Ok, before you write me off as crazy, let start by informing you about my background, then I’ll explain myself…
First, religion: I was raised Roman Catholic. Over time, I’ve become a bit of an agnostic. I’m leaning toward the belief that religion is a construct of society as a method of self governance, but much like those that believe in religion, I really have no hard facts to refute either side.
Next, politics: Although I’m cognizant of the goings on in day-to-day politics, I really don’t care to follow the every move (read: mistake) of this side or that side. I don’t really fall anywhere on the liberal-conservative scale, as I believe lining up behind a party really dilutes the population. Associating oneself with a certain side makes most people believe you follow “your side” 100%. But the my thoughts on this topic really have no bearing on this conversation.
So, back to the task at hand: redeeming myself from the title of this article. Let me define Marriage (since anyone else is afraid to). I was taught that Marriage (note the capital M, that will come back later) is a one of the seven sacraments in the Catholic Church that unifies a man and a woman under God. The other sacraments are Baptism, Confession, Communion, Confirmation, Holy Orders (becoming a priest) and Annointing of the Sick (basically, last rites, but not quite).
Again, let me pause for a second to clarify. You might ask why I am focusing on the Catholic Church. Well, because the US Government takes its definition of marriage (lower-case m) from Marriage the sacrament (from any flavor of the God/Jesus religions). This is what our country was “based on” when it was founded, so this is where their definition comes from.
Ok, now… The other side of this coin is the US Government. What are the benefits given to married couples under the government? For the purposes and simplicity of this article, let’s just say “financial benefits,” meaning tax breaks, credit report/loan evaluation, etc. So, the argument here is “Homosexual couples should not be Married.” Clarification: The church has a valid argument when saying that homosexual couples cannot be Married (big M). I didn’t say they were right, I just said they have a valid argument. As I was taught, Marriage is between a man and a woman, and if you’ll remember, I’m not so sure that religion came from down from Mt. Sinai or just some people who thought it might help them police the masses, but the book says man + woman. Those that believe strictly in religion, and follow those books, have every right to believe that homosexuals should not be Married. The government, on the other hand, has no say either way in that regard due to a tiny clause in a small, unimportant, often forgotten memo called The Constitution: Separation of Church and State.
I do believe, however, that homosexual couples should be married and if you’ve been following along closely enough, you’ll know I’m not contradicting myself. I think the government needs to reevaluate it’s terms so a huge fight isn’t created over semantics. Civil union is the term given, but that has gotten a poor stigma over time because people want to be “married”. So technically, a couple should receive the sacrament first to be unified in the eyes of God, then get a civil union after to be unified in the eyes of the government. The church should not require a “marriage license” provided by the government, because that confuses matters even worse.
Let me say it this way… Any two (I say two just because I’m not even going to try to discuss polygamy. That would be trying to kill a hell of a lot of birds with one stone) people who want to go in front of the government and say that they’re working together in life towards “the American dream” should be recognized as such and given the benefits of that union, regardless of their sex. The church can continue to turn away people for reasons detailed in a 2000+ year old book. I just know that many people are getting tired of the “but it says so right here” phrase, and they’re losing customers, fast…
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
Interesting point of view. I can see you trying to reconcile different aspects of your personality (Marriage, religious views as were taught to you as a child and what you grew up as thinking “right” with, perhaps, somewhat differing views of the same types of ideas as an adult). I think a lot of people have this problem.
As for civil unions – *cough* separate but equal? *cough* Didn’t we already go there? Yea, that worked out REAL well…
It’s an emotionally charged issue – but really – letting gay people get married isn’t hurting anyone. Will having more than one child make you love them all a little bit less each time?
We’re saying the same thing using different words. I agree that gay people should be married. The point I’m trying to make (and did so at 4am today) is that the only group that is allowed to have a problem with it is the church, not the government. Even still, that “problem” isn’t right from a human rights standpoint, but I consider the church to be a private club where you have to follow the rules to be in it, but the government applies to everyone living under it, and it should act as such, without the church-bias.
And, also like i said, the term civil unions does have a bad stigma. I’m definitely advocating a term for “marriage” under the government that differentiates it from the sacrament to keep the church from getting involved.