The Significance of Marriage

Is the word "marriage" all that important? Why can't same-sex couples be happy with "civil unions"?

Personally, morally, spiritually speaking the word “marriage” is just a word. So it holds no intrinsic power. Love is the cord that binds a couple together. However, from a business man’s perspective it is very powerful.

Without the word “marriage” being applied to same-sex couples, employment institution can legally discriminate against their employees and call it “religious” reasons, even if civil union laws exist in the state. For example UPS denies benefits to New Jersey same-sex couples even though the state recognizes civil unions. Therefore, civil unions are separate but not equal.

Same-sex marriage is a fiscal issue. Not a religious or moral one.

Same-sex couples work just as hard, but get paid less (due to lack of benefits) than our civilly sanctioned counterparts. That’s why the word marriage is important. It forces employers to give equal pay (in benefits) for equal work.

Same-sex marriages would strengthen the sanctity of marriage, while civil unions weaken it. In societies where civil unions are a legal alternative to marriage, heterosexual marriage numbers have declined. Extending marriage rights to loving and committed couples would strengthens the institution of marriage, while "separate but equal" institutions weaken it.

Some may believe that same-sex marriages will never exist in America. I beg to differ. Although our nation systematically discriminates against tax-paying citizens based on the genes of their partners (XX versus XY), it still is a beacon of freedom and equality in the world.

Policies change, and so does group-think. Both have changed in the recent past. For instance, inter-racial marriage has only been legal in this country for 41 years! The United States government has a long history of systematically discriminating against its citizens based on the genes of their partners, but was eventually forced to change its stance regarding the genes that determine race.

Nearly one hundred million Americans were alive and remember the days when it was illegal for two people of different skin colors to marry. In 1967 (Loving v. Virginia), the Supreme Court removed race restrictions for marriage licenses, even though state by state bans existed. That exact scenario exists today with gender restrictions.

Some may argue that marriage is a religious institution and same-sex marriages would put the church and state at odds. This is incorrect. Religious organizations are exempt from corporate discrimination laws. For example, women cannot be Catholic priests, nor can they sue to be. Muslims cannot teach a Methodist Sunday-School class nor be the pastor of a Presbyterian church. Nor can they sue based on equal opportunity employment laws. A Jewish synagogue is not compelled to perform an inter-faith wedding nor a gentile wedding. Neither can the couple sue to be married there. Religious organizations are legally exempt to discriminate for any of their services or memberships. These services include performing weddings and the hiring of exclusively heterosexual church leadership. Same-sex marriage would not change this.

Marriage is not a religious right, it's a civil one. Religion does not hold exclusivity of marriage. If it did, it would be illegal for atheists to marry. Couples who co-habitate first, could not marry. Two people from different faiths, like a Buddhist and a Muslim, could not marry, not even a Baptist and a Lutheran. Marriage clearly is a civil institution. It endows tax shelters, benefits, and automatic property transfer upon death of spouse.

"Equal pay for equal work."

For example, two employees: a straight man and a lesbian working at the same company. As part of their salaries, they receive spousal health benefits and 401K's. The man's wife has health coverage, while the lesbian's partner does not. The homosexual employee is not receiving equal pay for equal work. Also, when the man dies, his wife inherits his retirement account and social security benefits. When the woman dies, her partner does not. The two employees are not treated equally under the law.

The above example clearly shows a violation of the "equal protection" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, yet is a reality across America today. Four decades ago, the Supreme Court cited the Fourteenth Amendment as precedent to overturn race restrictions for marriage licenses. We changed our minds once, we will change them again.