The Way Out of a Comprimising Situation

Today I had the great fortune of completing a "virtual exploration" for my Sociology class. This class is about demographics, but the definition of demographics (which would usually render it a harmless subject as far as social issues goes) does not stop us from delving into an exploration that exposes us students to the finer details of social issues. This virtual exploration happened to be focused on the family institution and how the definition of the family has changed over the years. You can imagine that this was a fairly stimulation exploration into the minds of all sorts of different thinkers.

What I particularly like about these virtual explorations is that they present a variety of viewpoints on various subjects. This is all in the interest of being unbiased, which I have found, in my limited experience, to be easier said than done. For this assignment we had to explore the Partners Task Force website and read the "Legal Marriage Primer" (http://www.buddybuddy.com/mar-prim.html) which is apparently what you should read if you never read anything else about legal marriage. Fair enough. If you have time read this primer, it's actually quite interesting.

The biggest argument the Legal Marriage Primer makes is that marriage can be separated into two categories: legal marriage and religious marriage. The federal government requires married couples to sign a marriage license, but they don't necessarily have to have a member of the clergy present to do this, and they certainly don't have to have a religious ceremony to seal the deal. The marriage license is a purely legal document that allows married couples access to certain benefits that non-married couples do not have (see the website for a list). Proponents of same-sex marriage want more than just domestic partnerships, which they say does not give them the full benefits that a legal marriage does. They want legal marriages. Not religious marriages. Legal marriages. (At least, the creators and supporters of this particular website only want legal marriages. Others may want both).

The part of me that has studied the Constitution and knows a ridiculous amount of political theory says why not? Why shouldn't legal benefits be granted to same-sex couples? The Primer makes a compelling argument for legal marriages of same-sex couples. Part of me agrees that denying a couple marriage rights based purely on religious definitions of marriage is against the idea of equal rights for all--even if you don't personally agree.

And you may disagree with me. You may say "Oh silly Alise, the current definition of marriage being only between a man and a woman is not purely religious." Is it? Honestly, I don't know all the history behind this so you could possibly be right. But if we were to discuss this issue only within the realms of current American law, the definition of marriage cannot be defined by a religious institution. Why not? Because the 1st Amendment bans this possibility. No religious institution can determine the definition of any legal process in this country according to the Constitution. I'm not saying that this hasn't been done in the past. What I'm saying is that if an argument to keep marriage between a man and a woman were to go the Supreme Court today, it would probably be denied based on the fact that the Constitution disallows any legal process or institution to be based on purely religious definitions. This is for the protection of both the secular state and the various religious institutions in the country.

Same-sex marriage is hotly contested, and for good reason. The United States has large numbers of religious people who desperately want to protect the religious definition of marriage as well as large numbers of people who think that this definition is outdated and should be expanded to deferentiate between religious and legal marriages--allowing legal marriages to exist even if a religious organization would not condone that particular marriage.

I don't know what to do or think about this.

And part of my dilemma is that I don't know if it is possible for me to compromise on this situation.

What does it mean to compromise anyway? Being a very astute English major, when faced with this question I pulled out my trusty OED (Oxford English Dictionary for all you non-wordphiles out there) and looked up the word compromise. The first three definitions all center around settling a disbute with an arbitrator or by mutual concession. The fourth definition gives us our more modern understanding of the word:

The finding of an intermediate way between conflicting requirements, courses of action, etc., by modification of each; a thing that results from or embodies such an arragement.

And the fifth definition is different:

A putting in peril; an exposure to risk. (This is referring to something like "a compromising situation, or having been compromised)

So....my question, which will use both the fourth and fifth definitions of compromise, is this: Is it possible to compromise on this same-sex marriage issue without compromising what I believe as a follower of Christ?

In a Christian theocratic state, where laws are based on the doctrines of the Bible, compromise would not even be an issue. If we were staying true to the words of the Bible, same-sex marriages would simply not be permitted.

In a purely secular state that does not allow ANY religious influence, in a state that oppresses faith-based organizations, again, compromise would not even be an issue. Legal marriages would be simply that: legal. There would be no need for a religious definition for marriage. Marrige could be whatever the state wanted it to be.

We live in a combination of both those states. Our government is secular. I'm sorry guys, that's just the way it is. America is not a theocracy, nor will it ever be (and to be honest, a human-run Christian theocracy scares me to no end). Our government has been influenced, and is being influenced, by religious ideas and definitions, but if push came to shove, the government would in no way be obligated to form policy and laws around the framework of any kind of religious ideal. That's just not how our Constitution works. It's a good thing too, theocratic countries are not terribly stable places to live. However, even though our government is secular, there are still huge amounts of Americans who live according to morals and ideas that stem from many different religions, primarily Christianity. Because America is a semi-democracy, our senators and representatives are supposed to take our belief systems into account when they make laws (this is, of course, highly idealized). Then, and this is key, but seems to be forgotten, majority rules. At least, the majority is supposed to rule. But, obviously, when the majority does rule, the minority gets oppressed. Which isn't fair. Wah. (:D Sorry, I couldn't repress my sarcasm there) So in order to make things better for everyone, the majority can be nice and offer to compromise a little with the minority. And the minority, since they are the minority, should probably accept the compromise and quite whining a bit. The fact is, life isn't fair, and our governments certainly do not have the tools, talents, or abilities to make life fair. We do the best we can, and that's all we can really ask for.

So. Compromise between conservatives who are afraid of the changing in the definition of marriage and others who just want to be legally married. Is it possible?

Why not? Would it really be terribly compromising (fifth definition) to allow same-sex couples legal marriages?

As Christians, I think we would have fair amount of room to cry foul if same-sex couples were trying to obtain religious marriages along with legal marriages. Certainly we should not allow any happenings to go on in our places of worship that go against our faith. But as far as legal marriages are concerned--I would controversially say that we have no right to put our hands into that process. There is a reason the church and the state are separated, and it if for issues like this.

We have no right to demand that every person, believer or unbeliever, should conform the to the Biblical definition of marriage. Same-sex couples have no right to demand that they be allowed religious marriages when their lifestyle so clearly is against Biblical teaching. Legal marriages, on the other hand, are an entirely different matter.

I think that this is a situation that would allow for compromise without compromising what I believe.

Okay! Now it's time to discuss all of this! Go!