I just read an article in the Minneapolis Star Tribune headlined "Priests Told Not to Voice Dissent," about the Archbishop John Nienstedt's efforts to order Minnesota Catholics to support the proposed amendment to the state constitution that would ban gay marriage. The amendment will be on the ballot this fall. "The stakes could not be higher," he is quoted as saying.
What are those stakes? According to him, the "endgame" of gay marriage supporters is to "eliminate the need for marriage altogether." What, exactly, does this mean? That, inexplicably, by expanding the pool of eligible members, the "institution" of marriage will no longer be necessary? That because allowing gay couples to marry, the institution becomes so degraded that it straight couples will no longer participate? Or something else? It's unclear.
But like the highly charged debate about abortion, this one seems to force us all into two tight, uncomfortable boxes -- for or against. I have an alternative stance that I really haven't heard debated at all: why is the state involved in marriage at all?
The answer, I would guess, is custom. And because it's been the custom for so many centuries, it's inextricably entangled with so many other customs, laws and institutions that its validity is no longer questioned. For example, the few times I've mentioned my seemingly radical position to people, one of the predictable responses is that we need marriage to determine inheritances or rights of parents or rights of access to hospital patients or rights to family health coverage. But why? All these rights (and any others one can think of) can be dealt with in simple, fair ways. In fact, it would force us to do so.
For example, we should have state-sponsored health insurance for all, not single or family coverage based on the lucky ones who have it offered through the workplace only for those married by the state. Everyone should be able to designate the loved ones they want to inherit their wealth, visit them when they're sick, etc. It's not impossible. In fact, it's not that difficult.
If the purpose of marriage is to celebrate the public commitment of a couple to a long-term relationship, that can still be done. It can involve religion if the participants so choose. Or it can involve a "do-it-yourself" ceremony. It shouldn't matter.
Our current marriage laws reinforce outdated concepts of women and children as property. Few people would support this concept, so why hang on to an institution of the state that serves to support these concepts? Most people have spoken with their actions in this regard anyway. Approximately half the people who marry get divorced. Does banning same-sex marriage save people from divorce? Most American men and women have cohabited at some time in their lives. Would banning same-sex marriage encourage these couples to get married?
The most curious part of this hot-button issue to me is the fact that gay couples are so eager to participate in this custom. We straight couples have made a pretty big mess of it; yet they want in. We should be puzzled, but flattered.
But I think my solution is more elegant. Instead of deciding whether to open the highly flawed traditional institution to a heretofore shunned group, I think we should all adopt the customs of the shunned group. Make marriage a personal/religious/familial/cultural public event, not a political state-sponsored event. I think we'd all be better off.
