Marriage Manifesto, Part III: Where Do We Go From Here?

How does marriage function practically in the real world? A definition free of cultural stigmas and religious doctrine (which has no Biblical foundation) is paramount to the redefining of marriage. I am referring to “marriage” in the legal, not the spiritual, sense as discussed in the previous post. For clarity’s sake, I will hereto refer to said legal union as a “pledge.”

What a pledge is:

1. A pledge is a commitment. What is commitment? Well, that could be whole other post, but to keep it within Reader’s Digest range: a commitment is a formal intention or agreement to remain partnered with someone regardless of changes in yourself, your partner, or life events. As opposed to, say, a “dating” relationship where you “try each other out” like trying on clothes at JC Penny. A committed relationship means you’re past the try-out phase and you and your partner agree that you will stay together regardless.
2. A pledge is a public acknowledgement of parental rights/involvement. This one is tricky, as parents or step-parents have different comfort levels of involvement. Currently humans have elected to raise children in a “family” type structure. By default, any pledged partners will automatically be viewed by society as having some sort of authority over these children, regardless of their actual level of involvement. 
3. A pledge binds financially. This is where the government is needed to stick it’s dirty nose in. Pledged individuals want to provide for each other, to protect each other financially. The government is expected to enforce their wishes in this regard on their behalf should they become unable to. 
4. A pledge is recognized by the law as a person’s closest kin. Hospital visits, health insurance, probate … All the fun stuff we look forward to dealing with when we partner up with someone. 

What a pledge isn’t:

1. A pledge does not necessitate sex or reproduction. News flash: It’s optional! 
2. A pledge does not require that partners are different genders. It’s no one’s business but mine whom I choose my next-of-kin to be. Especially not the government’s. 
3. A pledge does not necessitate monogamy. Is it the government’s business whom sleeps with whom? Can a single individual pledge to multiple individuals? Why not? We don’t limit the number of children people can have, or the number of reproductive partners, or the number of extended family members. “Sorry, but you've got too many aunts. You’re gonna have to cut that number back. The law doesn't allow for so many aunts.” 
4. A pledge does not necessitate partners living together. The point of pledging is not to form a Cleaver family. The purpose is to have the government recognize your important relationships the way that you do. 
5. A pledge does not grant or imply ownership. Ugh. See Part I if you haven’t had enough of this already. 
6. A pledge does not need to be approved of or recognized by a religion or by “god.” Let the religious bigots have the term “marriage.” Let them define it any way they want. They do anyway. They don’t even defer to the Bible in this regard. Let them have their illusion of meeting their soul mate, and bringing up 2.5 kids. But don’t let them impose it on the rest of us via the government. The government needs to break away from this religious definition and adopt a concept more closely representing how people actually live. 

Author’s note: I in no way claim to be a linguist. My background is in religion, philosophy and psychology. I used the word “pledge” here instead of “marriage” merely to make a point. However, I do believe that a simple change in terminology can make changes in the way people think. True, lasting change.

I'd like to hear what other terms people like for this concept. Post in the Comments: What do you think would be an effective term for a legal "marriage" stripped of it's religious dressings?

Marriage Manifesto, Part II: Separation of Church and State

What does it mean to be married? There are two lenses through which this question can be answered. There's legal marriage as recognized by our government. Then, there's spiritual marriage as recognized by the church, or "god."

It is unfortunate that the word "marriage" is used for both religious and legal unions. As the current conflict over whom should be allowed to marry whom is a failure to separate church and state.

Spiritual Marriage

From a monotheistic religious viewpoint, the government does not define the parameters of marriage. Instituted by "god" through "sacred" texts, the institution of marriage is the ownership of a woman transferred from her father to her new husband. (Discussed in Marriage Manifesto, Part I: A Biblical History.)

The New Testament updates this a little bit, stating that the husband's and wife's bodies belong to each other (1 Corinthians 7). Still a far cry from personal civil rights. In more recent history, though, Christian marriage is one man with one woman.

What's important here is that America's Religious Right sees marriage as validated by "god" and not by earthly authorities. This is why gay marriage will never be acceptable. The Bible says that "men who practice homosexuality" (1 Corinthians 6) have "committed an abomination" (Leviticus 20). They will not "inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Corinthians 6). I guess this is supposed to be some kind of threat? Anyway, I digress. 

The Religious Right cannot accept gay marriage because it is not compatible with "god's" words in the Bible. Sadly, it is not the recognition of a spiritual marriage that the homosexual community is seeking. (At least as I understand it. Please correct me if I'm wrong.) All these queers want is to visit their partners in the fucking hospital and receive health care benefits for fuck's sake. These are legal issues, and not a place where the church should be sticking it's nose.

Legal Marriage

A legal marriage is a union between to individuals that is recognized by the state. This is a union mutually agreed upon (hopefully) by two adults. In the eyes of the law, the two individuals are considered to be bound together in the same way that biological family members are tied together. Married individuals are the closest kin a person can have.

Those who are legally married have rights that unmarried folks don't have. Like visitation rights in jail or the hospital, legal guardianship of children, and benefits offered through employers. Does "god" really object to who visits a dying man? Would "god" care if a same-sex parent signed a field trip permission slip? Is "god" really offended when Lipstick gets her cavity filled using her partner's insurance?

Legal marriage is about choosing your family, selecting who is financially, functionally, and personally responsible for you and to you. Bible Thumpers will never abdicate the definition of "marriage." So, maybe it's time to reify legal unions with a term that isn't dripping with doctrine. Part III will address where we go from here.

Opting Out of Opinion

Sitting Upright No Matter What

Whatever appears
Sit upright in it,
Neither hoping
You can endure,

Nor fearing you can't.

Just sit upright with
Poise and grace.

And have no opinion
About your circumstances.

A student asked,
"How does one have no opinions about one's circumstances?"

Have no opinion there either.

-Zen Master Dae Gak from Upright with Poise and Grace 

I've recently been thinking about opinions, and how you don't always have to have one. Someone presents an argument or an issue, and everyone assumes you have to come down on one side or the other. But you don't. It's nice to just let your mind stay in that openness.

When I was a teenager I thought entirely in black and white. Mostly this originated from my Christian upbringing. Everything was either awesome (a blessing from God) or horrible (the devil is after me). Nothing could ever just be. 

Having no opinion isn't the same as not caring, though. Caring about the outcome and those affected by it is crucial. At times, I've felt obligated to have an opinion or takes sides on an issue. Not having the option of no opinion has pushed me, on occasion, to not care at all. Politics would be a good example of this. You can get that apathetic mindset and completely opt out.

If you allow your mind to just stay open but still care, without getting attached to one side or the outcome, it helps you stay engaged.

I've been feeling a little guilty lately about not taking sides on the recent gay marriage issue. It's all people are talking about on Facebook. And I have lots of gay friends whom I love dearly. Not that I don't think everyone should have equal rights. I'm just not sure legalized marriage is the answer -- for anyone, not just gays. (A blog post for another day ...) And ultimately, I really have no opinion either way.

I certainly empathize with those who have had their rights denied to them because of sexual orientation, lifestyle choices, gender, race, age, the list goes on endlessly. However, the real problem here isn't the laws, it's the culture. It's the mindset and the paradigm of those making and enforcing the laws. All of my blessings and kudos to those solid souls who take this on as their role in this world.

I've decided that not having an opinion allows me as an individual to care for those who need it in the best way I know how, without getting caught up in sides and politics. I can relax into my life without having to "fight" for one cause or another. I've decided to display my platform, my beliefs, though my my life, my words, my actions, how I raise my children, how I treat others.

This is my subtle way of changing hearts and minds to a way of existing that doesn't need laws to tell people the right way to treat each other. Sitting upright with poise and grace, as the Zen master says.