Marriage: Let's Define

Several years ago I was making my way from the redundant misery of an undergraduate class to the parking lot, when I was asked about my position on gay marriage. You can picture the scene: me back-packed up and hungry for lunch, approached by a pollster full of purpose with his clipboard ready. "Do you think gay marriage should be allowed?" he asked, waiting for a simple yes or no but phrasing the question to make that impossible.

But wait, let's put this in historical context—that's always a good idea. This was before Massachusetts, and certainly long before New Jersey. This was back when gay marriage was just beginning to catch the attention and eventual fury of the evangelical community.

You know, back before bumper stickers broke the sacrament of marriage into two stick figures and an equal sign. As if slapping that on the ass end of your Ford Taurus is the height of reverence.

This little pollster had no idea of whom he was asking this question. My brain obsesses over politics. CNN is my entertainment (because I know it is just that, entertainment), and most days I agree with Bob Dylan: "If my thought-dreams could be seen, they'd probably put my head in a guillotine." Right on Bob, right on.

Not to mention my growing alienation with religion and the ideology it forces on me and those like me (yes, there are lots of us). The 2000 election started that process of alienation—kicked it off with a bang and a ballot. And religion—if you know anything about anything—definitely enters into the question of marriage. Implications of homosexuality aside.

Do we define marriage in terms of church or state?

It is this simple conditional which made a quick response to the pollster impossible, and which forced me to respond, "Well that depends on what you mean by marriage." It all comes down to that, although you won't hear it on CNN.

"It's OK if you don't have a position," he comforted, and moved toward another hapless, hungry student.

It's OK if I don't have a position; oh, but I do. My position is we should be clear about what we're speaking. We should be clear exactly what someone like Mr. Campus Pollster means when he says "marriage." Is it the Catholic sacrament? Or is it that thing you can do at any county courthouse?

The devil is in the details.

Recently, in her article for the National Catholic Register ("Catholic Vs. Clinton"), Sabrina Arena Ferrisi used quotes around two words as she discussed Hillary Clinton's position on gay marriage: "(Clinton's) reasoning was that this was an issue best left to the states, and that the Constitution should not be amended to deny a 'right.' Same-sex 'marriage' advocates have been angered by Clinton's refusal to specifically endorse their position." The general theme of the article isn't what is relevant to my discussion here. What is relevant is the purposeful (for everything in writing is purposeful, if it is worth reading) use of quotes around two words: "right" and "marriage."

You see, Ms. Ferrisi—and those like her who wish to blur the division of church and state—has a vested interest in keeping those quotation marks exactly where they are. Ms. Ferrisi doesn't want marriage to be defined during this debate. Oh sure, she wants it defined as "one man, one woman," but what exactly is she defining?

Which takes me back to my point. Let's be responsible about this, on both sides please. Let's take the quotes off.

Should homosexuals be allowed to marry inside the Catholic Church? The question is absurd. But if we're going to ask it, let's ask it properly.

Should homosexuals be allowed to enjoy the same civil definitions of marriage—call it whatever you want, the name is unimportant—from a secular standpoint, and the benefits therein? This question is far less absurd. Yet how often it is confused (purposefully so, as we see with Ms. Ferrisi) with the former. It does us good to examine who is confusing it and why. It does us good to remember what we mean by marriage.