Gay Marriage and Civil Unions
Putting it in Perspective
What I want to know is this:
Why is the government becoming involved in debating the institution of marriage? Marriage is a religious ceremony, the Church's territory. Marriage is clearly defined as the spiritual union of a man and a woman in the eyes of God. This is the meaning accepted by the Church, and the government really has no say. The government likes to pretend that it does, but it does not. The civil, financial, and other rights and bonuses that come with marriage are the grounds of the government, and the government only. Marriage is the grounds of the Church, and the Church exclusively. What happened to that separation of church and state we used to hear so much about, that caused the 'under God' to be removed from the Pledge in some areas?
Imagine a world where a religion had been started a couple thousand years ago where homosexual marriage (assume that in this alternate reality it was still called marriage. Humor me.) was widely supported, everyone was doing it. It's all good. There is a considerably lesser population, but that aside, it's all good.
Flash forward to present day. Same-sex marriage is totally accepted and integrated into our culture, it's commonplace, the Church gives it a big thumbs up. And then a government comes along and decides that they're going to change the whole institution to comfort the minority of individuals (minor point: democratic republic - majority rules, right?) who think that they ought to extend the given definition of marriage, which has been widely accepted for ages, to encompass a wider audience. Naturally, there is opposition. The Church opposes, the nation opposes. Things do not change. The minority is not content, but the majority goes on happily. The minority will deal with things the way they have dealt with things for a very long time. They follow standard procedure.
I think you see how this applies to today, though backwards. Unfortunately, in today's America, we feel this bizarre compulsion to make everyone feel happy and gay. Pun? Possibly. We try to cushion the minorities at the expense of the majorities, only resulting in political heat. I call this the Law of Conservation of Happiness. That is, it is impossible for everyone to be happy. You have three people in a room, give them a great dinner, give them each new cars and a million dollars. At least one of them will envy another person's car.
So, you make the cars all identical. But then at least one of them wonders why they all have to be identical, and desires variety. Unhappiness, discontent. Maybe, in order to prevent envy and desire for variety, etc., you seclude each person, give them the dinner, the money, the car, and everything, individually, alone. They're thankful, but at least one of them will be lonely, and want someone else to be around at the time.
Or one of them could have a problem with the dinner. Maybe they wanted something else. There will always be something wrong, and someone will always complain.
In my opinion, the government has no authority over marriage. The Church has already made its opinions clear; no gay marriage. But the Church doesn't get to determine the rights that a commonlaw marriage, or a civil union, or whatnot, receives in a country, much in the same way that the government should not have any jurisdiction over a religious ceremony. If the Church says that two individuals of the same sex can't get married, the government just needs to get over it. This is not pre-Colonial Britain, where the government can ordain religious ceremonies as they see fit, bending rules as needed. This is post-Revolutionary America, where the government spelled out specifically not to interfere in the affairs of the Church. Lobbyists? Really, what's the point? While I'm not comparing the two by any means, lobbying for gay 'marriage' is as pointless as lobbying for the legalization of, say, cocaine. It shouldn't happen, and it's not going to happen.
Personally, I don't think homosexuality is the right way to go, but I'm not going to judge them, much in the same way that I wouldn't judge someone for voting for a political figure I don't like. But two people do have the right to care for each other, love each other, and receive the same rights as a married couple, though calling it marriage is intrusion upon the grounds of the Church, which the government ought not to be able to do, if not for the reason of respect for the Church, or if not for the reason that we have a 'free country', because of that neat separation of church and state deal that we seem to have overlooked. Wal-Mart sells generic brands of lots of products that have copyrighted names. Wal-Mart could sell a Tussin, a cough syrup, which has the same effect as Robitussin, and is the exact same thing. If Wal-Mart called it Robitussin, and tried to sell it, there would be trouble with the company that makes Robitussin. It's the same thing. Just respect the 'copyright' on marriage, and 'sell it' under a different name.
Published by Sly Navreet
I call myself Sly Navreet, and I've been a writer here at Associated Content for several years, now. Please disregard anything stupid I may have said in content since before the past year or so; I'm trying t... View profile
Gay Marriage Vs. Civil Union: An Argument of SemanticsThe word marriage is merely a scapegoat in the fight for gay civil unions. Take that one word away and what is left to argue over but the fears and prejudices of many Americans.- YouTube Debate Highlights Differences between Grand Valley State University and Al...I have the unique situation in which I attend a highly liberal college smack dab in the middle of an overly conservative farm town. Issues brought up in the CNN YouTube Democratic party highlight the differences in on...
- The Pros and Cons of Gay MarriageThis article discusses both sides of the Gay Marriage issue as well as some background, historical, and legal information.
- Gay Marriage: Right or Wrong?Gay marriage is something of a new idea, yet gay love has been taboo for centuries. Just recently has it become a legal issue, even as homosexual behavior has become commonplace in our society.
6 Arguments Against Gay Marriage that Don't WorkMany social conservatives oppose homosexuals' rights to gay marriage. Here are the reasons they give, as well as some easy logic that debunks those reasons.
- Rudolph Giuliani: To Support Gay Marriage or Not to Support Gay Marriage?
- Ethical Arguments for Legalizing Gay Marriage
- Gay Marriage Vs. Civil Union
- Are Gay Marriages and Civil Unions Bad for Society?
