The institution of marriage faces its greatest threat in two elderly British sisters.
Joy and Sybil Burden, 88 and 80 years old, are suing the British government for discrimination. The government holds that, because they are sisters, they cannot marry.
"We just want to be treated the same as lesbians and homosexuals," Sybil told the English Daily News.
Before you imagine scenes of Sapphic incest, know that this marriage battle has nothing to do with sex and everything to do with property. Joy and Sybil live on the 30-acre lot on which they were born. They built their current house, and grow much of their own food.
If the sisters were a traditional married couple, the hefty inheritance tax would be delayed until both members died. In 2004, the British government passed an act extending these rights to gay and lesbian couples.
But, as the Daily News points out, even though the sisters have cohabitated "longer than any married couple on earth," the state does not recognize the validity of their relationship. When one of the Burden sisters dies, the surviving sister will have to pay the inheritance tax, and will be forced to sell the house.
The sisters, who have been petitioning their government for 30 years to extend these rights to them, are now suing the United Kingdom in the European Court of Human Rights.
Our society's problem is that marriage is not simply defined by law, culture, or religion; it's defined by all of them. Each system claims to possess an exclusive right to the definition of marriage, but it refuses to be owned. When a pastor refuses to recognize a second marriage, the law disagrees, and the couple considers themselves married.
If the law refuses to recognize the union between two men, but they throw a ceremony and invite their family and friends, the couple considers themselves "married."
In an attempt to not sound homophobic, some in the religious right argue that the problem with gay marriage is not gays, but the opening of the definition. For instance, I heard one radio commentator suggest that, if homosexuals were allowed to marry, human-canine weddings wouldn't be far behind.
While we have yet to hear of dogs donning tuxedos, the social conservatives weren't far off. Redefining marriage is a slippery slope. But it's also a good and necessary thing.
Defenders of "traditional" marriage might be surprised to find that the form of marriage they defend is a product of the early 20th century. Its focus on love and choice is different from the marriages known to the Founding Fathers, the Medieval Europeans, and the ancient Greeks and Hebrews.
Stephanie Coontz, in her book, Marriage, a History, points out that traditional marriage has removed every qualifier that could deny gays entrance. In contemporary Western society, marriage does not require children and does not demand strict gender roles. It's about love.
Gays love each other. Polygamists and polyamorists, for heaven's sake, love each other. So, culturally speaking, how can they be barred?
This is a profound, troubling, and difficult conversation, one that our society will argue over for decades to come. It is too important and too contentious to be left in the hands of the state.
As it stands, the legal definition is important. Those who are "legally" married are given a myriad of rights: funeral and bereavement leave, joint parenting, next-of-kin status, access to a deceased spouse's benefits, and right to the inheritance of property.
Law is also "winner-takes-all." Whoever writes the laws controls the society. Thus, homosexual, socially conservative and polygamous lobbies are waging war to define what marriage means.
Legally defining marriage turns a cultural debate into a jihad.
The legal system ought to remove itself from the marriage debates, and allow marriage to be defined by culture and religion. The state should only provide rights of "domestic partnership," and let people call their relationships what they will.
The definition of marriage is too fluid to be controlled by the courts. Leave "marriage" to the churches, synagogues, and mosques. Leave it to the people who want to define their own marriage outside of religion.
Most of all, let the elderly sisters call themselves "sisters" and still get legal protection.
Brandon Hendrickson is a graduate of history and religious Studies. He currently defines himself as "unmarried." Contact him at brandon.hendrickson@gmail.com.
