why does the State define marriage at all?

Last updated on: January 13, 2015 at 1:38 pm by Aziz Poonawalla

why does the State define marriage at all? 2015-01-13T13:38:24-07:00 Aziz Poonawalla

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

image courtesy of GraphJam

I like to call myself a “conservative Muslim liberal” with the word “Muslim” doing double-duty as a noun and an adjective. On religious matters I tend towards orthodoxy, whereas in politics I am more of an activist. This does makes for some interesting intellectual contortions at times, which is why Whitman’s quote about contradictions and multitudes has always resonated with me. For the most part, however, reconciling these identities is intuitive and comes naturally for Muslim Americans of my native-born generation.

But there are some issues that seem to be tailor-made for upsetting the delicate balance between faith and politics — and of these, gay marriage takes the tiara.

I found the outcome of North Carolina’s vote a couple weeks ago to outlaw same-sex civil unions particularly troubling. Same-sex marriages were already illegal in that state; the amendment went a step further to deny any legal benefits of domestic partnership to same-sex couples outright. On the one hand, like other religious Americans, I believe that the concept of marriage is sacred and is divinely defined as between a man and a woman. But in terms of social justice, there is something deeply immoral about denying commonsense legal protections to two persons who have made a sincere and loving commitment to each other.

Here in Wisconsin, we have found a more reasonable compromise — though same-sex marriage is outlawed by the state constitution, domestic partnerships are legal, which means gay couples do have some of the legal protections that traditional marriages enjoy. The discrepancy still is stark, however: According to Wikipedia, domestic partnerships in Wisconsin have 43 rights and protections, versus the 1,138 granted by federal law to legal marriages. As I contemplate the fuzzy boundary between faith and politics, I can’t help but find compromise unsatisfying. I’m confident enough in my own beliefs — and in my own marriage — to be unconcerned about the theoretical threat gay marriage poses to my own traditional union. But I also confess to being leery of the state legitimizing social behavior that runs counter to the values I choose to teach my children.

The real problem is that the debate is about defining marriage rather than recognizing it. There is societal value in recognizing marriage as a civic entity which can and should be accorded certain rights and protections — in other words, “married people exist, and they get X, Y, Z.” The real dispute is in how we define who is married and who isn’t, by saying “two people are married if they are A, B, C.” My belief is that marriage shouldn’t be subject to legal definition at all. It is a private covenant between adults, a personal oath and commitment. Marriage is as much an expression of the self as religion or speech (subject to broad and reasonable limits, such as age and consent). Neither the state nor the federal government, nor even my neighbors for that matter, should have a say in whether I am married or not. Likewise, who am I to tell a gay couple that their loving, monogamous relationship is not a marriage?

Rather than federal law defining marriage and 1,000 rights, perhaps it should only be the broadest 40-plus rights and protections that are guaranteed to “domestic partnerships.” That is the public discussion we should be having, not “defining marriage.”

Last week, President Obama completed his own “evolution” on gay marriage, saying “I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.” I have come to agree with the president: Same-sex couples have the same right to define their personal marriages as I do. Surprisingly, North Carolina’s constitutional amendment has forced this evolution by demonstrating that mere civil unions aren’t sufficient as a solution — they were targeted in North Carolina and some in Wisconsin would abolish them here as well. What is needed is the protection of federal law for all domestic partnerships.

We need to reclaim the concept of marriage from the government entirely and return it to the privacy of our homes and our communities, where it belongs.

(reprinted from my column at the Wausau Daily Herald in Wausau, WI. Also related: my friend Aamer Jamali’s earlier essay on the gay marriage issue, back in January )

Uncategorized

LGBT

marriage equality

Previous Post

May 10, 2012

Senator Harry Reid's statement on marriage equality

Next Post

June 5, 2012 On, Wisconsin!

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Aziz For America Uncategorized

Select a Month December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 August 2018 July 2018 April 2018 November 2017 October 2017 July 2017 June 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 July 2016 June 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 June 2014 April 2014 March 2014 September 2013 July 2013 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

True or False: The Israelites wandered in the wilderness for forty years.

Select your answer to see how you score.

FALSE TRUE