My history with marriage is all over the board. Growing up, I thought that getting married younger, such as in the mid-20's would be preferable to later/older. This is primarily because my parents waited until they were 28 and 29, and eager to have kids already. In fact my father's proposal to my mother was for her to be the mother of his children, a story they have shared numerous times, each with different perspectives on what they would ultimately look like when we were raised.
Anyway, I viewed my parent's challenges as a couple, and consequently as parents (I believe they did the best they were willing to do with the resources they were willing to work with), partly from the immediacy of trying to have kids, rather than building a marriage, deciding on how they wanted to live their lives as a union of two people. Ultimately, my parents divorced as my youngest brother was graduating high school (his last year of high school with my parents separated and living in different regions of the US). I figured that if I could get married in my mid 20's, I'd have the time to build a bond with my wife before having kids to muddle up the picture. After all, the kids are but a part and portion of time in the span of a marriage.
Things changed as I progressed through college with limited relationship experience, confusion about who I was, and massive self-confidence, self-judgement and self-criticism issues. Because of all this, I decided to focus on my career after graduating college, thinking that if I could get my career and financial life in order, attracting a spouse of the caliber I was desiring would be much easier--didn't happen. Although I'm not a failure in business or relationships, I have certainly failed to accomplish anything close to where I was intending to go or be at any point in my adulthood.
Skipping ahead a few years, my youngest brother and his girlfriend decided to take the route I call the 21st-century approach to this marriage institution: baby, house, then wedding. Essentially an approach that is opposite of the tradition. With the triple whammy of divorce, foreclosure, and bankruptcy happening for them less than a year after a massive, expensive wedding, this confirmed my views on how to establish a marriage (explained later in the post). The consequence of having my nephew playing such a large role in my brother's life, where he lives, what kind of work he can find there, how much and what kind of time and relationship he has with his son, is stuff that he never considered an outcome of a mindless decision in 2004.
My other brother took a different approach, finding a women that seemed to share their value of four legged children rather than the human kind. They got married in a park, officiated my a Justice of the Peace (?), with close family and a couple friends (?) in attendance; no church, no formal rental attire, no expensive ceremony or reception. They found a cozy house that was within their means, and allowed for plenty of space for their entourage of canine and feline children to roam free. After more than 5 years together, a son would join the picture. Though I have very little insight into how this change came about, I do know that they made the decision consciously and collectively, based on what I believe to be a pretty decent marriage.
Defining Marriage
So what is marriage? I see marriage as a legal contract at the state level that ties two people together under laws that influence estate matters, taxes, legal protections and rights (as spouses and parents), and responsibilities. In general, this is how I see it. There is obviously much more to it, and so this post will be based on my understanding and thoughts up to this point, meaning I'm not going to do research to verify or see if my premonitions are correct.
I stated what marriage is to me because early in this post because we tend to get very caught up in all the emotional, cultural, societal, religious, constitutional and mental constipation about this institution called marriage. We like to believe that two people choose to get married because they are deeply in love, share values and goals, will be better as a couple than two individuals, and can contribute to the betterment of society as a legal entity. Truth is that there are many reasons that people get married, my own family demonstrates, and they rarely are as comprehensive as the list above. Notice that I have no mention of emotions, beliefs, compatibility, or social ideology in the definition above.
The Language of this Institution
Our own vocabulary of the subject impacts how we think and feel about the matter, which has led to some heated debates, arguments, physical confrontations and estrangements or break-ups. Because of this, I've often wondered if we could find another word or phrase that would provide parity to those who tied their relationship legally, through a church or religious order and those by a legal authority (justice of the peace).
I have purposely decided to use the phrase marriage equality when discussing the issue with others. This is partly because I think that calling it gay marriage or same sex marriage, is very divisive. Having family who are strong conservatives, I have learned to address issues at the heart of the matter, hopefully in a way that is disarming, and informational, if not persuasive. In fact, rarely do I have the intention to change someone's mindset, although I do hope to at least help them consider what the fundamentals are, and the true impacts to themselves and others. Eventually, I hope the media will mature around the issue, and simply refer to the institution of two people uniting under the law (and God if desired) are considered married and spouses--I am not holding my breath though.
