Mindless Drivel
Read at your own detriment…

Re: the gay marriage debate….

Dug this up after an intriguing conversation about gay marriage this weekend. I don’t believe in gay marriage and here’s why… from July 31, 2003 off one of my many sites (in its entirety and unedited):

“ok I feel like an editorial right now. It’ll be sketchy with little research and perhaps a good deal of conjuring but I’m trying to formulate a good argument in my head.On the legalizing gay marriage issue (reference: CNN.com top story)

Many would argue that Bush was not wrong for using his religiously charged speech in yesterdays speech. Many would say that marriage in and of itself is a religious act. If that is the case then maybe the issue is not in act of marriage itself but the way in which the government treats marriage and perhaps even that government recognizes it at all. To further investigate this issue let’s explore the institution of marriage.

Marriage the act can be either a religious or legal ceremony. At it’s roots marriage is a relious ceremony in which a religous authority blesses the union of (tradtionally) a man and a woman. Because it is a social institution, with this act comes many different customs, traditions and beliefs about the act. Customs can range from hopping a broom, to large dowries and arraged marriages, to the astrologically geared ceremonies of Hindus and Bhuddists. These customs vary so greatly from culture to culture its difficult to define the act in concrete terms. This creates a problem in a explicit government such as ours. When the customs and ceremonies are so different how do we classify it. It would seem to be as easy as defining it as the union between a man and a woman, but what happens if you are Islamic and want to have 4 wives (which is legal under Islamic law)? What happens if to preserve your “sanctity” of marrige you believe in the necessity of female genital mutilation? What if your marriage has been arranged for the age of 12? What if your marriage is arranged with a first-cousin? All of these are religious customs that for one reason or another is banned in most states. These could be seen as major infringements and perhaps the obstruction of religious freedom, but that’s a whole other argument. The point here is that these ARE infringements. Some within moral reason, some not. My problem lies with the ones that are not, such as polygamy. This practice is banned in every state in the nation with no reason higher than it is deemed immoral by the Christian majority. Should this nation be majorilly Islamic, perhaps this law would not be present. This brings me to the big issue can you really separate law, politics, morality and ultimately religion.

I believe that you can– to a point. You certainly can in the issue of marriage. Somewhere along in our development as a democratic republic the lines of “church and state” have become muddled on this issue. (n and of itself this statement alone is somewhat archaic and sees use through mere tradtions. To be PC lets refer to it as “religion and state.” ) Perhaps splitting hairs over defining marriage is not necessary. Even if we had a finite description of marriage, should this institution be recognized and further sanctioned???

My response would be no. I shall explain. It would be my proposal that as a government of “the leader of the free world” we stop recognizing and giving legal benefits to couples that merely undergo a religious ceremony. Over the years we have changed and added several aspects and prerequisites to marriage. Things such as a mandatory syphillis test, age requirements, blood tests and in some states and counties even marriage counseling of some sort. Time has taken the religious act and given it legality that complicates the issue. I would propose that perhaps it would be best to clearly separate the legal act and the religious act. This perhaps would alleviate the problem of upholding the sanctity of marriage for those who a reluctant to open that ceremony to others. Marriage the religious and social ceremony joining two people vs. Marriage the legal contract binding two people. The “legal” marriage (basically civil union) would afford heterosexual and homosexuals alike all the legal apportions now only available to heterosexuals. The “legal” marriage would cover tax exemptions, property issues, 5th amendment rights and all other legalities. Through separating these acts the confusion dissipates for the most part. To further clarify it would be best to give “legal” marriage a different name such as the general term of “civil union.”

Im getting bored of this now but I still feel like there are several points I have failed to raise. Im thinking a list would be the best ways to explicate these:
– on the issue of separation of religion and state and in response to those who say marriage should stay the way it is and that allowing homosexuals to get married is “immoral”
— Until 1967 interracial marriages were still illegal in 19 states, a mere 36 years ago– also considered to be immoral by some at the time
— Divorce is a moral sin to those who are Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox or Hindu. By providing these services not only to non practioners but to those of that faith aren’t we stepping on toes here? (or is it their own sin that they have to deal with within themselves. think)
— Marriages by first cousins are illegal in MOST states. Are there recognition issues with this group?
— If marriages are for the sole purpose of fostering familes, what should happen to married couples with no children, esp if the woman has already experienced menapause? Would this situation deem this marriage null? (just a thought)

>>On a closing note, to the bible thumpers that are adamantly against homosexual marriages in any form, get a grip. The church is forever evolving. It has to to keep up with the times. Hence the numerous reformations and different Christian sects that have come about. Perhaps it is time for a new reformation. It seems to me that the church is in dire need of an overhaul. The point here being the rules of morality and ethics play into our everyday lives so much that it is only natural that they change and evolves as we do. Should we resist this change we are only keeping ourselves back. In the long run I think there’s one biblical saying that should speak above all others in matters of government, morality, law and life in general. “Love thy neighbor.”

I’ve got to get back to ranting…I’ve fallen off the horse lately…time to climb back on board…


One Response to “Re: the gay marriage debate….”

  1. another note: how sacred is marriage?? With shot gun weedings and impromptu divorces and annulments, one could argue that its just another binding agreement that people sometimes abide by…what’s the fuss again??

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: