Maybe we can move ahead every once in a while. Coming up here in Switzerland is a vote on marriage rights for same sex couples. I find it hard to believe that we still have to argue these points.
On September 26, Swiss voters will decide whether gays and lesbians have the right to marry and found a family. Those in favour of “marriage for all” are on a collision course with proponents of Christian values and the traditional family. – Equality versus tradition: Swiss to vote on the future of marriage, by Katy Romy, for Swiss Info
Equality versus tradition: Swiss to vote on the future of marriage, by Katy Romy, for Swiss Info
I imagine the chasm to be “marriage is between a man and a woman according to a holy book!” vs. “marriage is a contract between two people that benefits the state and arranges for a minimum solidarity among a handful a people”.
Those two view points cannot be reconciled with rational arguments. We just have to keep talking to people until those who don’t learn die of old age and the next generation gets to finally fix things. Some days I’m glad humans are not immortal. Death enables change. 😞
The argument for marriage belonging strictly to the sphere of the church would mean that non-believers do not need to marry. But I did precisely because of all the other contracts I would have to set up and sign otherwise. It’s a great shortcut for inheritance, child care, visiting rights, and all these other topics. These benefits are also called marriage and are worth fighting for.
The problem is that we have one word for two things. Now, we could of course use “civil union” in all our laws and reserve “marriage” for the religious aspects of it, but that’s not how it currently works. The continued use of two words (which is what we have here in Switzerland) opens the door for the same sad discussion every single time. Like: what about the adoption of children? Since we have two words that are same same but different, we keep having the discussion about what same rights for everybody “actually” means and it makes me angry.
As an aside, my wife back then did not want to marry and called the local offices and asked them why she could not register a civil union with me, and the baffled civil servant said “but … you can just marry, right‽” So marriage it was, after all.
But even if Switzerland allows same sex marriage before the state, I’d still be pissed about particular interpretations of the holy books. If I know one thing from my amateur interest in the history of philosophy and religious philosophy in particular, it’s that these things are far from clear. Everything is open to interpretation and some interpretations I oppose and cannot understand the support thereof.
Sometimes people wonder about the involvement of the state. Why is the state interested in the sex lives of its citizens? To me, the case is clear. The state does not care about the sex lives of its citizens. It only cares about the legal aspects. We want it to uphold some defaults we find to be obvious, so in a world that is not ruled by lawyers like today, in a world where most people don’t read, it was a good idea to have a legally enforced default for inheritance, child care, mutual liability. I think this is why the state started to get interested in registering marriages: so that whenever there was an inheritance conflict, there was a clear record to fall back to, and clear instructions on how to resolve it. And as it turns out, I think having good defaults so we don’t have to spend too much time with lawyers and read too many contracts is still a good idea.
Sometimes people argue that even when you consider just the legal benefits of marriage (all the shortcuts instead of all the separate contracts you need to set up and sign), divorce illustrates the big hassle it is. I’m not sure I understand the argument. The separation is what is emotionally difficult. The fight over property is painful because records have usually not been kept. The fight over child custody and visiting rights is painful. All of this pain would be just the same without the benefits of marriage.
Whenever I hear how couples that decide not to get married resolve all these legal questions with individual contracts, all of which need the involvement of notaries or lawyers, all of which require time and energy, I am relieved to know that we were able to avoid all that, because there was a shortcut available to us. We could just get married. What I don’t understand is why same sex couples get a different set of shortcuts, and an inferior one at that. What I don’t understand is why people fight for this injustice.
I’m sure most lukewarm opponents of same-sex marriage don’t realise that they’re associating with both a fundamentalist point of view (“the book says it is the union between a man and a woman!”) and bigot values (“my religion uses the term marriage, the state upholds my religion, therefore the state must only support my fundamentalist interpretation of marriage!”) – drifting along, without very strong opinions but with a vague sense of “this is fine” and it doesn’t have to change.
Well, I think it does have to change.
#Switzerland
(Please contact me if you want to remove your comment.)
⁂
A lot of churches, at least in French-speaking Switzerland, are in favor of same-sex marriages.
– encemoment 2021-08-15 16:05 UTC
---
I certainly hope it passes!
– Alex 2021-08-15 17:49 UTC
---
Hopefully it passes
– Human 2021-09-03 19:56 UTC