Data would indicate marriage is not important to most Estonians, observes Stewart Johnson. Why, then, is it important not to allow it for those who do consider it important?
A recent map of Europe was published, color-coding states by their legislative tolerance of the gay community. Blue was tolerant, red was not. The Reds were an exact representation of states behind the former Iron Curtain. Even Catholic Portugal and Catholic Spain were bluer than Catholic Poland and Atheist Estonia, suggesting that homophobia stems largely from the lingering effects of a now-defunct political ideology.
Gays in Estonia currently have a zero divorce rate, the lowest in the country. And I began to understand why, after reading a rather ambiguous
opinion piece in
Postimees written by Priit Pullerits on September 4 - ambiguous in that I’m still not quite sure what the message was. Mr. Pullerits compared legalizing same-sex marriage with legalizing incestuous, polygamous, polyandrous and underage marriage. And in terms of consistency, he has a certain point - if you allow one, you have to allow the others, because, he argues, you cannot give same-sex marriage a special status. Except for one thing he did not mention: consent. And consent really is the most important element of any modern, Western marriage. After love, that is.
Different cultures around the world have different definitions of marriage. It is essentially a contract of union, recognized by the state and a religious organization, depending on where you are and what you believe in. The most common definition given by Estonians is that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. That’s the way it’s always been, and that’s the way it always will be. Right?
This is where we run into difficulties in logical continuity. While this definition of marriage is commonplace throughout much of the world, it is also the Christian definition. According to a 2005 Eurostat survey, fewer than one in five Estonians have any religious affiliation. The remaining 80 percent or so are wandering souls, many of whom could be labeled as agnostic, atheist or even pagan. So religion does not dictate the general Estonian notion of marriage.
One criticism of same-sex marriage is that it will never produce children, which has often been considered to be of at least some importance in defining marriage. This is a valid point, but according to a September press release from Eurostat, Estonia has the highest rate of children born out of wedlock in the European Union - 59 percent last year. Roughly half of the remaining 41 percent can expect their parents to divorce. Estonia is in the top five in the world for that category.
Many of this 59 percent do belong to families, in fact. The parents simply did not consider a ceremony or even marriage important, instead electing to just be together. This is more than half the population, and more than half the population is against same-sex marriage. If I understand this correctly, marriage is not important for most Estonians, but it is important not to allow marriage for some who actually do consider marriage important?
Forbidding two consenting adults from entering into a contract of union might be a form of state-sponsored economic discrimination. It is not against the law for two women to share a household. They cannot, however, reap the benefits of jointly-filed taxes like their legally wedlocked neighbors. We can probably expect to see this subject in a highly publicized Supreme Court case in the near future.
Thanks to Mr. Pullerits’ article, my wife of ten years and I had a lengthy, well-considered discussion on this topic. We both now feel confident that our marriage will not be threatened regardless of whether Estonia decides to recognize same-sex marriage.
Stewart Johnson married a woman, and thinks all women should have that opportunity.