Sue Lani Madsen: Respect for the defense of marriage

In 1996, Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act. Sens. Joe Biden and Patty Murray were two of the 85 senators voting Yea. Last month, the Senate passed the Respect for Marriage Act with 61 votes in favor, repealing DOMA to eliminate gender as a criterion and acknowledging the debate belongs at the state level.

So let’s have that debate. What is marriage?

Christians are a diverse group, and the concept of civil unions has become more acceptable in Western countries. But for many Christians worldwide, the word marriage still refers to the tradition of holy matrimony instituted by God, uniting male and female in a complementary and co-equal relationship.

Marriages establish families, the smallest economic unit in the community and the original source of social security for elders and those unable to care for themselves. Marriage has also historically recognized the biological reality of conceiving and rearing children. DOMA grew out of the Judeo-Christian tradition and defined marriage for purposes of federal statutes as a “ legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.” It was and is the definition rooted in centuries of social norms found in diverse cultures on every continent.

The newly signed Respect for Marriage Act repeals DOMA and federally recognizes any marriage between two individuals as long as it is “valid in the State where the marriage was entered into.” It explicitly bans “Federal recognition of marriages between more than 2 individuals.” It’s a very dry, corporatized definition.

The amended bill as signed by President Biden disappointed those supporting a nontraditional definition of marriage by not forcing all states to adopt a nongendered definition of marriage. And while the act recognizes the “decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises” for diverse beliefs about the role of gender in marriage, the Respect for Marriage Act does not protect individuals with sincerely held beliefs from persecution by lawsuit. Only religious institutions and organizations are protected.

After passage of the act, Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan of New York, chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee for Religious Liberty, issued a statement in support of “Americans – both religious and secular – who share this time-honored understanding of the truth and beauty of marriage … the Act will be used as evidence that religious believers must surrender to the state’s interest in recognizing same-sex civil marriages” putting individuals “at greater risk of discrimination under this legislation.”

Civil marriage is a relatively new development, with ugly roots in the late 1800s as a means to enforce color line barriers. Including interracial marriage in the Respect for Marriage Act is more political ammunition than necessary protection. Society has abandoned the debunked 18th century science used to justify anti-miscegenation laws, but including the phrase in the Act will undoubtedly be used to justify progressive hit pieces in the next election labeling anyone who opposes the Respect for Marriage Act as “racist,” regardless of the reasons for their objection.

Marriage licenses weren’t ubiquitous across all states until the 1920s, during the Progressive Era drive to create uniformity in state laws. Common kinship limits on who can marry have long recognized in-breeding is potentially as bad for humans as it is for livestock. Now that we have divorced civil marriage from its biological roots as a protective institution for procreation, the next questions are obvious.

If the imperative to the Respect for Marriage Act was removing barriers so everyone can marry who they love, why only one marriage at a time? Why limit marriage to only two people when polyamory is pushing to go mainstream? Why keep kinship barriers in place?

We are left with an America operating under two views of marriage, the ancient sacramental and the ever-changing progressive civil definitions.

Sincerely held religious beliefs about traditional marriage extend beyond the walls of churches, synagogues, mosques or other religious institutions. Believers act on them at home and in the workplace and in the community. In a diverse and multicultural society, it is imperative to respect the sincerely held beliefs of others as you wish to be respected. What are yours?

Contact Sue Lani Madsen at rulingpen@gmail.com