Although phrases like Civil Union and Domestic Partnership have been introduced as an opportunity to provide legal parity with legally married couples, it can't be done. These limited agreements create a second class situation as well as limit access to the same same rights, liberties, and protections as marriage allows under the law. This is primarily because of the strength of churches over millennium to influence laws and the legal system of countries around the world. Although there is supposedly a separation between church and state, this issue maintains a strong tie between the two institutions that define this legal contract. It would be great if it were possible for different words or phrases to provide parity and equality in the eyes of the law and citizens. In this country at least, I don't see this possible, for the simple reason that people look for opportunities to feel superior of other people, whether in social settings, athletics, work, socio-economic status, income, family, possessions, etc. Because of this competitive nature with a focus on superiority, there is no parity or equality in different terms.
Imagine however if we could get agreement that two different words represented the same legal contract, save for one difference: one word would indicate a religiously enacted contract (we'll call it RM for religious marriage) and another would indicate a justice of the peace enacted contract (JM for judicial marriage). Even though we could continue to use the words spouse, husband, wife, partner, etc, I believe many in our American society would still tend to find opportunity to express that a JM is not as good as an RM. Because we never ask to see a couple's marriage certificate, or rarely ask where you got married (what church or by whom), similar to asking about someone's GPA or alma mater after the first post-graduate job, one would think this would be a reasonable solution. In this example though, both use a common component that is seen as divisive. Can we have two distinct phrases that convey the same legal status without the social brinkmanship that is so prevalent in society?
Here's more to consider: what if a couple got a JM first, then got an RM later? How would that change things? RM's are often very expensive endeavors for a couple of young people who have very limited experience living with another in an intimate setting. Because of what I have seen in family and friends, I strongly encourage the JM first followed by an RM at the 1st anniversary. This not only makes it legal, and in the eyes of God, righteous, it also allows for a couple to understand who each other are and who they want to be as a united pair. This might ultimately mean forgoing the grand wedding, preferring to spend it on a home, a vacation or other memory making opportunities. Alternatively, a couple could have a small RM without all the hullabaloo, making the wedding party dinner the reception itself, having a grander reception at the 1st anniversary. And those childhood daydreams of being the bride in a glamorous gown may be different anyway, regardless of which type of officiating took place.
Of course there is a huge industry built around this system, as well as social norms that people come to expect, leading to consequences a couple may not be aware of, such as fewer or lesser gifts. Recognizing that we do feel an obligation to bring a gift to an event like a wedding, shower, or birthday part, it is easier for people to simply not send a gift or think that something lesser than they otherwise would give, would be acceptable.
My own experience in the matter suggests that there is an expectation of gifts, especially of some financial value, when inviting people to these events. I think it would be absurd for a couple to deny that they thought that, preferring to focus on how they wish to have their friends, family, and close acquaintances there to celebrate a milestone in their lives. Maybe it's just my own projections, but when I share a gift that I have put much thought into, and relates to my values, rather than something expensive or financially valuable, there is a feeling that it is lesser than others. Having been in the bachelor/student-financial situation as an adult doesn't help. It will be interesting to see how things change when I am in a committed relationship and when my financial situation rises above a survival level. Hopefully these feelings and perceptions will improve, even though I think I will still prefer to give gifts from the heart than from the pocket book.
In fact, I attended a church I was baptized and raised in that held some beliefs that were ultimately different from my own. Even as I discovered these differences, I was still free to attend that church with no interference under the law. I could even attend that church while holding some beliefs that were not completely in alignment with each other. The law wouldn't have anything to do with that. I still hold beliefs that are largely congruent with that organization although I don't attend an sanctioned service with them. I do however practice my faith and beliefs on a daily basis, that affect who I am and how I behave. No law or legal authority would tell me I could or could not attend a church because they allow or don't allow marriage equality to be recognized in their organization. I might not be welcome in that congregation if I lived my life in way that is incongruent with the organization, but the law wouldn't have anything to do with that. And I do not expect the law to require a religious organization to perform rituals or services that are incongruent with their beliefs either.