- Gay Marriage Compared to Civil Rights Movement
- New Jersey Passes Gay "Marriages" and Civil Unions
- Replacing Marriage with Civil Unions in the United States
- Respect the Church's 'copyright'.
- Remember the Law of Conservation of Happiness.
- What happened to the Separation of Church and State?
10 Comments
Post a CommentPardon my ignorance here, but the use of Church instead of church implies that there is only one Church that has a claim to marriage. I would be interested to know which Church this is, and how all of the other churches (and non-church religions for that matter) feel about that.
I know of several churches and religious groups that have accepted homosexuality and same-sex marriage as a part of the human condition. Are they wrong? Do they not have a legitimate claim on the "copyright" of marriage? Additionally, why should people have to accept the use of different terminology or definitions for their "union" on the basis of their gender-orientation? This is no different than segregating students on the basis of color (separate is inherently not equal, according to the US Supreme Court).
When is "mainstream" America going to realize that there are cases in which the majority should not rule? That is why there are certain rights and exclusions built into the Constitution, to
I think that it is unfair to say that everyone in this country has equal rights. The only way you have equal rights in this country is if you follow by guide lines. some say that it is unatural to be gay or lesbian but so is having 7 toes. Martin Luther King Jr. fought a fight that people are still fighting today equality. Just because someone likes another from the same sex doesn't make them wrong. Who desides what is right and wrong? Law makers that are all church goers and use there beliefs instead of staying equal and upholding the rights of this country.
Everyone is equal in this country and given the same rights as long as you are straight.
You are forgetting that SOME churches advocate gay marriage and accept it and won't nothing more for gay marriage to exist. The UCC for example is one of them.
The only reason the government wants to outlaw gay marriage is because big business lobbyists are paying them big money. It's go nothing to do with morality; it's about big business fighting to keep from being forced to offer benefits to same sex partners. The last thirty years has seen a reduction in benefits packages and they've gotten used to keeping more of their profits. Now they fear having to shell out money to gay partners and their adopted children. Shudders.
This writer seems a bit confused. He acknowledges the concept of separation of church and state but then, oddly, suggests that the "government" (a generalization at best) is trying to alter marriage for the church. This clearly demonstrates that the writer can't separate civil marriage from religious marriage. Religion has nothing to do with the government-granted rights, protections and privileges that are in question here. The writer seems to have a twisted view of separation of church and state since he seems to think that his religious beliefs should influence the rights of everyone in this country.
The real issue is not the Church's stance on marriage, but the govrenment's use of the term "marriage". At the federal level there are 1139 rights, priviledges, and responsibilities tied to the term. At the state level, and depending on the state, there are between 300-500 rights, privildegs and responsibilites tied to the term. That totals between 1439-1639 rights, priviliedges, and responsibilities tied directly to this term. How shall this be resolved?
It is clear, under our legal system, that either the term "mariage" must be granted OR all these 1600 some odd laws and regulations must be rewritten. These are the ONLY solutions avaiable under the Supreme Law of the Law, i.e. US Constitution!
The real issue is not the Church's stance on marriage, but the govrenment's use of the term "marriage". At the federal level there are 1139 rights, priviledges, and responsibilities tied to the term. At the state level, and depending on the state, there are between 300-500 rights, privildegs and responsibilites tied to the term. That totals between 1439-1639 rights, priviliedges, and responsibilities tied directly to this term. How shall this be resolved?
It is clear, under our legal system, that either the term "mariage" must be granted OR all these 1600 some odd laws and regulations must be rewritten. These are the ONLY solutions avaiable under the Supreme Law of the Law, i.e. US Constitution!
Man have you got things all backward... The church wasn't involved in marriage at all until the 14th century and then it wasn't about a ceremony it was to prevent certain powerful failies from becoming too powerful. Mariage has been and continues to be a civil contract originally between a man or his family and a woman's FAMILY whereby whe was a piece of property traded for monitary or property gain. The modern concept of marriage has come to be in a large part because of the growth of personal property and women's rights as human beings. In this country you can marry in a church but without the license granted by the government, it isn't legal. Likewise you can have a ceremony in the city hall with no church invbolvement and it IS legal. It has always been this way. The confusion is that this country allows the church ceremony to stand in for the civil one.
By the way, the church sanctioned same sex "unions" long before it ever had a liturgy for opposite sexed ones.
y (even mainline Protestant denominations) are saying no to the Federal Marriage Amendment.
Actually, in your Robitussin example, it would be a trademark, not a copyright - that in itself proves how careless you are in your arguments and facts. Civil marriage has absolutely nothing to do with the Church. Marriage in the United States does not have to be performed in a religious ceremony - in some states, notaries can marry people! You parade around the separation of church and state, but conveniently forget that it works both ways; the United States is not a theocracy. Obviously, the 1st and 14th amendments only apply to people seen as worthy by the Church, right? Christians who believe in separation of church and state cannot rightfully enshrine their religious beliefs in the law, which is exactly what you intend to do. Also, the government is not forcing any religious group to marry anyone. Can you imagine a Catholic priest being forced to marry two Jews in a 'traditional' marriage? I can't. By the way, some churches are saying yes to same-sex marriages, and man