The gay marriage debate has evolved from a whisper of discontent to a roaring, mud-slinging brawl. The situation could be mildly called a snafu, and more accurately termed something I can't print in a newspaper. Everyone has an opinion. Not only do people stand on both sides of and astride the metaphorical fence, there are people tunneling underneath and flying overhead. With courts and legislatures making and reversing decisions like a toddler flicks a light switch, it's time to think outside the box and tear down the fence: abolish marriage altogether.
The solution, first suggested by two law professors and published in the San Francisco Chronicle, isn't as revolutionary as it first sounds and is gaining popularity. Marriage, as a religious institution, has no place in the government, as evidenced by the brawl currently going down between conservative Christians and gay-rights activists. Nationally, marriage should be relegated to the church, and gay and straight couples alike should receive the same recognition from the government: a document that recognizes them as a family.
It's impossible, from a secular position, to defend denying a segment of the population a right that is given indiscriminately to any male-female couple over 18 and sober enough to sign a paper. Beliefs that gay couples would get divorced more often or be ill-suited to raise children have been proven myths. The only defense is a religious one, because, traditionally, marriage is a sacred institution involving the union of one man and one woman in the eyes of God. Even that defense falls flat when the option of abolishing marriage in the government is considered.
The real issue at the heart of the gay marriage debate is that of separation of church and state, another one that's been argued over, under and every other way around. Personally, I think separation of church and state is one of the best things to ever happen to this country. Not since biblical times, and then only in fits and starts, has there been a religious government of a large society which was anything other than tyrannical, oppressive and barbaric. "Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you" and all that, but when religion and politics start holding hands, we just can't seem to stop ourselves from oppressing somebody.
While the debate over separation of church and state may never be completely laid to rest, a strong precedent has been set. Currently marriage is the exception rather than the rule. Baptism, bat mitzvahs, confirmations and all other religious rites require no license and afford no benefits from the government, so why marriage?
Gay-rights activists aren't asking for the church's blessing - they aren't asking for holy union - they're simply asking for the same legal recognition and benefits afforded straight couples. We'll have to come up with a new name for marriage in the eyes of the state, which is sure to be an argument in itself. Marriage is definitely out, and civil union has received a certain amount of stigma after it was offered up as a not-quite-as-good alternative. We could call it a legal union, official bond, partnered or even hitched. It doesn't matter, as long as it's the same for everyone.
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
The argument for abolishing marriage practically makes itself; it makes perfect sense: Christians can continue to impose whatever restrictions they wish on marriage without the government trying to tell them what it is and isn't. Meanwhile, gay-rights activists get the equal rights they've been asking for. I really can't see a "con" position. It's time to be fair to everyone. Let's tear down this fence.
Drinkwater is a columnist for The Batallion, serving Texas A&M in College Station, Texas.
