Finally, my opinion on how the ongoing and increasingly acrimonious issue of same-sex versus traditional man and woman only marriage versus polygamy in any of its several forms should be dealt with. My opinions are based on a grasp of what has happened, what is happening, and what should happen from a practical point of view, absent the scintillating emotions that the several sides have.
First: Polygamy—but not bigamy—has been declared legal. That means that a man or a woman may cohabit in a family relationship wherein more than one “spouse” exists. However, this relationship may only have a single marriage license recognized by state or federal governments. That is a fiat accompli. I disagree with it because it has been my observation that women and children are mistreated and deprived of important rights in such relationships. However, my opinion is irrelevant.
Second: Same-sex marriage is on a trajectory to become part of the law for the entire United States. Eighteen states have already approved the practice, citing the law over legislative vote; and the nineteenth—Idaho—started the same process May 13, 2014, literally as I was writing this blog post. It appears to me that the time is not far off when the Supreme Court will conclude finally that same-sex marriage is legal and bans against the practice are unconstitutional in all of the states. Furthermore—in my opinion–like the legalization of marriage between persons of different races, the same-sex marriage issue will fade away over time, and people in traditional marriages will no longer feel such an intense threat.
Third: It appears to me that the time has come for a different definition of legal marriage. This is my modest proposal (certainly not the first time it has been articulated). All marriages-whether between a man and a woman or between persons of the same gender—should be conducted and legalized in a civil ceremony in a county courthouse devoid of religious context, and that marriage should be the binding legal contract of marriage. Then, the couple and their family and friends can celebrate any kind of acknowledgement of the union they prefer, religious or secular. The Catholics can have the grand union in the cathedral; the Mormons can be joined for time and all eternity in their temples; the Jews can have the joyous ceremony which includes stamping on the goblet; Protestants can enjoy their church ceremonies; others can have individualized ring ceremonies; and nonChristians can celebrate and commemorate the union of a couple in their own way. No one needs to attack the marriage rituals, traditions, or customs of any other group. The vociferous protests against one kind of marriage or another can be relegated to the realm of intolerance where they belong. Perhaps, it will be possible to see peace in our time.
This way of dealing with marriage acknowledges that it is a crucial personal and societal event with lasting consequences. There is no violation of the Constitution. No one is deprived of the right to marry, nor is anyone obligated to marry. However, married persons have obligations and rights that persons who elect to cohabit without marriage do not have under this legal structure—which does not represent any change from the way marriage is now accepted under the law. continued…