Some thoughts on… So Let It Be Written

During Passover and Easter, families celebrate the vernal season with family gatherings, unleavened bread and bunny rabbits. Growing up in a Muslim family, the holidays were not part of our customs, but there was one tradition that I created on my own – watching Cecil B. DeMille’s classic The Ten Commandments on the ABC television network.

The biblical story from Exodus, relates the tale of Moses as the promised deliverer of the Jewish people leading Abraham's followers out of slavery under the Egyptian Pharaoh and to the Promised Land. By definition, it is one of the greatest stories over told, and DeMille wastes no scene without a grand set, thousands of extras, and bravado acting. This is not a subtle, character play.

The movie’s themes are timeless – the reward of faith, the troubled questioning of a moral hero, the fight for human equality. In the end Moses, the adopted son of Pharaoh, relinquishes his privileged upbringing to follow his path towards a virtuous goal. Released in 1956 the movie was Hollywood’s prelude argument to the civil rights movement – supporting the right of an oppressed people to have equal rights in society.

An analogous situation is playing out today around the ability of gay and lesbian citizens to secure the rights of a long-term relationship under the law. But should gays and lesbians have the right to marry?

Similar to the 1960’s, society’s views on homosexuality has transformed dramatically in the past decade – in the scientific literature it is no longer considered a mental illness, and individuals are open both in their public and private spheres. Although acceptance is widespread of gay individuals, the issue of marriage between committed individuals incites a great deal of divisiveness.

There seem to be two issues: 1) recognition by the community of the long-term commitment of same-sex relationships; 2) granting of equal local, state and federal rights for same-sex couples as those automatically achieved by heterosexual couple, e.g. medical visitation rights, transfer of property rights, tax liability.

Despite judicial rulings in California, Vermont, Massachusetts, and most recently Iowa, the idea of gay marriage is not supported by the majority of the US population. Intertwined with religious and societal beliefs, marriage is too difficult a label for people to accept. The solution may just be to take the word marriage out of the equation and separate the powers of the state from the church.

Instead of marriage, the Federal and State governments should create a new term, like “civil union” or “long-term partnership”, that would confer the same rights as marriage. To avoid a “separate but equal is equal” status for this new term – the government-sanctioned recognition of partnership would be the only option available for homosexual or heterosexual couples. To be “married” in the ecclesiastic sense, couples would need to have a religious or non-civil ceremony endorsed by the house of worship of their choice. The compromise may not please vocal critics on the extremes, but it achieves the two issues identified – maybe that is the sign of a palatable solution. Similar measures are already in place in France and South Africa.

The government stays out of religion and religion stays out of civil rights. To instate this change permanent, we need legislative action to support the Supreme Court rulings - the only way to ensure permanence to these actions.

In the Ten Commandments, Pharaoh could utter his rulings and they would be made into law. In our democracy we need more than justices of the Supreme Courts to provide moral guidance; we need to create laws that will uphold the status.

“So let it be written, so let it be done.”

April 12, 2009