Marriage on the Rocks, with a Twist

The far right wing had better be careful. By kicking and screaming about how the left is destroying the institution of marriage, they may be the ones who demolish it.

Ekklesia, a London-based Christian think tank, just issued a comprehensive study advocating civil partnerships for all couples, gay and straight. According to Ekklesia, the notion isn't to banish churches from marriage. But in a secular society, marriage--one of the fundamental pillars of human relationships--should be primarily secular rather than religious.

Says Ekklesia: "If the churches' concern is to enable society to develop life-long, stable relationships for the benefit of persons and the community--and if Christian marriage isn't what many people recognize--then they need to recognize that society as a whole needs an honest conversation about what kinds of civil partnerships are really possible.

"By dragging its feet on civil partnerships and opposing gay marriage in wider society, the church is ironically hindering people from forming the long-term stable relationships it says we need."

The religious right is fully aware that Ekklesia's recommendations, which may sound radical at the moment, aren't unlikely to be realized in the future. Even in the United States, the most religious of western countries, attitudes toward marriage, and especially gay marriage, are rapidly changing.

According to a recent Gallup poll, 39 percent of Americans now approve of gay marriage. This number has risen from 27 percent in just ten years. Likewise, only about 50 percent of the country opposes gay marriage. And, a 2006 Hamilton College/Zogby poll of high school seniors showed that two thirds of this year's high school graduates favor legal recognition of gay marriages (double the percentage of adults who feel similarly).

As this country's attitudes change, it's seems quite probable that in just one generation, a majority of Americans will favor gay marriage. Knowing this, the right-wing is doing its damndest to stop the tide of history--its newest gambit is to call for individual states to hold constitutional conventions; if two-thirds of the states can agree to change the American constitution, the constitution is then amended, and a Senate vote is no longer necessary. (Given that the right-wing can't even muster up fifty votes in the Senate, even they have enough sense to realize they will never find the requisite sixty-seven.)

Changing the constitution isn't the answer. If the right-wing were truly concerned about the need for two people to commit to a life-time relationship, it would find ways to broaden, rather than narrow, the scope of marriage. Today many young couples disavow church-sanctioned marriage because it's discriminatory. Is this what the right wing wants? Marriage only for the segments of society who support the right wing? A majority of couples living together absent any kind of authoritative sanction?

Despite the far right's protests, everything changes. Society changes, attitudes changes, people change. Institutions change, too. As Ekklesia says, "We would suggest that, regardless of what theological position one takes on the matter, trying to stop the civil authorities providing protection to established cohabitees is actually a rather bad way to promote the ideal of lasting love that marriage is meant to enshrine in a church context. Such a stance does not witness to generosity and faithfulness. It displays a desire to regulate others in a way which neither strengthens the church's case nor supports people seeking to develop their relationships.

"If the church wants to argue that Christian marriage, rooted in the grace of God, is a greater good, a better gift and preferable to civil cohabitation, it is free to do so. But there must surely be something wrong when the church's 'defence' of holy matrimony apparently involves perpetuating what many will understandably see as an unholy injustice against established live-in couples by denying them legal rights."