Monday, May 14, 2012
The fuss over "gay marriage"
I've become very tired of all the brouhaha over 'gay marriage', from President Obama's cynically opportunist declaration that he supports it, through North Carolina's voters approving a state constitutional amendment rejecting it, and everything in between. As for Newsweek's latest cover . . . verily, the mind doth boggle!
I'm particularly angry because religion has been reduced to a political football in this whole mess. It's not for me to impose my religious views on others, just as it's not for them to impose theirs on me. I have my own views on homosexuality and on what constitutes a marriage, informed and influenced by my faith. I also have gay friends and acquaintances who reject those views (and the faith that informs them) out of hand. The reason that we're able to stay friends is that I don't try to force them to conform to my standards, and they don't try to make me conform to theirs. We accept each other's rights to freedom of religion and choice, and leave it at that.
As I've written on previous occasions, I think the solution to the whole 'gay marriage' issue is to get government out of the marriage business altogether. Stop issuing marriage licenses; stop registering marriages; let people partner with whoever they want, in whatever multiples and combinations they want, according to whatever system of belief they choose (or none if they reject them all), using whatever vows are meaningful to them. The only state involvement in the process should be to provide a standardized legal contract, specifying the individual(s) to whom I grant spousal rights in the event of medical incapacitation, inheritance, or other significant life-changing issues. Aside from that, no further government intervention should be permissible. That leaves each and every one of us free to follow our consciences, without seeking to impose our perspectives on anyone else or have them do that to us. Churches can decide what forms of marriage are acceptable to them, conduct ceremonies accordingly, and refuse to recognize (or admit to their worship) unions that don't conform to their standards. If I don't like their position on the matter, I can go elsewhere.
What's not to like?
Peter
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
Got's my vote......
Given the unavoidable fondness for the term "marriage" in this country, I think the ideal solution would be "civil marriage" between any two (or more, but that's a tangent) consenting adults, with all currently-granted state and federal legal rights/benefits, and "religious marriage" as instituted by religious organizations at their own discretion, with no legal standing whatsoever. Simple.
The argument from the religious folks that they fear being required to perform/accept marriages not condoned by their religion is equally ridiculous; I (as an ardent supporter of same-sex legal marriages) would be strongly opposed to such a requirement, as the State should have no say in a religious organization's internal policies (with exceptions for, say, child abuse, but that's another matter as well.)
Also, the separate-but-equal "Civil Unions for The Gays" argument is nonsense, as the State is not automatically party to any such private contract, in the ways that they are for the current legal definition of marriage.
So if the government gets out of the marriage business completely then incest would be ok too correct? Brother and sister can marry or brother and brother as it may be.Or if a guy wanted to marry his Great Dane that would be ok?
Anon:
Only if the Great Dane were somehow able to give informed consent. Know any Great Danes like that? Didn't think so.
Well there's Scooby Doo, but I think he's too stoned on scooby snacks to be intrested in that kind of long term relationship. :D
@Anonymous at 4.44 a.m.: Brother/sister, brother/brother or whatever is their business, not mine. Who am I to dictate to them how they should live? I may not agree with their choice, and may have radically different moral standards from them based on my faith, but that doesn't give me the right to force my standards on them, does it?
That's the whole problem with legislation like that in North Carolina. It's a direct invitation to people to enforce their moral views, and impose them on others. That's fundamentally immoral, denying to others the right of freedom of choice that is (according to Christian teaching) God's gift to everyone.
As Joe pointed out, the case of marrying a Great Dane doesn't enter into the picture, as no informed consent is possible.
A gov. license isn't what makes a person "married". The word "marriage" is a Bible word and it makes sense that Bible definition should be used.
If people don't like the Bible definition, use a different word. Sure, it probably still wouldn't stop the idiots that want to legislate morality, but at least they wouldn't have a logical argument.
If the gov. wants to start charging homosexuals a fee and issuing them a piece of paper, I say let them join in the "fun".
Rob, neither the word nor the concept of "marriage" originated in the Bible, so your argument regarding word choice holds no water.
@Anonymous at 0444: Seconding what Peter said about informed consent (which is why children and inanimate objects also fall outside any reasonable definition, as well as the scope of this discussion); as for relationships one might deem incestuous, what one does in the bedroom is a) outside the scope of a discussion of legal/civil marriage -- there are no legal requirements for or against any kind of, or lack of, sexual activity -- and b) attempting to legislate morality.
That's the whole problem with legislation like that in North Carolina. It's a direct invitation to people to enforce their moral views, and impose them on others.
Everyone who voted for that amendment in NC has signalled that the imposition of Sharia law would be acceptable to them, provided there were enough votes for it.
(I have intentionally selected a well known boogeyman likely to strike horror into the hearts of many involved. Any number of other possibilities would also apply, but Sharia is the one that gets all the play in the news today.)
And, for Rob: "The modern English word "marriage" derives from Middle English mariage, which first appears in 1250–1300 C.E. This in turn is derived from Old French marier (to marry) and ultimately Latin marītāre meaning to provide with a husband or wife and marītāri meaning to get married."
Peter, I share your opinion on allowing people to follow their consciences on who and how many to marry. As long as all parties are consenting adults, go for it.
The only REAL problem with your proposed solution is that it makes way too much sense.
I've just come around to your way of thinking. But I have to agree it makes too much sense:)
It's not that I'm against straight, Christian marriage, not at all. If marriage is real, then it's real, whether the government says so or not.
Hey, I think I'll send an email to my elected representatives today, clue them in on our great idea.
Well, I didn't expect you to advocate this position, but I'm in complete agreement.
Besides, there's something perverse in asking the government to sanction your personal relationship with another person. Especially asking for a license.
Seconding Dirk and Chris Hugh, one problem with your eminently reasonable proposed solution is its very reasonableness. The other problem is that, riffing on perlhaqr's point about the potential imposition of Sharia law, a reasonable, non-coercive solution doesn't allow one group to stick it to another, smaller group. (Absolutely no pun intended there, no sir.)
This proposal has been my preferred solution for years. Sadly it won't fly.
Here's the issue with laissez-faire marriage, which I happen to agree with, BTW--What are you going to do about all the entrenched existing precedents elsewhere in government that rely on the traditional definition of marriage? There are assumptions built into the most bizarre locations that you can imagine that would be affected by such things, not least of which are welfare eligibility and other issues. Imagine how the various gamesters would use this sort of approach to get more benefits out of the system, and then extrapolate how much legislation and administrative work would have to be done to tear the traditional assumptions out of the government "operating system".
It wouldn't be a trivial thing, I'm telling you.
Military pay and benefits would be just one aspect--How would you enable this without also enabling "marriages of convenience" between PFC Joe Smith and PFC Mike Jones that would enable them to draw benefits of a married couple and move out of the barracks? That's just one very minor example.
It's a nice idea, and I like it, but we have to acknowledge that putting it into effect would be a huge undertaking, during which the law of unintended consequences would be getting a massive workout.
Anonymous @ 5/15 1421: I see those same concerns in opposite-sex marriages, and as such, wouldn't expect to see a sudden spike in abuse of the system simply because a few more people are able to get married.
This has been my stance for years as well.
Post a Comment