With all the recent gay marriage controversy in California and New York, I’ve been thinking about an idea I’ve actually had for quite a while. I think that every state should offer civil unions — but not just for same-sex couples. In fact, I think civil unions should completely replace marriages, at least legally.
Now, of course, this will probably seem extreme. End marriage? But the really important thing here is that such a move would in no way end marriage. Churches would still perform marriages. There would still be weddings, and rings, and vows, and everything else. None of that is remotely related to the legal institution of marriage. Legally, marriage is a contract of sorts between two people where they agree to a standardized set of promises towards each other. As a society we formally recognize this for two reasons. First, we think it’s beneficial socially as a structure for families. Second, it’s easier to keep track of things that way, since so many decisions/transactions are made at the family level. (For example, if we want to see if a child is poor enough to qualify for free school lunches, we need the combined income of both parents, not just one.)
I’m all for giving those legal protections to married couples. I do think it’s a good social structure to encourage, and it provides for a lot of expediency throughout society. Civil unions would also do this. (The civil unions I have in mind, very similar to those that actually exist, would be complete replications of the legal status of marriage, but with a different name.) In a way, it’s a meaningless change. However, I think it would have an important effect. There’s a reason that civil unions, despite being essentially equivalent, are meaningfully more acceptable to many people than gay marriage. To say gay couples deserve marriage is to make a strong statement about the cultural and religious institution of marriage, not just the legal one. Now, I fully support social as well as legal equality, and I believe churches should be willing to perform marriages for gay couples. Some already do. However, it seems better to me if the government stays out of that decision. The government already does, technically — even if gay marriage were legalized, a church could easily refuse to perform marriages for gay couples — but it doesn’t feel like that to most people. I think changing the name to “civil union” would clearly distinguish the legal institution from the cultural/religious one. Very few people actually oppose hospital visitation rights for gay couples. Making it clear that that kind of stuff is what we’re talking about would allow for a much more intelligent debate, and probably a better outcome for everyone.
Tags: civil liberties, culture, gay marriage, law, sexual orientation