Wednesday, July 14, 2004

Marriage under attack but not by who They would have you believe...

At my friend's house the other day, me and a few of my friends got into discussing the issue of gay marriage. It was a good group consisting of 5 people including me: Me, 1 progressive, another progressive religious person, and two seemingly politically unaffiliated but highly devout nondenominational evangelicals. Recipe for explosives debate, i know, however our enduring freindship made this conversation as freindly as conversation gets with the occasional spike in emotions. My comments here draw largely from that discussion. Where ever i use the term God, The Church, or anything of that nature it is an inclusive term describing all views of GOd and all religions that exist to glorify theirs.

The Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) comes to a vote in the senate sometime today and will surely be defeated (barring Rick Santorum's aides bursting into the Senate with automatic weapons and holding them to the domes of every Democrat and many Republicans). The strategy in bringing FMA to a vote is to get every senator on the record either for or against gay marriage. Even though a large number of Senators are against Gay marriage, they will be unfairly targeted by the Religious Right (TM) for voting to preserve the Constitution. But FMA aside let us look at this issue.

Why am I for Gay Marriage?

I am not pro-Gay Marriage. I am pro-Civil Union.
(I'll explain the difference in a second)
There really isnt a rational, factually founded argument against allowing an adult access to the hospital bed of his life partner. Giving two committed adults the ability to make a life together should be something this country strives for; not attacks. Respecting an individuals inalienable right of the pursuit of happiness is one of the cornerstones of this nation. And sexual orientation is protected by this stone, therefore not allowing due process, equality, and equal opportunity under the law for people whose only perceived offense is protected by the documents written by our Founding Fathers is tantamount to slapping those same Fathers in their respective (and respected) faces.

This is discrimination.
I am against any discrimination based upon race, sex, creed, or orientation, and this most certainly is a discriminatory action. This country recognizes that there should be no restrictions or discrimination based on gender. Therefore heres an example:

2 adults want to marry and are allowed to => they recieve all the benefits and responsibilties of their choice.

2 adults want to marry but are not allowed to => they recieve none of the benefits despite their willingness to live up to the same responsibilites.

The only difference between these two situations is the genders of the individuals involved. Is that fair? Is that legal? I don't think so.

If you change Gay Marriage to Black Marriage or to South Paw Marriage, there would be no way this issue would be discussed as a serious issue that our representatives in the legislature should spend time on(except for in certain claverns in Illinois and Tennessee). And especially becuase we live "in this post-9/11 world" there are hundreds of thousands of more important issues to discuss.

But the Bible says...
Yes the Bible alledgedly is against homosexuals and homosexual marriage (I say allegedly becuase i myself have not read all of it). However, this country is also founded on the seperation of Church & State as well as the Constitution garuntees freedom of religion -- thus freedom from religion. So just becuase the Bible says something is not grounds for laws and restrictions in this country.

However this is a fundamental reason why any religious/devout person should be against federal regulation and control over a fundamentally religious institution. Marriage is a word representing a union of love recognized and blessed by God (in any religion). If any church does not see it fit to marry two people based upon their religious beliefs, then that is at their choice and has always been their choice! But bringing in the government to enforce or encroach upon their right to decide weakens any further choices they make. It is a crutch the church doesnt need.

Though this point is arguable or perhaps irrelevant to different people, another stronger point is: the government has not protected the sanctity of marriage ever. If two people who do not love each other want to get married (for whatever reason) they can as long as they are of opposite sexes. They get all the same benifits of health insurance, joint tax filing, hospital rights, sponsorship of immigration etc. Despite the fact that they do not love eachother (a fundamental part of marriage) they are able to use the system and the institution for its benifits. This happens today and has nothing to do with religion and it cheapens marriage, but i ask "why does it matter at all the sex of the individuals?" The law approves of this union despite the parasitic nature of it, what grounds then does it have to deny recognizing two others that love eachother as much as or more than any other couple for their committment. If a man a woman can get married and divorced as many times as they want to why can't these same rights be extended to all adults?

Although I personally support the rights of homosexuals to marry, I argue that the government shouldnt even be discussing it. What the government should be debating is the rights of gays to have civil unions that hold the same rights as heterosexual unions under the law. Taking marriage out of the picture takes the religious constraints with it and allows for a real discussion and a real look at what America values. America values intergration and equality, religion and personal freedoms. But the FMA is a slap in our faces, it tells us that we do not have the right to live as we choose and it demotes a substantial portion of our citizenry to second-class status just like the 3/5ths rule did years ago.

Thus, I believe that by supporting this push for Federal regulation of marriage, the Rick Santorum's in the House & Senate are the ones responsible for threatening the sanctity and the institution of marriage by taking jurisdiction away from the churchs, mosques, synagouges, temples (and the context of religion) who are the only entities who have the specific right to judge this issue. They rip away at the relevance of The Church by not respecting it or staying out of its affairs.

And they also attack the Constitution of the United States of America by attempting to add to it a document (FMA) that both disrespects the spirit of our the Constitution while contradicting its most fundamental portions.

Whether or not you personally believe that a homosexual has the right to marry another on whatever grounds, you should be protected from someonelse's contary beliefs if those beliefs infringe upon your pursuit of happiness and your rights as a citizen of this country. You have that protection, just as every American does.

See the FMA for what it is: a wedge issue that attempts to split the swing voters in favor of Geroge Bush and a devious assualt on our nation's most revered document.

See the congressional Push for legislation prohibiting Gay Marriage for what it is: disrespectful to God, His Church and The Constitution.

3 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

it would be very prideful of me to pretend like these are my own arguments that i created from my own dashing intellect, so given this is from other sources, here we go...

Very succinctly, the majority of social scientists agree that a man and a woman are distinct and important to the raising of children. i know some studies have been made on same-sex couples, but those who conduct them are members of the homosexual agenda, and thus bring a strong element of bias to their work. Their findings suggest redefining marriage could very well undermine the social structure that works, albeit far from perfectly. Point taken, we are in the midst of a marriage crisis, given the high levels of divorce in this country. However, do we want to risk putting more strain on this institution? As long as the findings of social science case studies point to heterosexual unions as the best method of raising children, lets have our legal system support it. and the guy who writes this smells. not in the derogatory sense, but literally.

signed,

A non-denominational Christian trying to hide his flagrant sexually-discriminating agenda under a shroud of modern scientific study. ha!

July 14, 2004 at 11:57 AM  
Blogger Patrick said...

Regardless of anything concerning homosexual marriage...

If this is indeed a "wedge issue" it pretty much illustrates how base and disgusting the Republican leadership is. The Constitution is the most sacred document in this country. To try and use it for petty partisan gain is beyond shameful. I thought it was us "liberals" who were anti-American. There is no one more anti-American than a corrupt "conservative" Republican.

July 15, 2004 at 8:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Peter Parker, I do not do pornography. Your mom just likes to be taped.

July 19, 2004 at 10:05 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home