Kate, as a traditionally religious person, I happen to agree with you on the subject of differentiating between civil marriage and religious marriage. I’d go one further: When a Minister, Priest, Rabbi, Imam, or Officiant (that’s a new word for me) performs a marriage, he or she is acting as an agent of the State. I would suggest that is actually a violation of the idea of church/state separation.

I’m just curious, what are the rights and benefits that marriage bestows on people? Not asking for an exhaustive list, but what are the high points?

Dear hs,

I’m glad we agree on this issue–and you’ve put your finger on my discomfort with performing marriages: suddenly I’m an officer of the state in addition to a clergyperson, not a role I look for and a violation of church/state, as you say.

There are over 1,000 rights and benefits that marriage automatically bestows–some of them, such as inheritance and the ability to make medical decisions for someone, you can set up with legal papers–although even then if you don’t have the papers on you your right to make life-and-death decisions for your partner could be challenged. Some rights, such as Social Security survivor benefits, are federal laws that state civil union systems can’t affect. There are also intangible benefits, in that the community looks at married couples differently than non-married couples, but the legal rights are crucial. For instance, my partner isn’t covered by my employer’s insurance, and luckily he’s pretty healthy, but if he had a pre-existing condition he would be uninsurable as an individual.

You can find a comprehensive list of marriage rights prepared by the U.S. Government Accounting Office at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf or just browse for “federal rights of marriage.”

Kate,
I know this is slightly off-topic, but something you said has me genuinely concerned. Does your partner have any health insurance? As he gets older, it is very likely that he will eventually develop something that could make him uninsurable. HIPAA rules provide some degree of protection, but only if he has continuous insurance coverage without any breaks. Lack of insurance, combined with a lengthy hospital stay, is a very fast way for a family to become bankrupt. Please take care of yourselves.
Good fortune!

Dear Benja,

You are so kind to be concerned. Yes, he has individual insurance, and I will pass on your info to him about continual coverage.

And I understand that health insurance is a big problem for many clergy, since a majority of congregations are small and denominational coverage is getting harder and harder to come by. “Retired” clergy made destitute by medical expenses are far from rare. And they have a lot of company in non-clergy, of course.

But I’m sure that the United States of America will figure out how to provide health care for all its citizens before long. . . . If we demand it.

I respectfully disagree on several issues.

I don’t think marriage is a naturally human institution and therefore I don’t think it is a human right.

I don’t see it as a civil right because there is no guarantee to marriage in the Constitution. As far as the state goes, I view the recognition of marriage by the state and all subsequent benefits to be a privilege granted by the citizens of said state or the legislative body. But there is no need to certify any union between any group of people, again its not a right.

I do view marriage as a religious concept. Each faith has their own right to set rules for marriage as they see fit. None of these rules should be observed by a legal body.

I don’t see a church/state violation because you don’t have to have a religious wedding to obtain the state certificate. And vice versa, you don’t have to apply for state sanctioning of your religious ceremony. Again, its a privilege.

Too often I believe people try to make things civil or human rights just because. Personally I’d vote to extend the right to marry to Homosexual couples. But I think it’s in the hands of state voters to decide to extend that privilege and not the courts to extend it as a right.

I’d ask this, and its a serious question. Since you believe marriage is a human right that should be observed by the government, what is your view on multiple partner arrangements? If three or more loving adult people want the same recognition, as a right how can you deny them?

Kate,
You may be interested in looking at is a FAQ page on portability of health insurance on the department of labor website (http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/faqs/faq_consumer_hipaa.html).

Thank you for your support Kate and the work you do with the Ethical Society. Members of the LGBT community in Missouri are naturally pleased at the California ruling and wait for the day when such decisions are not necessary in our Democracy. Democracy and Equality always partner up eventually.

As a note, I’d hope that the United States of America decides to stay out of the insurance industry. Instead I’d hope that they would decide that instead of driving up costs for everyone, that lower taxes would provide better personal choice for healthcare needs. Its the ethics of personal responsibility.

Kate:

Many same sex siblings are up in arms because so much is being done to placate those room mates actually performing “the deed” but leaving innocents out in the cold over life and death decisions, insurance and survivor benefits.

I’m not suggesting that it’s easy being gay. A potential marriage in Massachusetts between Walter A. and Carstairs P. went down the tubes because of savage disagreement over which would throw the garter and or the bridal bouquet.

Marriage was a civil moneymaker long before religious intrusion, with the expressed purpose of protecting inheritance rights of proven progeny. The progeny of same sex couples is questionable at best, so isn’t much of the brouhaha really about gaining societal approval of their choice of mates, you know sort of trophy spouses?

Religious “marriages” aren’t recognized in this country without a civil license - so I thought all marriages were civil contracts between the parties and the state.