Religious Beliefs, Freedom and Liberties
When I step out of church and into the service and business world, things can get a little more gray. The gray areas that come to mind have to do with specializations and/or limited access. For instance, if I am the only person who can design a home in a way that is acceptable to the governing body where a couple would like to build a home, and my religious belief say that who this couple is incongruent with them, I may be in some gray legal territory. To hold a seemingly monopoly condition because my beliefs conflict are where we stand today in many states.
My first thought about this situation is that they should find someone else to perform the service they desire. Why would you want someone to provide a service for you that doesn't fundamentally agree with who you are or your life choices, as they know them. But what if they were the only ones able to fulfill the service, such as a delicious sugar-free, gluten-free, dairy-free cake (I'd like to find someone who could do that ;-)? Or if the only venue in an area large enough to accommodate an event were owned/operated by someone whose beliefs conflicted with who you are.
I believe most people will decide to find another suitable solution to get the service they need, from someone who is in alignment or isn't conflicted about the issue. And that is how most of us live our lives anyway. There are circumstances or for people where that won't work. These are the minority that break open new territory in laws and legal construct that get the press. I would not want to be forced to design or create something for someone that is against my ethics, morals, values, let alone religious beliefs, by any governmental authority. I would hope that I could be persuasive and creative enough to find a solution that would allow them to seek what they were looking for and allow me to be free from any legal or moral obligation. Business referrals is one way I can think to handle the issue. Being open and honest about who I am and how my quality might be compromised I would hope would allow the client to seek another avenue. I guess I can't really conceive of anything that is so out of line that they couldn't find a solution to get the service, either by finding someone else, or choosing a different path.
Taking the thoughts on religion to a conclusion, I don't see any need to mandate a religious organization to perform a marriage ceremony for a couple who doesn't meet the terms of the organization. I also don't see how allowing two people to get married will compromise your own ability to practice and attend a church of your choice, or believe what you will. I do see a potential conflict that will be worked on when it comes to a service provider who holds limited access to something someone desires that disagrees with the religious beliefs of that service provider. It would seem to me that this is becoming less of a problem as we are able to reach out beyond our community borders for most things these days.
Other Concerns
Employment is an area where although there may be laws to protect people, we all know that getting around them is an art that many practice with true diligence. I have my own experiences where the environment of the employer is so toxic, anything outside the 'norm' would be a Pandora's box. It is up to each of us to decide how we behave and what we share about our personal lives in these social contexts. I hope to find an employer who is at minimum agnostic on relationship status, and hopefully who practices true equality. Being who I am, regardless how much or little I share, is a goal I wish to achieve, and wish for everyone else.
Very little is said about the economic impacts of marriage equality. While there are many marriage tax breaks, there are also consequences when combining income. I have heard very little about the impact on social security, estate taxes, income tax collection, or the contribution to our consumption economy by opening marriage to any two people. Not that this will persuade anyone to change their mind with deeply held beliefs, however it would be interesting to learn the effect on the largest force of human life: money.
Although I've never really understood how allowing two people of the same gender to marry and have the same rights and privileges as a different gender couple, would negatively impact the ability of any couple to have a successful marriage. Because there are no laws that dictate what one must do in a marriage, I don't get this argument. Fortunately, it's also one that although gets thrown out there often, is rarely elaborated on in interviews and in the media. Divorce will happen, families will get split and get affected regardless of the makeup of the couple. This does not impact any one couple more than it did before. I would like to see evidence to the contrary, if this is incorrect.
Lastly, family relationships are an interesting topic for me. While I maintain a strong bond with my mother, the issue of my sexual orientation has been very challenging for her. Growing up in a conservative family, attending churches that subscribe and preach a conservative and traditional lifestyle, and raising a family with expectations of a traditional life for each of her sons has been difficult for her. This issue is no easier for me, as she has been someone I have come to lean on and seek support from all my life. I do feel that this is an issue that she is uncomfortable addressing, choosing to basically be a passive listener when I bring up any related topic. Until I am in a serious relationship where she will have the opportunity to meet the other person in my life, I don't expect this to change.
