Eric Niang: Call it whatever you want

Just minutes after the Massachusetts Supreme Court upheld same-sex marriage in 2004, the city of Boston erupted into flame. Now all that remains of the state is a smoldering Massachusetts-shaped crater… or maybe not.

After failing to heed the apocalyptic warnings of the 700 Club, New Jersey has granted same-sex couples the same rights as heterosexuals, but also has wisely sidestepped the “marriage” debate.

Similar to the approach taken by Vermont in 1999, New Jersey’s high court ordered that same-sex couples must be given the same rights as heterosexual couples but left it to the state legislature to work out whether they want to amend their constitution or create some form of “civil union” program.

On a strictly legal basis, there is no reason why same-sex couples should be denied equal rights. According to most polls, a majority of Americans have no problems granting equal rights to homosexuals, but the problem is that many people get caught up by the word “marriage.”

So how do we solve this quandary? By invoking a word that makes fiscal conservatives all tingly in their nether regions: privatization. We have already tried privatizing energy and Social Security, so why not marriage? Marriage is a faith-based institution so why not make churches solely responsible for it? The government can issue legal contracts acknowledging a legal relationship between two people, but the “M” word would be left to the churches.

Let the people involved work out issues such as hospital visitation and inheritance in a contract that would be recognized by the state. Then, if two Catholics wanted to get married, they could go to a Catholic church and follow Catholic rules. If two women or men wanted to get married, they could go to a Unitarian hippy church and follow Unitarian hippy rules. Under the law, all these people would have equal rights and in the eyes of whichever higher power they believe in, they would be married.

The way in which the marriage debate is currently headed, same-sex couples are fighting to be included in the twisted web of red tape surrounding government-sanctioned marriage. It would be much easier and moral just to eliminate this and let the free market take control. Not only would this proposal appeal to small-government conservatives, but it also would strengthen the separation between church and state that wild-eyed liberals such as myself swear by.

You can call it marriage, a civil union, a legal contract or getting blorped for all I care. The union between consenting people should be a private and intimate affair. The government should have no business in dictating whether one person should be given rights over another. Blatant discrimination such as that can always be left to the church.

Brian Pierce: Expand marriage, don’t lose it

The recent New Jersey Supreme Court ruling that gave the state legislature 180 days to give the same rights of marriage to same-sex unions was not quite a milestone for the gay community because it did not mandate “gay marriage” specifically, but it was an overall positive ruling. Thankfully, our society is moving closer to a division over the rights of same-sex couples not between right and left but between thinking people and non-thinking people.

A new wrinkle in the marriage debate has emerged, however, that is not as boring. That question is whether marriage should even be recognized by government at all. Last semester I participated in a public debate on same-sex marriage, and what surprised me was those who disagreed with me because they believed marriage should be eliminated.

It’s not an unreasonable perspective, and at first glance it has a persuasive logic to it. The conventional same-sex marriage debate rests largely on opponents who do not want the religious-based sanctity of marriage to be disturbed by same-sex unions. Yet giving same-sex couples “civil unions” and heterosexual couples “marriages” strikes the gay community as unequal and smacks of cheap compromise to Christian conservatives. It seems to make sense, then, to eliminate the word “marriage” from the legal realm altogether, putting all unions on an equal level in the eyes of the government and leaving the sanctity of marriage to be determined by the various religious communities across the country. Such a solution allows for both pluralism and equality in a country that places a high premium on both.

But there are problems with it, which sadly require me to lend credibility to the arguments of the far right. First, creating a legal institution that has no moral consideration and simply exists to give certain rights and responsibilities to those entering a union of some kind opens the floodgates for all forms of unions. Any legal arrangement could be entered into by any collection of people.

But more importantly, such a step would set the role of government on a path toward being an institution designed merely to collect and distribute tax funds. To many Americans, this would be a welcome change. But for those of us who see a danger in a government that does not consider itself a moral agent, that does not design its tax code and its regulations and its military involvement overseas around the ethics of its people, it would be a move in the wrong direction. In short, for those who reject libertarianism, this is a dangerous idea.

I believe in gay marriage, because I believe the moral principle of tolerance in this country outweighs the principle of homophobia, whether the latter takes the guise of family values, protection of children, or religious sectionalism. And I believe in gay marriage because I do not believe in the legal principle of “anything goes,” and to eliminate marriage would be a step in that direction.