Civil unions seem to me like asking people of color to ride in the back of the bus. You still get to where you are going, but it isn’t quite the same. The fundamentalists’ assertion that marriage is between one man and one woman is not the practice in real life considering the swingers who populate the internet and real lfe gatherings. When I participated in forums online that helped gays, BIs and transexuals deal with life and the discrimination and hostility slung at them, there were constant streams of married swingers trolling for partners, even though they knew from guidelines that was not welcome.
These swingers are bold enough to send nude pics and advertise on dating sites about their adultery. Some even pose with their kids, so they are not too worried about the fundies enforcing that “one man, one woman” doctrine aginst them.
I would suggest if we want to ban gay marriage on those grounds we start enforcing and passing more adultery laws and asking ministers to step down who commit the hypocrisy of havin gay sex while denouncing gays from the pulpit. And adding tests for STDs to medical exam routines. Few adulterers will admit to a doctor what they do. I used to be a fan of ACT UP, the gay activist group. Maybe it’s time to get them back to out those who scorn gays while having gay sex themselves.
Take religion out of it since marriage is largely (as it should be in a country like ours) based on legal doctrines. Whatever we do, quit discriminating against what god made.

I was wondering what you base your “ethics” on. Do you also believe that marriage should be limited to one man or women per “marriage”?

PS If America adopts all of the “great” systems from other countries eventually we won’t have to be concerned about illegal immigration because there won’t be any differnce between the US than the rest of the world.

For almost 50 years, shame has been cast aside in America. What we would once consider shameful is sadly accepted as no big deal. Living together is as commonplace as getting a drink of water. True commitment to the person you love, only of the opposite sex I might add, would only get in the way. Co-habitants like to rationalize their relationship in ways that, in the end, say we love each other; we just don’t love each “that” much.

I believe that marriage is sacred and living together is sinful. Now, of course, many people do not believe their actions on Earth have any bearing on judgement when they die because they believe there is no judgement.
That risk is certainly their free will to take.

As to the same-sex “marriage,” it is a sickening display of hedonism to even be discussed in public. The abomination of committing homosexual acts is just made all the more shameful by this fantasy of same sex marriage. I believe good can triumph over evil and people can repent their degraded offensive lives only when they repent and are humbled that their own selfish inclinations are leading away from the Truth.

This society, this country is sick and getting sicker every day.

Rob Schultz

It is wonderful to share this world with people like this story writer. No matter what the gender people that are in committed relationships deserve equal rights. The goverment takes are taxes and won’t consider us part of america that deserves equality! We are not the nasty molesters and deviants that you may assume. We are your co-workers, fellow soldiers, christians, brothers, sisters cousins, children and most of all just like everyone else. Take the time to understand us before you judge us.

I think it is very telling that there are only 5 comments on this blog. I don’t think the average American really cares whether gay people can marry or not; it’s just another political smoke screen.
It’s funny I read this today; my partner of 7 years and I just attended her brothers (2nd) marriage, they’ve been together 18 months.
We are law-abiding workers, tax payers, friends, and, if you are lucky, your neighors. We are struggling to pay for gas, and donating our old clothes to the poor…just like everyone else.
I absolutely do NOT want to know what goes on in your bedroom, why someone would want to know what goes on in mine is baffling. I don’t care what your religion is. My God blessed me with my girlfriend.
We don’t need a piece of paper to validate our love and devotion to each other, but it certainly would be nice (and only right) to have the option.
Thanks for the great article, Kate.

I think you are confusing civil rights and the issue of gay marriage. It is a civil right to have any type of relationship you want without government interference. This is entirely different than the government bestowing special legal status on a relationship.

For a multitude of reasons, governments since the beginning of civilization have chosen to grants special legal privileges to married couples. Mostly this legal relationship has been between one man and one woman, but in many cases between one man and multiple women. Any deviation from this is an extreme that has happened too infrequently to even be mentioned. Society has chosen to not recognize many types of relationships such as polygamy, incest, or relationships with minors. A strong argument can me made that each of these types of relationships are more “normal” than homosexual ones based on biology and historical patterns in humans and other animals. Any argument that can be made for homosexual marriage can be made more strongly for these other types of relationships. How can you possibly support homosexual marriage without supporting marriage of any type?

I have yet to hear any compelling reason to grant special status to homosexual relationships. Many of us do not view these types of relationships as equivalent in any way to traditional heterosexual relationships. This has nothing to do with faith and religion and everything to do with basic biology and history.

The California situation is the epitome of judicial activism. It was not the intent of the drafters of the federal or any state constitution to recognize same sex relationships. If the constitutions can be read to require gay marriage, they can be read to mean anything the current judges wish. This will lead to the continued breakdown in respect for the judiciary. Why even had a legislature if judges can make up laws to satisfy their own views on social justice?