Interestingly, even as I have been open about who I am when asked (more like open door than truly out), I still don't feel real comfortable in the GLBTQ community. It was until I was 17 that I knew a gay person in real life, and as my college instructor, didn't know him well anyway. I wonder if the way I was raised and the people who I interacted with as a youth and even early adulthood have led to my continued discomfort in the community. Other lifestyle choices influence it as well as my personality, so it's not all nurture, though it can't be discounted.
Anyway, for most of my life, I didn't give marriage outside a traditional one much thought, and even when I learned to accept who I am, I did not take much notice or interest in the issue. As I have matured though, I realize the importance or being aware of an supporting these issues for all people, not just myself in the future. Always being on the outside looking in, wanting to be invited in, feeling like an outcast or the odd man out, has led me to just stand on the sidelines and hope for the best. It's not easy to support others in accomplishing something while still trying to figure out your own place in the world. Sometimes getting beyond one's own limitations or barriers is the first step.
This is one of many steps I will be taking in my life to be the best person I can be. It would be nice to know that this has a positive impact or influence beyond myself, but that I got this out of my head is certainly enough.
The Language of this Institution
Our own vocabulary of the subject impacts how we think and feel about the matter, which has led to some heated debates, arguments, physical confrontations and estrangements or break-ups. Because of this, I've often wondered if we could find another word or phrase that would provide parity to those who tied their relationship legally, through a church or religious order and those by a legal authority (justice of the peace).
I have purposely decided to use the phrase marriage equality when discussing the issue with others. This is partly because I think that calling it gay marriage or same sex marriage, is very divisive. Having family who are strong conservatives, I have learned to address issues at the heart of the matter, hopefully in a way that is disarming, and informational, if not persuasive. In fact, rarely do I have the intention to change someone's mindset, although I do hope to at least help them consider what the fundamentals are, and the true impacts to themselves and others. Eventually, I hope the media will mature around the issue, and simply refer to the institution of two people uniting under the law (and God if desired) are considered married and spouses--I am not holding my breath though.
Although phrases like Civil Union and Domestic Partnership have been introduced as an opportunity to provide legal parity with legally married couples, it can't be done. These limited agreements create a second class situation as well as limit access to the same same rights, liberties, and protections as marriage allows under the law. This is primarily because of the strength of churches over millennium to influence laws and the legal system of countries around the world. Although there is supposedly a separation between church and state, this issue maintains a strong tie between the two institutions that define this legal contract. It would be great if it were possible for different words or phrases to provide parity and equality in the eyes of the law and citizens. In this country at least, I don't see this possible, for the simple reason that people look for opportunities to feel superior of other people, whether in social settings, athletics, work, socio-economic status, income, family, possessions, etc. Because of this competitive nature with a focus on superiority, there is no parity or equality in different terms.
Imagine however if we could get agreement that two different words represented the same legal contract, save for one difference: one word would indicate a religiously enacted contract (we'll call it RM for religious marriage) and another would indicate a justice of the peace enacted contract (JM for judicial marriage). Even though we could continue to use the words spouse, husband, wife, partner, etc, I believe many in our American society would still tend to find opportunity to express that a JM is not as good as an RM. Because we never ask to see a couple's marriage certificate, or rarely ask where you got married (what church or by whom), similar to asking about someone's GPA or alma mater after the first post-graduate job, one would think this would be a reasonable solution. In this example though, both use a common component that is seen as divisive. Can we have two distinct phrases that convey the same legal status without the social brinkmanship that is so prevalent in society?
