A state university in our red state has made the courageous move of offering health care coverage to domestic partners. It is the first public university here to do so. Defenders of marriage are, predictably, objecting. I really have no clue what defenders of marriage are defending. Nobody’s stomping on anybody’s right to go get married in the traditional way by opting not to stomp on what should be the rights of domestic partners.
I rather like the notion of “domestic partnership.” It implies an egalitarian arrangement and freedom to negotiate roles. (We have this option within marriage, of course, but the institution doesn’t give us a clean slate to start with. No. There’s a lot of engraved stuff that has to be sanded down before we can even begin to sketch what we actually want to commit to.) And in this part of the country, say you are married - certain segments of society will try to straitjacket you into certain roles and tell you how you ought to live and who’s the head of whom, and other such stuff and nonsense that gives me a headache and makes me claustrophobic.
Yes, given the choice, I’d rather have a “partner” than to buy into an institution so historically problematic as marriage. And if I could wave a magic wand and change the way the world works, states would recognize civil unions between domestic partners in any gender configuration, and marriage would be a kind of add-on option reserved for those who wish to defend it, consecrate it, and enter into it, according it whatever religious and spiritual significance they choose. The law would not care a hoot about whether I’d taken the additional step of making my civil union also a marriage, because marriage would be religious and not a civil institution.
Furthermore, I don’t think that my magic wand, if I had one, would make me an enemy of marriage, because it wouldn’t deter it. It would only be an affirmation of the fact that this nation is intended to be a democracy, not a theocracy. It is only in an atmosphere of freedom and tolerance that religion and its institutions can function without becoming something insidious. When religious doctrine, having insinuated itself into law, prevents partners from visiting a loved one in a hospital or having any legal status whatever in their lives, then it does harm, not good. Thinking people recognize this and are repelled. Indeed, those who would, on the basis of religion, dictate law, serve to sever many thoughtful people from religion altogether - and worse, yet, from the exercise of personal spirituality - because they recognize its fruits as being not faith, hope, and love, but intolerance, injustice and the thwarting of lives instead.
The real way to defend marriage would be to release that attempted doctrinal deathgrip on what it can be so that hearts can freely build together tents of shelter for lives lovingly entwined. Call this enterprise of hearts domestic partnership, call it marriage; it is a fundamental human right that has everything to do with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and nothing to do with telling other people how they have to live.