There’s a great op-ed in today’s Washington Post by Ellen Goodman — she points out the hypocrisy of those freaked-out right-wingers who claim that same-sex unions will somehow destroy marriage:
Who would have believed that Britney Spears would end up striking a blow for gay marriage? I’m not talking about the pop star’s fleeting moments with Madonna. I’m talking about her fleeting hours with Jason Allen Alexander.
…Off they went to the Little White Wedding Chapel, with Britney in her baseball cap and jeans. After 55 hours, the “I do’s” became “I don’ts,” the vows were annulled and assorted folks chimed in with the same thought: Hey, a man and woman can get married on a lark, but when a committed gay couple wants to make it legal, they’re accused of wrecking the institution? I don’t think we should judge straight marriage by the lowest common denominator of a Vegas quickie. But after the gay marriage decision in Massachusetts, President Bush spoke for the opposition, declaring that “marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman.”
Britney’s little leap is a reminder that a marriage doesn’t have to be sacred to be legal. The law is no holier than a $40 trip at the Tunnel of Vows Drive Through in the Little White Wedding Chapel.
For the first thousand years of Christianity, the church didn’t want anything to do with marriage, which was about property, not spirituality. In the Middle Ages, clerics and lords fought for control of marriage. The lords, kind of like Britney’s mom, Lynne, didn’t want their kids to be able to marry without parental permission.
… Fast-forward to America. For most of our history, as Nancy Cott, author of “Public Vows,” says, “all the authority to make or break marriage and to decide who can officiate has been secular.” Because most marriages took place in church, clergy were allowed to celebrate them. But so were many others, from 18th-century ship captains to 21st-century “ministers” in a pink Cadillac driving down Las Vegas Boulevard.
Religions have varied in what they define as a sacred marriage. For Mormons it long included polygamy; for Catholics it excludes divorce.
As for the secular marriage, the state once declared “common-law marriages” for men and women who just lived together for a long time. Now laws range from covenant marriages in Britney’s own Louisiana to civil unions in Vermont. In most places it’s still a lot easier to get into a marriage than get out of it. No one talks about sacred divorce.
… The state’s interest in marriage is based largely on the public interest in — hold your breath here — stable relationships. Stable?
Britney and Jason were granted an annulment in 55 hours on the grounds that they lacked “understanding of each other’s actions in entering upon this marriage.” Compare them to gay couples who “understand” each other and commitment but are kept legally single.
Now repeat the question family law professor Martha Minow asks: “Is this the moment to stand back and ask not who should get married but how to get married?” Should we be more worried about thoughtless, instant, throwaway marriages than same-sex marriages?
And the idea that same-sex marriage somehow disparages heterosexual marriage? We can put that to rest. Who needs gay couples when you have Britney and Jason?
Sit back and listen to all the rhetoric coming from the extreme right about same-sex marriage — how it grants “special rights” (huh?); how it will destroy the family; how it’s an attack on marriage. Then ask yourself what they are doing to make marriage stronger? Why aren’t they railing against divorce, child abuse, and hatred, the things that really cause family problems? Why are they against love?
