My partner and I got into a discussion regarding gay marriage this morning. I am for it, he is against it which would have been the end of story until we started discussing it. Seems he's not against civil unions between anyone, but he is not for gay marriage....it's the marriage thing. And after much contemplation I agree with him. The answer to this whole entire nation-wide problem is in the wording.
Marriage, as argued by right wing Christians, is between a man and a woman. Maybe that is how their church interprets it. Other churches may vary on that opinion but I believe Angelo is right when he says "Marriage is a religious word".
The United States should, therefore, no longer issue Marriage Certificates. Rather it should issue Civil Union Certificates. Once a couple has this, it should be recognized as a partnership and therefore share the benefits (and costs) that government "marriages" now offer. However, if the couple wants to "marry" that should be dependent on the church and not on the government.
I believe people should have the right to share a relationship with someone of their own choosing. Not everyone is heterosexual and it's time this is accepted. They should not be considered aberrant or abnormal for these words annotate that something is wrong with them. However, a similar word that could be used is different (and some will argue that these words are synonyms yet they are not). We are all different in some form or another so therefore being "different" is an acceptable adverb to use.
As well, homosexuals make up 10% or more of the sexually active human beings. In the United States, this makes them a minority and as a minority they have rights, one of which is against discrimination. Isn't not allowing them to form a civil union, with all the perks, a type of discrimination? So therefore isn't it against the law?
And how can a couple be "married" in one state but NOT married in another. It seems that opens doors to polygamy...or is that only for homosexuals which leads to discrimination.
DOMA talks of marriage, it does not speak of civil unions. There has to be some unity in this county and I believe that changing the phrasing of this could eliminate all the problems therein. Homosexuals are people, humans, who should have the same freedoms and rights as the rest of those heterosexual humans in the US. It should be a civil liberty.
Just sayin......
3 comments:
The problem here, however, is that "marriage" is currently NOT a solely religious term. It is a legal and civic term. It defines a couple's status within the federal government as well as the state and local government. If you look at tax forms, it does not say "joined by civil union and filed jointly." Ohio's DOMA, which has altered our state's constitution, openly discriminates against a segment of our population. And this population has just as much right to celebrate their union in a church to which they belong as anyone else, doesn't it?
The problem, as I see it, is that discrimination is an All Or Nothing activity. Can anyone tell a gay couple, "Okay, you can be joined in matrimony, but not holy matrimony in your church because the Government--which by law is separate from the church--says you can only have a civil union"?
I have gay friends and a couple of gay family members. My cousin, who is Catholic, is in a deeply committed relationship with her partner of 15 years. She is well aware of the united front of discrimination she faces from both her state of Ohio and her church. My heart breaks for her. Why can't we remember the core principals from two of what are seen as our foundational documents?
1. ...all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
2. Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love. In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us.
I think also it's a huge leap to then mention polygamy, which is something so rare, so unusual, and something that is a personal and religious lifestyle choice. I'm not sure I'm following your logic here.
There are lots of licenses that are valid in some states but not in others: teaching licenses, law licenses, contractor licenses, and dog licenses are but a few. Medical licenses also. Laws vary widely from state to state. A judge can marry a couple--regardless of sexual orientation--in Ohio but not do so in Florida. That seems a minor point.
I've been reading your blog for a little while now; it seems a lot of your viewpoints are suddenly changing.
Just wanted to offer a different view.
I'm not sure I follow you as to the changes in my viewpoints. If you are talking about my political views, it's not so much as change as it is to listening to what those who have different ideas than I do are trying to say and accepting them for those differences. My partner and I are poles apart from one another. He is definitely a died in the wool Republican, believes big business is the way to go and hates, with a passion, President Obama. Whereas I am very much a liberal who likes small businesses and thinks they are the backbone, or should be the backbone, of America. I happen to like President Obama though I question some of his choices and I do not think Ronald Reagan was the be all to end all of Presidents. Yes I know that there are different laws in different states. My comment about polygamy is this...if a states cannot be unified where marriage is concerned than a man and a woman married in one state should not be considered married in another state if the law is not equal for homosexuals. Gay and lesbians can only be married in, what, six states? And they are not recognized as being a couple in any of the others. The same should hold true for all....and if that were the case, then John and Mary would be recognized as married in Delaware but not in Virginia giving either one the right to marry someone else in that state. I'm probably not presenting this as clearly as I want to, but I was just pushing the point that couples, no matter the sexual preference, have a right, equally across the United States should have the right to become a legal couple in the eyes of the law.
And Nance, thanks for following my blog....I enjoy yours!
Post a Comment