Mormons and Prop 8

I think Andrew Sullivan is really getting to the core of this issue in his posting today, Modernity, Faith, and Marriage. Traditional marriage was built on certain assumptions:

Civil marriage once reflected a great deal of cultural and religious assumptions: that women’s role was in the household, deferring to men; that marriage was about procreation, which could not be contracepted; that marriage was always and everywhere for life; that marriage was a central way of celebrating the primacy of male heterosexuality, in which women were deferent, non-heterosexuals rendered invisible and unmentionable, and thus the vexing questions of sexual identity and orientation banished to the catch-all category of sin and otherness, rather than universal human nature.

So now we have some conflicting realities in modern society that cannot be reconciled using the old rules. 

If conservatism is to recover as a force in the modern world, the theocons and Christianists have to understand that their concept of a unified polis with a telos guiding all of us to a theologically-understood social good is a non-starter. Modernity has smashed it into a million little pieces. Women will never return in their consciousness to the child-bearing subservience of the not-so-distant past. Gay people will never again internalize a sense of their own “objective disorder” to acquiesce to a civil regime where they are willingly second-class citizens. Straight men and women are never again going to avoid divorce to the degree our parents did. Nor are they going to have kids because contraception is illicit. The only way to force all these genies back into the bottle would require the kind of oppressive police state [we] would not want to live under.

The answer, then:

That way is to agree that our civil order will mean less; that it will be a weaker set of more procedural agreements that try to avoid as much as possible deep statements about human nature. And that has a clear import for our current moment. The reason the marriage debate is so intense is because neither side seems able to accept that the word “marriage” requires a certain looseness of meaning if it is to remain as a universal, civil institution. 

This is not an argument against the “sanctity” of marriage. It is an argument for unthreading the legalism of the marriage contract from that sanctity. American churches thrive because they operate so freely from the state. Sanctity means to set apart for sacred use. Lets truly sanctify marriage, clarifying its sacred meaning to churches, by relaxing its meaning in the law to actually fit our modern lives and ethics.