government must insist on offering special privileges to pledged pairs as a means of social engineering and sexual containment, let it provide them through a properly secular arrangement. Leave holy matrimony to the church, mosque, and synagogue. Folks can register at City Hall for legal recognition of their bond (and the tax benefits, inheritance rights, and all the rest that go with it). If they want their union blessedor simply celebrated among family and friends in a secular bashthey have to go elsewhere.
That's largely the system we've got now, of course: Practically speaking, the license and the benediction are issued from different offices. And when it comes to benefits, only the former counts. (That's why I pay income tax on the health insurance my partner gets from the Voice.)
Nonetheless, even atheists, anti-clericals, the party-averse, and those in a Vegas-style hurry can't just sign a paper. For the knot to be tied, they need to undergo what philosophers call a performative acta deed that is committed through words. What actually makes them married is that someone in whom the state has vested authority pronounces them husband and wife. For the vast majority of Americans, that ritual affirmation occurs in a religious setting with a clergy member uttering the magic words. This melding of ecclesiastic and bureaucratic functions lies at the core of today's marriage debate. The evangelical right seeks to blur the boundaries between church and state even more. Their arguments find easy assent from so many Americans because (apart from plain old homophobia) the realms of church and state have been merged in the marriage ceremony for so long, the fusion has come to seem organic.
But if queer studies has taught us anything, it is to show how what may look natural is indeed constructedand to what ends. The institution of marriage has been in constant flux since its establishment as a form for promoting patriarchal control over propertyunderstood to include women and children. Upon saying "I do," women lost the rights to sign a contract or own property. Until 1967, the U.S. permitted states to ban interracial marriage. When Bush warned of the danger of "redefining" marriage, he sounded just like those who railed against restoring women's individual rights in the late 19th century, or who rioted to oppose giving state sanction to lovers who crossed the color line. But because resistance to same-sex marriage is argued solely on the basis of scripture, our relationships will never be accorded equal protection under the law until those acting in the name of the Bible or Koran or Torah are not part of proclaiming them into legal being. The queer-marriage movement needs a divestment campaign: The only way we will win is if the state's authority to pronounce is stripped from ministers, rabbis, imams, and priests. They of course would be able to declare "according to the laws of Moses" or "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit," but not on behalf of the state.