3.20

Of late, in our modest little paper, there have been ripples of discussion regarding the “gay marriage” debate. I was tempted to weigh in with a defense of the thing, but I rather doubt that I’d add anything of substance to the discussion. Nevertheless, I'd like to take a peek at marriage not from the angle of homosexual advocacy (outside of a framing device) but instead from the vantage of contemporary heterosexual attitudes. 

Fundamentally, in my opinion, the problem with gay marriage is the problem of the church getting involved in state affairs (so to speak). Marriage is, at once, a social contract, a financial contract, and a religious contract. It is recognized in various laws from taxes to childcare, and it is this realm that is often cited as a foremost concern among advocates of gay marriage. The religious aspect is, in many ways, an unfortunate one because the rights and privileges associated with marriage necessitate religious involvement (or at least invoke a tradition that is seen as religious). The two cannot be easily separated, and the resulting mess shows, yet again, the perils of tying religious matters too close to state matters. 

However, it seems to me that the gay marriage debate serves two functions that are not so frequently discussed. One, it serves as a proxy war of homophobia for those too “polite” to openly condemn homosexuality in and of itself (this might be a relatively small portion of those against “gay marriage,” but it's a portion that is difficult to deny). Perhaps more importantly, though, it's a convenient distraction, a way to avoid talking about heterosexual marriage and its gradual deterioration (or, at the very least, change in social status). 

The causes are many, of course, but secularization is high on the list. Anecdotally, if anyone I know talks about a wedding, the only matters of importance seem to be the size, cost, or other relatively superficial concerns. I can't really remember the last time “God” was brought up in the context of marriage (by a heterosexual intending to have one, at least). 

Actually, I suppose I can. I, like many of my peers, received abstinence only education in high school, a practice which is, at best, questionable in intent and efficacy, with a track record of significant failings whose sole victory is temporarily delaying the inevitable. At worst, abstinence only education turns marriage into a license for sex signed by God or, more literally, a local judge. Either way, abstinence only education has, in my mind, done more to degrade the concept of marriage than gay marriage ever could. 

Likewise, easy and frequent divorce is another blow to lofty ideals of marriage (especially among those who would seek to lecture others about the importance of marriage while being unable to follow through on their own). It reveals the folly of devoting an entire life to another person who, like all people, will change and grow, significantly changing from the person to whom you committed to someone else entirely. 

So what are we left with? Deprived of God, commitment and significance of love, we have little but a state contract with a few social benefits and a social tool for childrearing. I could go on, but you can see my point that heterosexuals need no help (and, indeed, have never needed it) when it comes to harming ideals of marriage. 

One could argue that this is my own interpretation of modern marriage. Even then, if one is to use the logic of many opposed to gay marriage, the way one private group deals with marriage apparently affects the way it is treated across society. And the phenomena I've listed are hardly the exclusive domain of select private groups. 

There is some validity to the argument that marriage helps raise children, but even then it is often a lesser of evils rather than a clearly superior alternative. 

Ultimately, I'm not of the opinion that these are bad things. As a culture, we are still getting used to the advent of available and effective contraceptives which fundamentally changed the “sex equals babies” equation that has dominated ideas of sexuality since, well, forever. 

So, in many respects, we are left with marriage not as the apex of a relationship but merely one step in a long process. However, that long process is increasingly not a negotiation focused on God and forever, but rather a negotiation focused on love and now. Whether this is a superior model remains to be seen, but it seems to be one we’re increasingly stuck with. For better or worse.