A conservative friend recently came out to me as a lover of human rights, claiming gay marriage was a ""human rights issue."" To me, this was a sign that our generation will make equality inevitable.
I was raised by a friendly pack of Republicans in Catholicsville, USA. My church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, despite being the most liberal Lutheran synod, only recently opened the ministry to openly gay pastors in a committed relationship. Culturally, the gay marriage issue has caused some personal squirming and discomfort. But the inequality that exists in our country, and our state, today is much more uncomfortable. Without Gov. Jim Doyle's efforts, Wisconsin would not be the first state in the midwest to pass legislation enacting legal protections for same-sex couples.
Unequal rights for homosexuals are not the only social disparities plaguing our society today. But the truth is, certain legal rights are denied to committed homosexual couples yet given to committed heterosexual couples. Most committed gay couples still don't have joint parental and adoption rights or next-of-kin status for hospital visits and medical decisions.
This country needs national legislation offering civil unions with equal rights to all committed couples, relinquishing the power to define marriage to religious institutions.
Individual churches can still decide to marry homosexual couples, but won't be obligated to. Equally importantly, government will cease exercising an intense conflict of interest in its definition of a highly religious institution.
The only thing government should sanction is a legal bond. Endorsing a spiritual bond violates the Establishment clause.
Both church and state will benefit if government divorces itself from marriage. The government would no longer be unconstitutionally denying Americans equal rights based on personal preferences, and religious institutions will retain autonomy they should be done fighting for.
Currently, marriage is a legal institution some people are forbidden to enter based on who they are. Such legislation is arbitrary and hostile legislation.
Exchanging civil union certificates for marriage certificates isn't taking marriage away from everyone, but reserving it for the institutions that defined marriage far before the U.S. government attempted to.
Perhaps the biggest obstacle to passing national legislation to establish equal civil unions would be semantic complaints.
It would take a while for people to warm up to the new term ""civil union."" The phrase has been associated with the second-class marriages of homosexuals. But this is a simple fix to a complex problem.
As a secular democracy, we cannot legislate or define relationships based off a particular group's interpretation of their preferred Holy Book. Separation of Church and state benefits both institutions.
Individual religious institutions have the right to determine who they marry and how they define marriage. To fully allow churches and other religious organizations to define their own sacred institutions, government's power to define marriage must be removed.
Such a plan is imperfect—conflicting definitions would still exist between differing religious groups. But those separate groups would not be forced to operate under a government that appears to define marriage for them.
Many religious institutions already exercise more specific definitions of marriage than the government. The Catholic Church can disapprove of re-marriage after a divorce that has not been annulled. Such strictness is the Church's prerogative. Many members approve of the rigidity, believing it strengthens the meaning of their own marriage. Taking marriage seriously is never a bad thing. Insert your own Tiger Woods joke here.
Any couple who desires could get married by a religious organization. More secular minded individuals could choose between an official ceremony with a justice of the peace or a simple certificate signing with an official witness. The state's only obligation should be to provide civil unions with equal rights, privileges, and the almighty tax breaks to all committed couples who ask for one.
Big Brother can't afford to put off such changes. What will our grandchildren think of our generation if we continue to deny equal legal status to our neighbors? Our culture frequently condemns inequalities among genders or cultural groups abroad. We need to treat our own citizens fairly, or become Uncle Hypocrite. For a country founded on personal freedom and individual liberty, it should be surprising we are behind the curve in granting equal legal status to committed gay couples. Countries like Canada and Spain are beating us. When Mounties and the home of the Spanish Inquisition are better at respecting equal rights, we need to rethink our policies.
Repealing the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman, would just be the first step in removing government definitions of marriage. Such changes may not happen soon, but they should. We can't continue depriving Americans of basic rights and making pastors agents of the government.
Jamie Stark is a sophomore majoring in journalism and political science. Josh Kock-Fogarty contributed to this article, he is a sophomore majoring in English and political science. Please send all feedback to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