Gays have every right to do whatever they choose with each other. They do not have the right to have their relationships forced upon the rest of us. I do not want this presented to my children in school as normal and no different from heterosexual relationships. This would be a by product of any type of legalization.

I appreciate Kate Lovelady’s position on marriage equality. As the Supreme Courts of Massachusetts and now California have determined, marriage is indeed a basic civil right for gay and straight couples alike. I do not accept the notion, however, that simply because some people are denied that right in Missouri that everyone else should waive or forego it. There can be marriage and at the same time a vibrant and principled movement for marriage equality. And perhaps the most potent way to do so is for our clergy to sanctify gay relationships in their own houses of worship.

This past Saturday evening I, a rabbi, had the honor of officiating at the Jewish wedding ceremony (kiddushin) of two men, both in their 20s and very much in love. Though it was obvious to all that the ceremony conferred no civil law status on their relationship, the ceremony’s moral and spiritual significance was unmistakable. The ritual was Jewish, the venue was a synagogue, the grooms’ relatives and friends wept, and the presence of God infused the sanctuary. It was one of the most joyful and moving weddings I have ever been honored to perform.

Until quite recently in Western civilization, marriage depended on religious sanctification, not state recognition. That states have since tried to regulate it should not negate its fundamentally spiritual significance. While it is regrettable indeed that same-sex couples are denied the basic rights and privileges associated with marriage, the spiritual and moral legitimacy which clergy can bestow upon their relationships can ultimately matter far more than any unjust law.

I just read most of the comments here. I can’t respond to all of them, but a few points. Marriage equality is a church/state issue because there’s no secular, scientific, objective reason to limit marriage to opposite-sex partners. Same-sex marriages and same-sex-headed families are just as healthy and good for society as opposite-sex ones. (There are of course bad partners and bad parents in both kinds of relationships.) The only arguments against same-sex marriage are religious–which are relevant only to denominational fights within religions about what kinds of marriages to bless–and historical–and as someone historically considered property and not allowed to vote, I’m glad we have the ability to update our laws as we expand our understanding of human rights.

Rabbi Franken, your ceremony sounds wonderful. At the Ethical Society we perform “commitment ceremonies” for same-sex couples that are identical in spirit to marriages. They are always very moving events, although I perform them with a touch of sadness in my heart, knowing that legally the loving couple before me will still be treated as a second-class couple, at least for now.

Kate,

You indicate in your post that you have read most of the above points. If you did, I can’t possibly see how you can make the statement that the only arguments against same sex marriage are religious. My detailed post above does not refer in any way to religion or spiritual concepts. I believe you are using a “straw man” (i.e. create a false or weak argument and refuting it). You make blanket statements about the benefits to society from same sex relationships without any evidence to back it up or a logical argument explaining your thought.

Your entire argument could be used just as easily to justify polygamy or any other type of non-traditional relationship. I have no interest what goes on in anyone else’s relationship. It is the same sex community that seems to think they need to shout from the rooftops proclaiming for all to here and trying to force the rest of us to recognize the legitimacy of the their relationship.

Anyone interested in the research of the health of same-sex families, here’s one link: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/514477 [I'm not sure this link is working--just Google "Same-sex couples children" or similar and there are lots of studies.]

I’m sorry that I don’t understand your arguments against same-sex couples, David. Historically, there have always been gay people, but even if being gay were some kind of recent evolution, why would that matter? History is often a very bad ethical guide–the founding fathers didn’t want blacks and whites to marry each other. Biologically, lots of animals besides humans also seem to have gay members, but again, even if only humans were gay, so what? Is it that two same-sex people can’t have children by themselves? Lots of opposite-sex people can’t have children by themselves, and more and more marriages are childless by choice. It seems to me that arguments against same-sex couples come down to religion and “the ick factor”–but we can’t base our laws on personal biases.

“Marriage” as a religious institution, while ancient, was not necesarily the norm. Marriage was usually sanctioned within the context of a particular community, sometimes as being “religious”, other times as a result of folk-religious “ceremony”.

In the Judaeo-Christian tradition, marriage was looked upon as being a religious institution. The state’s interest in marriage had less to do with morals, and more to do with property rights.

Given the current discussions over “gay marriage” and now “polygamy”, it may be time to revisit the whole issue as a matter of public debate.

Below are two articles which might be considered some of the “early shots across the bow”:
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20040729.html
http://www.slate.com/id/2138482/

If two people are totally committed to each other in a loving and caring relationship, does it really matter if they are the same gender? I trust that the relgious and personal moral debate on this continues.