Stop calling it "marriage"

Professor Richard H. Thaler wrote a piece for the New York Times' Business Day section, "Gay Marriage Debate Is About Money, Too". He makes the point that while at the state level, same-sex couples in some states are eligible for virtually the same legal and economic benefits as straight ones, it's a different case at the federal level.

Federal law bestows a long list of rights — more than 1,000 — on legally married couples. Spouses may give each other unlimited bequests tax free, and they are permitted to file joint tax returns. If one spouse is a citizen, the other can become a citizen, too, and spouses get special treatment from Social Security. For some couples, a lot of money is on the line. That’s why you are reading this column in the business section.

But the Defense of Marriage Act defines "marriage" as solely between one man and one woman, so same-sex couples lose out on those federal rights.

Thaler suggests a modification to DOMA that would open up those federal rights to same-sex couples: stop talking about unions between people as "marriage", at least in the civil sphere. Call it something else: "domestic partnership", "civil union", "foobarfaz".

Marriage, of course, would continue, but would no longer be regulated by the government. Instead, weddings would become like many other important ceremonies from graduations to funerals: private matters.

I had this idea a couple of years ago. Bureaucratically it's a fig leaf, if you'll pardon the religious allusion. However, philosophically, it represents a way out of one of the most contentious and pointless arguments we're having.

Opposition to same-sex marriage is rooted in religion or personal prejudice. Period. Opponents have failed abjectly to make any argument that doesn't come down to one of those two sources.

Thaler's proposal doesn't address the roots of the opposition to same-sex unions. It does, however, remove the greatest sticking point: calling those unions "marriage". For opponents, the idea of two people of the same sex being able to sacralize their union the same as their straight counterparts is disgusting. The solution is not to force the religious connotations of "marriage" to include same-sex unions. Rather, the idea should be to remove the religious associations from what government describes as a legally cognizable union between two people.

Religion is not necessary in a governmental view of a couple. By coining a different term for government to use to describe that couple, and reserving the term "marriage" to those for whom it has religious significance, we not only would defuse this battle in the culture wars, but we'd take a step toward disentangling the messy commingling of civil and religious concepts that "marriage" is today in the eyes of the law.

For those that wish to battle on for equal rights for same-sex couples in their churches, more power to them. That fight, though, must be recognized for what it is: a struggle for equality within religious institutions. It's a fight that should be fought by those who are a part of those institutions. It must not be fought by proxy in the civil sphere, in the hope that government will compel those religious institutions to Do The Right Thing. I suspect some gay-marriage advocates have that goal in mind. Government may not play that role, though. All that marriage-equality advocates should be looking to accomplish in the civil sphere is to get government to extend civil rights and benefits to all couples who meet whatever terms for union the law requires.