Gay or straight: re-approaching the question of marriage

One of the most difficult issues with which society has been grappling in recent years is the question of marriage: specifically, to whom does it apply, how should it be defined, and by whom. It’s generating enormous heat, politically, with accompanying hostility and community suspicion and divisiveness, and it promises to grow worse, rather than better.
I think we’re using a bass-ackward approach to a Gordian Knot. Rather than trying to stretch and twist the traditionally understood institution of marriage so that it covers unions that are not traditional, we’d do better if we recognize marriage on its own merits, but remove the associated civil benefits from it.
Let’s separate the religious from the civil, across the board… for everyone. We can do this if we stop relying on a single document as the source.
What if, when a couple gets married in a church, there are two documents generated, instead of one — a recognition of the legal union, and a religous sanction of the marriage? The marital church document on its own would not then confer spousal status in terms of government recognition; that civil and contractual authority would stand separately.
Thus, government would not be in the business of defining what is, in essence, a religious ceremony, nor would it be in the business of denying benefits and rights to a subgroup of its population. To receive the governmentally-sanctioned social benefits (like pensions, SS, medical treatment choices, next of kin, inheritance, etc.), every couple, regardless of religious or sexual considerations, would need the same civil document. No one would have special status or preference.
Because marriage and civil status are — or could be — distinct entities.
I have some examples in mind, and as is (perhaps far too) often the case, the first of them comes from Polimom’s own life.
When I got married the first time, we had a good friend who was a Justice of the Peace — authorized by the State of California to confer legal matrimonial status. She was not a minister with a mantle or a cross; she wore a suit… and she wore it during the ceremony in the Army’s post chapel. It didn’t matter enormously to us, though, because we wanted to include our friend; because the document we came away with was no different from what we’d have received had we gone through a minister, we could arrange things in our own unique way.
Our marital status derived from a single document, and thus there were no issues for us. Churches saw us as married, just as the government did.
Not being affiliated with a specific religion, however, does not mean the traditional was unimportant to us. If our friend’s legal authority had meant we were not “married”, I’m positive that AC’s daddy and I would have done things differently. For us, it would have been important to come away with two separate documents: recognition of the civil contract and the religious marital sanction. But it would have been our choice.
What about homosexual couples, then? They could be united civilly by anyone sanctioned by the state to confer such a status (like a JP), and thus be recognized by the government in precisely the same way as any other couple. They would receive the same civil document as I and my husband. If a gay couple wishes a religious sanction, that would then be between themselves and their church — because it would be a separate recognition, and thus would produce a separate document.
In this framework, there are no questions about whether one state would or would not reciprocate in recognizing marital status; the status of “marriage” is returned to the institution uniquely responsible for the term itself — the church.
And finally, there’s the Pandora’s Box of polygamy. As enjoyable as the discussions can be (Polimom sometimes entertains DH, for instance, with “what ifs” on my proposal of his status as Husband #1) — there are potentially some wider ramifications. However, polygamy is also part of a number of religions, and within that context cannot simply be dismissed.
So let’s say Mormons (or Muslims) choose to bless the union of a man with a second or third wife. They could, then, issue this couple a religiously sanctioned recognition of the marriage. However, the government is in no way required to extend benefits to multiple spouses; within the civil and benefit arena, assigning legal status to only one spouse is perfectly within the government’s area of responsibility, because there are economic and legal ramifications. Thus, a second (or tenth) spousal union would not receive a civil union document..
If the religious document does not define how a relationship is treated from the civil / contractual standpoint, then it doesn’t affect me (or you) anymore.
* * *
In a nutshell — what I’m proposing is that we separate the legal status from the religious. If we did this, those who are (rightfully, I think) defending the religious aspects would no longer feel that marriage itself was under attack, while government would no longer be placed in the position of defining who can or cannot receive benefits via a religious doctrine or definition.
FWIW, I ran this proposal by a number of people, including a staunch libertarian / federalist, and a devout Catholic. Both of them thought that this idea worth tossing out to the wider world for mastication and digestion.
So — what do you think?