The Meaning of Marriage

However (there always seems to be a "however"), on the issue of gay "marriage" I believe that a very important aspect has been overlooked. I would like to suggest that this is primarily a Church/State issue and that the civil and religious aspects must be dealt with separately.

The word "marriage" has, over the centuries, through the tests of time and usage come to be associated with a religious rite. In Christianity it is called a Sacrament, but in all of the major faith groups it is a rite, an act, of special religious significance. Historically, in the churches, "marriage" has been the uniting of a man and woman who covenant with each other to spend the rest of their lives together to the exclusion of any other similar relationship. Such bonding and deep committment to one another is supposed to be the expression of a love deeper than will be found in any other relationship. The religious bodies of the world view their participation in "marriage" unions as essential and the opportunity to offer a divine blessing upon the couples union. The number of civil ceremonies performed in comparison to religious "marriages" is miniscule. Most people, even in primitive societies, attached religious significance to the "coming together" of a man and a woman.

The participation of the "State" in the union of a man and wife came into existence for some very practical purposes: taxing, census taking, demographic studies, population controls, control of health problems, etc., etc. For convenience the "State" and religions have used the same word, "marriage", to describe this act of the joing together of a man and a woman. In fact, however, they have both recognized the separation of church and state. For instance, the officiant at a wedding must indicate on the marriage certificate whether it was a religious or civil ceremony.

Having said the above it is important for all of us to recognize that it is possible for gay couples to know the same kind of deep love for each other that heterosexual couples can feel - a love that makes them want to make a lifetime committment to each other.

I would like to suggest that the word "marriage" and the rite it describes be kept in the religious realm and not co-opted anymore by the "State". Let each faith group make its own decision as to whether it will permit its ministers/priests/pastors perform a "marriage" of a gay couple and sacramentally bless their union. Right now, without any court or legislative decisions, gays may have their non-legal unions blessed in the gay Metropolitan Church and in a few other churches or by some clergy. The hot button or red flag on this issue in our society and certainly in Hawaii's populace comes primarily from conservative Christians or other conservative religions and from the homophobics. If the definition of "marriage" in the minds of people continue to be associated with a religious rite/sacrament, and the civil benefits of such a union be retained by the "State", then we would not only be true to historical usage but would also, hopefully, defuse some of the wild emotionalism associated with what is now labeled "same-sex marriage".

If "marriage" is reserved for the religious world, then there has to be the means to provide gay couples the opportunity to enter into some form of legal partnership from which they would receive the same civil benefits as heterosexual couples who "marry".This can be done through some form of "domestic partnership" or by other legal means through which a gay couple, or any other couple for that matter, can acquire the same health, insurance, inheritance, real estate etc., benefits that heterosexual couples receive through "marriage". The defining and implementing of these benefits should be the responsibility of the State legislatures and/or Congress. Once a gay couple have entered into such a civil "domestic partnership" then they are free to go to a religious entity and seek a blessing of that "partnership" which would give them the opportunity to covenant with one another in a religious setting and to participate in the bonding that results from such a covenant. Such an approach would retain the historical definition of "marriage" as the religious and civil uniting of a man and a woman, while gay couples would achieve all of what they seek except the use of the word "marriage".