Here's more to consider: what if a couple got a JM first, then got an RM later? How would that change things? RM's are often very expensive endeavors for a couple of young people who have very limited experience living with another in an intimate setting. Because of what I have seen in family and friends, I strongly encourage the JM first followed by an RM at the 1st anniversary. This not only makes it legal, and in the eyes of God, righteous, it also allows for a couple to understand who each other are and who they want to be as a united pair. This might ultimately mean forgoing the grand wedding, preferring to spend it on a home, a vacation or other memory making opportunities. Alternatively, a couple could have a small RM without all the hullabaloo, making the wedding party dinner the reception itself, having a grander reception at the 1st anniversary. And those childhood daydreams of being the bride in a glamorous gown may be different anyway, regardless of which type of officiating took place.
Of course there is a huge industry built around this system, as well as social norms that people come to expect, leading to consequences a couple may not be aware of, such as fewer or lesser gifts. Recognizing that we do feel an obligation to bring a gift to an event like a wedding, shower, or birthday part, it is easier for people to simply not send a gift or think that something lesser than they otherwise would give, would be acceptable.
My own experience in the matter suggests that there is an expectation of gifts, especially of some financial value, when inviting people to these events. I think it would be absurd for a couple to deny that they thought that, preferring to focus on how they wish to have their friends, family, and close acquaintances there to celebrate a milestone in their lives. Maybe it's just my own projections, but when I share a gift that I have put much thought into, and relates to my values, rather than something expensive or financially valuable, there is a feeling that it is lesser than others. Having been in the bachelor/student-financial situation as an adult doesn't help. It will be interesting to see how things change when I am in a committed relationship and when my financial situation rises above a survival level. Hopefully these feelings and perceptions will improve, even though I think I will still prefer to give gifts from the heart than from the pocket book.
Separation of Church and State
The separation of church and state, as I understand it, was to eliminate the church from imposing its will on the government, and the government from imposing what it allows the citizenry to practice and believe. I think it is that simple. All the rest of the issue of religious liberty and freedom is right wing talk for people who have come to distrust government anyway from having anything to say about anything in their life. I have no idea how allowing any two people to share in the legal rights and responsibilities as any other two people impact my ability to attend the church I wish to attend or believe what I wish to believe.In fact, I attended a church I was baptized and raised in that held some beliefs that were ultimately different from my own. Even as I discovered these differences, I was still free to attend that church with no interference under the law. I could even attend that church while holding some beliefs that were not completely in alignment with each other. The law wouldn't have anything to do with that. I still hold beliefs that are largely congruent with that organization although I don't attend an sanctioned service with them. I do however practice my faith and beliefs on a daily basis, that affect who I am and how I behave. No law or legal authority would tell me I could or could not attend a church because they allow or don't allow marriage equality to be recognized in their organization. I might not be welcome in that congregation if I lived my life in way that is incongruent with the organization, but the law wouldn't have anything to do with that. And I do not expect the law to require a religious organization to perform rituals or services that are incongruent with their beliefs either.
Religious Beliefs, Freedom and Liberties
When I step out of church and into the service and business world, things can get a little more gray. The gray areas that come to mind have to do with specializations and/or limited access. For instance, if I am the only person who can design a home in a way that is acceptable to the governing body where a couple would like to build a home, and my religious belief say that who this couple is incongruent with them, I may be in some gray legal territory. To hold a seemingly monopoly condition because my beliefs conflict are where we stand today in many states.
My first thought about this situation is that they should find someone else to perform the service they desire. Why would you want someone to provide a service for you that doesn't fundamentally agree with who you are or your life choices, as they know them. But what if they were the only ones able to fulfill the service, such as a delicious sugar-free, gluten-free, dairy-free cake (I'd like to find someone who could do that ;-)? Or if the only venue in an area large enough to accommodate an event were owned/operated by someone whose beliefs conflicted with who you are.
