Green’s point is about recognition and social affirmation of relationships, which to be sure is a function of marriage. Yet this does not capture the entirety of what marriage means in our society. To quote the website of the National Organization for Marriage, in a page suggesting how the organization’s supporters should articulate their views (against gay marriage):

“Extensive and repeated polling agrees that the single most effective message is:

‘Gays and Lesbians have a right to live as they choose, they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for all of us.’

This allows people to express support for tolerance while opposing gay marriage. Some modify it to ‘People have a right to live as they choose, they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for all of us.’

Language to avoid at all costs: ‘Ban same-sex marriage.’ Our base loves this wording. So do supporters of SSM. They know it causes us to lose about ten percentage points in polls. Don’t use it. Say we’re against ‘redefining marriage’ or in favor or “marriage as the union of husband and wife’ NEVER ‘banning same-sex marriage.’”

For this camp, marriage is indeed a recognition and a social affirmation, but the recognition is contingent on a heterosexual standard. I think someone from the National Organization of Marriage would argue that recognition is an action on behalf of the recognizer, and that nobody should be forced to recognize anything if they don’t really believe in it. In this way, the “recognition” logic engages the opposition to gay marriage on its favorite territory: semantics. It allows dissenters of gay marriage to politicize their argument with a calculated lexical maneuver, turning straight people into the victims of queer manipulation.

Marriage is about the treacherous intersection of power, access, and love. I think that the “power and access” part of marriage, or as Green puts it, the “legal validity… economic benefits, or social niceties,” must be established as standards in and of themselves for a greater variety of relationships. Some of this is the responsibility of local communities, and some of this is the responsibility of the government. Beyond that, social recognition of love (including marriage) is left to interpretations of what love means, and people should be free to decide this on their own. If some people don’t believe in recognizing non-heterosexual love, then so be it. I can live with that, and I think that they can live with me not believing in marriage as the cornerstone of love. In agreeing with Green, I think it is important to distinguish that marriage might not be the best vessel for the recognition we all need, because marriage itself is a contested quagmire of an institution. Our culture needs a serious overhaul in defining and recognizing our partnerships, because one prescribed institution (or indeed several, since civil unions wouldn’t solve this problem either) doesn’t allow anyone to engage and recognize on their own terms without making a political statement about how others should do so—and, furthermore, these political statements often rub off on the fight for queer rights in general and beyond marriage.

After witnessing nearly 500 heterosexual weddings over a 45-year period, I think gay and lesbian marriages may help us all reinvigorate the holy, human heart of marriage: the commitment of two persons to be there for each other as lovers, partners and friends, no matter what happens, no matter when. It is that holy, human heart that requires and deserves the support of every family and of society. Just as the couple, straight or gay, are expected to honor each other, so also the supportive community is expected to honor the promises two people make to each other.

An issue closely related to this is the intentional commitment that any marriage must have at its heart. As a clergy person, it often seemed to me that some couples expected me, or the church, or God to be the effective actor in ‘making them married.’ No. It is the promise and commitment of the people themselves that makes them married. (When one couple asked me to marry them, I told them I couldn’t, since I was already married.)