I used to have a boss who was a German citizen. He was living with an Australian woman here in Canada, and they had decided, finally, to marry. I was surprised to learn that they had to do so twice. The big church wedding was planned for Germany, but in Germany, religious marriage are invalid. You’re not married until and unless you are wed by the state in a civil ceremony. Consequently, my boss and his fiancee were first married in a civil ceremony in Canada (which is valid in Germany) and then were married in a church in Germany. Apparently, this is common in Napoleonic Law in Europe. In the West, it’s largely only in English-speaking countries that ministers of religion are authorized to act on behalf of the state in this manner.

So curiously, in much of the world, it’s not God at all who bestows the label of marriage, but the community. It’s worth reflecting on in a matter like this.

While it is true that unmarried heterosexual couples deny themselves certain benefits, the fact remains that it is within their power to secure them unequivocally if they choose to do so. I believe what same-sex couples are seeking is exactly that same right, regardless of whether a particular given couple elects to avail themselves of it or not.

It’s also true that as gays have the right to be who and what they are, non-gays have the same right; what neither has is the right to pronounce upon, prohibit, or limit that for others.

Your argument about preserving the institution of the family is, to me, non sequitur. Unless you can explain how two men or two women legally being married prevents another heterosexual couple from doing so, or prevents the conception of a child, I don’t see how it is germane to the discussion. It’s not about practicalities; really, it’s about prejudice.

Let me frame it in parallel terms. A few years ago, I went through Catechism as an adult, partly out of a spiritual need, partly out of cultural curiosity. I can’t claim to be a practicing Catholic, but I did learn a lot in the course of it. It took the better part of a year before I was communicant. One of the things I learned from my priest, who expressed it with some regret but was adamant about it all the same, was that the rest of you — Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, whatever — are not actually married in the eyes of God. You’re all living in sin. God doesn’t care how you feel about one another, or what words you spoke, or the lives you’ve shared. You weren’t married in the Church, and so you’re not really married.

Now how does that make you feel? Does it make you angry? Does it offend you? Do you consider it arrogant that some other mortal man could presume to negate the depths of your feelings, your spirituality, your very humanity, and purport to declare profane in the eyes of God the deepest and most spiritual aspects of your life, the things that make you most human? Well, I think that’s how homosexuals feel when their feelings and their commitment to one another is denigrated and made less fully human by the similar supposedly holy pronouncements they hear. To me, it’s all the same thing.

I know you’re not Christian, but many people who hold such views are, and so I think it bears repeating that the Apostle Paul remarked that of faith, hope, and charity, the greatest of these is charity… not faith. Let’s be honest. We don’t know — we just hope we know — what God wants, what lies ahead beyond this life. That’s faith. But what we do know, for sure, is that we live in a world of human beings, and it is within our power on Earth to make the lives of others happier or more miserable. This is charity. Surely, then, we must err on the side of charity, where no harm is done, and hope that we please God. If we turn out to be mistaken, we can at least say, Lord, I was torn, and I chose the path of charity. Surely for that we are to be forgiven. The only unpardonable sin, as Miss Sook told us, is deliberate cruelty.

“Separate but equal” domains don’t bother me as long as they really *are* equal. We agree that in the case of gays, civil unions are unequal in legal rights to marriage. I think that the remedy is to improve civil unions; you disagree. I note also, however, that any special status accorded to marriage has nothing particular to do with gays: unmarried straight couples are also denied both the legal and social status accorded to married couples.

As long as legal rights are relevantly equal and respected, I would applaud anything that supports and encourages traditional marriage and family because I believe that they are essential institutions for our kind of civilization.

It wasn’t so very long ago that the doctrine of “separate but equal” was common in the United States… it was always the first, but rarely the second. White people always wanted to know why black people couldn’t be happy with what was “theirs”. But it was the idea of separateness and what it really implied that WAS the bone contention. It wasn’t JUST that the schools weren’t as good, the back of the bus wasn’t as comfortable, the restrooms were smaller and less ornate. It was having to be faced with the idea that someone object to you using the same drinking fountain as him, the same seats in the restaurant as her, the same theatres as you. It was about being something lesser.

Reserving the institution and privilege of “marriage” to opposite-sex couples is cut from the same cloth, and opens the door to the same sort of “separate but equal” inequalities. Employers would be free to declare some benefits accrued only to married spouses, not to civil union spouses. Governments could reserve survivor benefits to married couples, not to civil unions. What is to become of the surviving half of a 40-year relationship when his/her partner dies, and the law provides that the dead person’s inheritors are his/her relatives, not the lifelong partner? This could never happen to a married couple, but the survivor of a civil union partnership could be denied such protection and find himself homeless when his/her partner’s relatives demand the sale of their home for “their” half.

In the end, it’s not about forcing issues or waving a lifestyle in other people’s faces. It’s about acceptance. It’s about being fully human.

In an ideal society, the vast majority would also generally agree about moral, social, and religious values. Thanks to factors such as feminism and massive immigration from incompatible cultures, we don’t have such agreement: even the historic institution of the family is disputed and denigrated.

If government takes any stand at all on marriage and family, I believe that it should encourage the traditional forms of those institutions — naturally, while respecting the rights of non-participants.

We can see the evidence before our eyes: societies that have abandoned traditional families and sex roles are depopulating and disintegrating, while societies that encourage and support those institutions are expanding and strengthening.

As a Jew, I’m no particular fan of Islam, but Muslims are very serious about supporting and preserving the family. They go too far in that they sometimes deny the legitimate rights of women, but the demographic and cultural results of their attitude are undeniable. The same applies to Orthodox Judaism, which however has a more benevolent and enlightened attitude toward women — as, by the way, do some Muslim reformers.

In years long gone by a marriage was, as I believe you suggested, almost entirely a way of providing a legitimate structure for children (and, I suppose, a means of knowing who, i.e., the spouse, should get property when a partner died). I am aware that it also provided the only socially acceptable avenue for sex, as well, but since almost anything goes today those barriers are significantly torn down. But today marriage provides a structure for other benefits, such as insurance coverage, that are increasingly seen as critical.

Frankly, I am all for any two people who commit to care for each other being able to enjoy every benefit I might enjoy while married.

But I think that perhaps the label of marriage should be left to God to apply. Let the government unite any two adults who want it. Let the churches sanctify the marriages.

You never know about marriage. I think that Maria Sharapova might be waiting for you to call her …

I do remain more optimistic than you are about the prospect of wedded bliss.