I believe most people will decide to find another suitable solution to get the service they need, from someone who is in alignment or isn't conflicted about the issue. And that is how most of us live our lives anyway. There are circumstances or for people where that won't work. These are the minority that break open new territory in laws and legal construct that get the press. I would not want to be forced to design or create something for someone that is against my ethics, morals, values, let alone religious beliefs, by any governmental authority. I would hope that I could be persuasive and creative enough to find a solution that would allow them to seek what they were looking for and allow me to be free from any legal or moral obligation. Business referrals is one way I can think to handle the issue. Being open and honest about who I am and how my quality might be compromised I would hope would allow the client to seek another avenue. I guess I can't really conceive of anything that is so out of line that they couldn't find a solution to get the service, either by finding someone else, or choosing a different path.
Taking the thoughts on religion to a conclusion, I don't see any need to mandate a religious organization to perform a marriage ceremony for a couple who doesn't meet the terms of the organization. I also don't see how allowing two people to get married will compromise your own ability to practice and attend a church of your choice, or believe what you will. I do see a potential conflict that will be worked on when it comes to a service provider who holds limited access to something someone desires that disagrees with the religious beliefs of that service provider. It would seem to me that this is becoming less of a problem as we are able to reach out beyond our community borders for most things these days.
Other Concerns
Employment is an area where although there may be laws to protect people, we all know that getting around them is an art that many practice with true diligence. I have my own experiences where the environment of the employer is so toxic, anything outside the 'norm' would be a Pandora's box. It is up to each of us to decide how we behave and what we share about our personal lives in these social contexts. I hope to find an employer who is at minimum agnostic on relationship status, and hopefully who practices true equality. Being who I am, regardless how much or little I share, is a goal I wish to achieve, and wish for everyone else.
Very little is said about the economic impacts of marriage equality. While there are many marriage tax breaks, there are also consequences when combining income. I have heard very little about the impact on social security, estate taxes, income tax collection, or the contribution to our consumption economy by opening marriage to any two people. Not that this will persuade anyone to change their mind with deeply held beliefs, however it would be interesting to learn the effect on the largest force of human life: money.
Although I've never really understood how allowing two people of the same gender to marry and have the same rights and privileges as a different gender couple, would negatively impact the ability of any couple to have a successful marriage. Because there are no laws that dictate what one must do in a marriage, I don't get this argument. Fortunately, it's also one that although gets thrown out there often, is rarely elaborated on in interviews and in the media. Divorce will happen, families will get split and get affected regardless of the makeup of the couple. This does not impact any one couple more than it did before. I would like to see evidence to the contrary, if this is incorrect.
Lastly, family relationships are an interesting topic for me. While I maintain a strong bond with my mother, the issue of my sexual orientation has been very challenging for her. Growing up in a conservative family, attending churches that subscribe and preach a conservative and traditional lifestyle, and raising a family with expectations of a traditional life for each of her sons has been difficult for her. This issue is no easier for me, as she has been someone I have come to lean on and seek support from all my life. I do feel that this is an issue that she is uncomfortable addressing, choosing to basically be a passive listener when I bring up any related topic. Until I am in a serious relationship where she will have the opportunity to meet the other person in my life, I don't expect this to change.
Interestingly, even as I have been open about who I am when asked (more like open door than truly out), I still don't feel real comfortable in the GLBTQ community. It was until I was 17 that I knew a gay person in real life, and as my college instructor, didn't know him well anyway. I wonder if the way I was raised and the people who I interacted with as a youth and even early adulthood have led to my continued discomfort in the community. Other lifestyle choices influence it as well as my personality, so it's not all nurture, though it can't be discounted.
Anyway, for most of my life, I didn't give marriage outside a traditional one much thought, and even when I learned to accept who I am, I did not take much notice or interest in the issue. As I have matured though, I realize the importance or being aware of an supporting these issues for all people, not just myself in the future. Always being on the outside looking in, wanting to be invited in, feeling like an outcast or the odd man out, has led me to just stand on the sidelines and hope for the best. It's not easy to support others in accomplishing something while still trying to figure out your own place in the world. Sometimes getting beyond one's own limitations or barriers is the first step.
This is one of many steps I will be taking in my life to be the best person I can be. It would be nice to know that this has a positive impact or influence beyond myself, but that I got this out of my head is certainly enough.
No comments:
Post a Comment