Civil Unions are Not Enough: Legalize Same-Sex Marriage

"God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and George!" This is one of the most frequently heard arguments against legalizing gay marriage; but in considering that fact to be important, let's examine a couple more:

Yes, God created them Male and Female-- both to underscore the significance of the marital relationship, and, as the original intention, to populate the world ("Go and replenish the earth." He said that too).

In the Human realm of Creation, those were the two purposes-- the committed, permanent relationship as the foundation of all else, and these two original Humans being the "parents" of the rest of the human race.

If one reads the rest of the story of Creation, both facts are crystal-clear; and in the latter aspect, one can continue to read that anything which was counterproductive to this purpose was said to be wrong, sinful. God created these two people-- and then they were to set themselves to the task of "multiplying."

Not only were Adam and Eve the first parents, they were also the first grandparents-- as 'replenishing the earth' made it necessary for Cain to marry his own sister. Populating the world made sibling marriage necessary. But marrying and reproducing with one's own kin ceased to be essential and ceased to be acceptable when the initial purpose was no longer a factor.

Such is the case with gay unions-- for marriage to primarily be a matter of reproduction is certainly no longer an issue, and, as such, the focus must remain on the other point: for the marital relationship to be acknowledged by a couple, God, and society. To attempt to place gender barriers on this relationship is more than slightly arrogant-- especially those who insist that in their homophobic prejudice, they are 'speaking for God.'

It is taught that a couple is married 'in God's eyes' when they make that full commitment to each other of their own free will and competence; a wedding ceremony legalizes the relationship, acknowledges it to society, but the ceremony only "adds to" the commitment which already exists.

Some states, including this one, have been arguing that gay couples may have "civil unions" but not full-fledged marriages-- denying such couples full legalization, full recognition, and both the rights and responsibilities which come with a true marriage. Opponents to gay marriage generally do not 'approve' of even this much, but argue full-steam that they should somehow be satisfied with "crumbs" while straight couples are entitled to "the whole loaf."

As "separate but equal" was deemed an invalid defense for racial bigotry, "different but equal" is nowhere near a viable excuse for homophobic divisions of 'who deserves what' either.

Blatant homophobia, tradition, and demanding that all people adhere to some people's religious views, are the bottom line of this current dilemma-- and none of these are just cause for declaring that love, commitment, competence of judgment, and free will, are sufficient for some couples but irrelevant for others.

If you consider a same-sex relationship to be unnatural and deviant, that is nothing more than your own opinion; and while you are entitled to your opinion, your "opinion" should not be a deciding factor in what rights and responsibilities someone else should have. And if you consider such relationships to be "Godless," perhaps you should learn to take a less arrogant view of how 'you believe' God fits into other people's lives.

As a minister, I will conduct same-sex ceremonies to the extent that I am allowed by law-- while continuing to support legislation designed to grant "Adam and George" the same fully-recognized marriages as their "Adam and Eve" counterparts.