Gay Marriage in Oregon

OK, I promised myself that I would write a little bit on a post by another Oregonian, Chris Edwards of Oregon Sunrise, regarding gay marriage in our state, and some of the philosophical underpinnings therein.
First of all, I would like to say that I enjoyed reading the post he made. I probably don't agree with everything he said on the subject, but he spent a lot of time thinking about the issue, and saw the issue from a number of different angles. Which is something that enough people are not doing.

Oregonians have spoken clearly at the ballot box, with the passage of Measure 36 which defined marriage as the being between a man and a woman. This, in a state which prides itself on being independently different and tends to the left side of the political spectrum.

Yes, this in a state that voted overwhelmingly for John Kerry too. This obviously is an issue that has nuances.

Marriage has essentially always been an institution of the church (in the Judeo—Christian traditions), which has been so common and so accepted by the overwhelming majority of people, that governments have conveyed legal recognition onto those unions. Marriage is clearly an institution of both the state and the church, but without the religious underpinnings which created the definition and “rules” of marriage, state sanctioned marriage could look like many different things (multiple spouses, gay, no age limitations, etc.) Marriage is a religious institution first and a state institution second. If you don’t think so, then ask if religion sanctions marriage because governments created it? Clearly not. In the beginning, the state sanctioned marriage as a recognition of a religious institution.

Fantastic observation. I am clearly on his wavelength here, and even later when he begins to wonder what role the state should be playing when recognizing marriages as legal states of being.

If the Catholic Church were to be the ultimate authority on marriage in the world then it would certainly be intellectually honest to conclude that marriage can only happen between a man and a woman…..end of story.

There are 4 billion+ non-Catholics around the world. Here in America protestant denominations reign in the majority with no single denomination having a plurality. The protestant view on marriage tends to be much more forgiving that the Catholic one. While I can’t summarize each denomination’s view of marriage, it would be safe to say that in the protestant church, life-long marriage is the ideal but divorce and remarriage are certainly permitted, even among the clergy.

I certainly agree that the catholic church tends to hold the most consistent position regarding marriage and divorce among large church denominations. I have experienced family trying to dissolve a previous marriage in order to get married again within the church and it is rigorous at best.
However, I think a better way of describing protestant views on divorce as "tolerant" instead of forgiving. Certainly, people are forgiven for getting divorced. We are all sinful people living in a sinful world. But it's still a fact among even protestant churches that marriage is held to a much higher standard, and divorced people coming into our church wanting to get remarried to someone else are scrutinized heavily.
There is only one completely consistent position regarding marriage and divorce for the Christian. That's what appears in the Bible.

If marriage is viewed as a church institution, then the Catholic Church has the lock on intellectual integrity and validity. Once the religious institution of marriage is cracked by divorce, there is nothing to stop the slide down the intellectually slippery slope to multiple-partner and same-sex marriages. Nothing, that is, other than knee-jerk emotion. The best way to preserve the integrity of the anti-gay marriage argument is to view marriage as an institution of the state and then present a compelling reason why we as a society should prevent the marriage license from being issued. To protect the children? It is arguable whether there is even anything to protect them from. Our media certainly does them more harm than Sally’s two mommies. To “preserve” marriage? Divorce obliterated it long ago. In an institution with a less than 50% likelihood of succeeding, what is it that we are so feverishly protecting?

A lot of interesting and compelling statements here. Once again, I don't think that Chris fully understands the church as a whole, and what God's word is all about in this area. Often I find that people's view of what the church thinks in part or whole is shaped by what the media reports on, which is usually aberrant events.
Divorce, unfortunately, is not an aberrant event in the church. It happens all to often. But I think it's important to understand that just because divorce happens frequently in Christian circles, doesn't mean that most churches are Ok with it. Or even most Christians.
That might bring me to a tangent point that I'll write about sometime. There are this and this many people in the United States who attend church (of whatever form) and who confess a belief in God or Jesus Christ. When one looks closer, you will note that many of these are what is know as "fair weather Christian" or "Sunday Christians" who just attend on Sundays or Holidays. They tend to treat church as a part of their cultural background instead of a vital part of a relationship with a creator.
Question: What's the ratio of Sunday Christians who get divorced, verses committed Christians who do?
That's just a side note, really. My own pet peeve about people using the high divorce rates within the church to indicate that we are hypocritical about our position on marriage.

Marriage isn’t about rights. I don’t know one heterosexual couple who married for the rights it would bestow upon them. Sure there are the rare immigration related examples, but you get the drift. People marry to declare their dedication to the relationship and to get that commitment from the other. In the end it is all about seeking security in our lives. Sure, marriage will be more than just security. There will be love, fun and other great things. Those can be experienced by unmarried couples as well. The commitment of marriage is driven by an instinct for emotional security. Certainty in an uncertain world.

I don't know anyone who has made a statement like this during the gay marriage debate. Chris is asking here: why should gays care?

If you believe that marriage is a state institution, you will be disappointed to learn that the marriage license doesn’t add any security to one’s life with a committed partner. (don’t mistake legitimacy with security). If you see marriage as an institution of the church and your church recognizes gay marriages, then what do you need a state license for?

While hetero marriage is ultimately about relationship, it seems that on an emotional level, for gays it is often about validation. Many gays espouse that they are comfortable with themselves and their relationship whether it is state sanctioned or not. Others want to shout and scream and fight as if their very existence were threatened.

Given the difficulties faced by gay couples in getting the states to grant them marital rights, why not settle for civil unions? The label “married” or “civilly unioned” will certainly not affect the quality of the gay relationship. Remember, hetero marriages fail more frequently than not. For non-religious folks, marriage is essentially a civil union.

The alternative is to get government out of the marriage game alltogether. An argument can be made that most or all of the rights that come automatically with marriage can be had by other means, if that is what you are looking for. My wife and I know a lesbian couple who have legally arranged for all of this. They have inheritance, insurance, hospital visitation and the right to make decisions for the other if incapacitated. There are some things they don't, like filing jointly on taxes, but if both members of the household are working, filing jointly doesn't make all that much sense.
Indeed, the benefit of being married and filing jointly FINALLY appeared under the current Bush administration. Before that there wasn't much point.
If you're significant other decides not to work (other than raising kids) then you should be able to file them as dependents. In other words, the question is: should the government be in this game at all? Christians want to keep the term "Marriage" in all it's original religious meaning.
I've said this before, but you will find that this is often about perception. Like Chris said in his post, gays mostly don't really care about the government benefits of getting married, it's about the validation of their lifestyle. Christians don't want to be seen as giving in to a lifestyle that they feel God opposes (most churches would say that). There are some Christians who want the government to reflect a Christian ethic, to exhort it's citizens to some moral standards also.
But in some ways that is a perception of what they want the government to do. And a discussion on what the role of the government here should be paramount.
Anyway, great, well thought out post from Chris. I'll be looking for more of those in the future.