Reply to Wolphstrykes' Post
Earlier today I typed up a reply to one of Wolphstykes latest LJ entries. But aparently I'm such a big mouth that the LJ software won't let me post all of it. So instead, I'm gonna try posting it here and then linking to it via HTML over there.
First, a copy of Wolphstrykes post in question, then my reply follows.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hot Topic: Gay Marraiges
I am watching the news items on gay marraiges with a mixture of anxiety and confusion. Anxiety, because of the personal involvement. Confusion, because I don't understand why there is a controversy in the first place.
After all, we're talking about marraige as a LEGAL institution, correct? It is a legal declaration of living status that creates a convenience for both the residents and for the system. It's among the same levels as declaring a dependent. Tax breaks and census tracking and whathaveye... Heck, some states have common-law marraiges for people who have lived together for some years... a kind of "You've lived together X-number of years, congratulations the state now considers you married! Here's your new tax status."
I would better understand it if the argument were over the grounds of religion, because some organized religions do forbid same-sex relations, or at least heavily frown upon them.
I suppose it can be argued in that same-sex couples cannot reproduce, therefor it is not conducive to a government to add legal sanctioning to the religious one, as they will not be able to immediately add to the future generations. If that is the case, however, what about adoption? Granted, at this time same-sex couples rarely can legally adopt. The most grounded objection in my opinion is the prejudice the child is bound to be subjected to by peers and by peers' parents. The same objection can be and has been applied, however, to parents of mixed race, regardless of gender.
That second one is being beaten down, thankfully. I hope the former is as well.
Are we not able to separate the legal institution of marraige from the religious one anymore? Marraige existed in a religious, ceremonial sense long before laws recognized and catagorized the living status of individuals... and at least for a time, it was the ceremonial view that carried more weight in declaring a couple's devotion than the law.
Has that now swung the other way, at least here in America?
I am also concerned about what this means for our nation... it is apparent that regardless of reasons, our society holds the legal recognition of marraige as an important part of every-day life... yet states are disagreeing in no small detail over what constitutes a legal marraige. A marraige made in one state will not be recognized in another. Yes, this would make divorce a hell of a lot easier... but to me it holds the potential for a severely divided nation.
Unless that talk of creating a Constitutional Amendment becomes more than talk.
So... I watch the news, concerned.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>After all, we're talking about marraige as a LEGAL institution, correct? It is a legal declaration of living status that creates a convenience for both the residents and for the system.<<
Marriage, defined strictly in terms of legal status, is more commonly referred to as civil unions. A title that confers all the legal benefits of marriage without actually being called marriage. The great controversy is that many people view the concept of marriage strictly in religious terms, and make no distinguishment between what their church says and what the law should say.
Which brings me to the next quote...
>>Are we not able to separate the legal institution of marraige from the religious one anymore?<<
Unfortunately, I'd say that we've never been able to separate them. Or at least, a good 50% of the population hasn't. Far too much of American culture is centered around a belief that Christianity should define our society's common law. It's why we have "In God We Trust" on our money and "Under God" in our pledge of allegiance (and why most people somehow believe they've "always been there.") It's why Congress starts its sessions every day with prayer. It's why there're so many people who are actively working to take the word "evolution" out of schools and "creationism" in. It's why so many people get riled up whenever some plaque or monument bearing the Ten Commandments gets removed from a courthouse, even when it should never have been there in the first place.
A lot of Christian Conservatives have the nasty habit of proclaiming themselves as victims even as they persecute those who don't think as they do. They see our society as one of declining moral values and gays as primary purveyors of that decline. Hence the reason for thier position that "the institution of marriage is under attack, and we must defend it." The truth is that most of them simply don't like homosexuals, and will do whatever they can to make them feel unwanted and unequal.
But that's a generalization. There are a lot of people who are quite open to the idea of equal rights for homosexuals, but are concerned about what legal recognition of gay marriages will inevitably lead to. Will polygamous marriages be next? What about incestuous marriages? Where does one draw the line between equality and morality? People are frightened of change because they don't have answers about what's going to happen as a result of them, so they fall back on simply continuing "what we've always been doing," so they won't have to deal with it.
That's why it concerns me to see the issue of gay marriages becoming so prominent in the national spotlight at this point in time, mere months from when we will decide whether to keep or replace our nation's president. As much as I believe that homosexuals should have the same rights and freedoms that heterosexuals do, I know in my heart that society just isn't ready for that yet. And whenever I see news items from Massachusetts or San Francisco about gays pushing strongly to have those rights, I'm worried about the kind of reaction it will generate from the rest of the country. I'm worried about how strongly they will push back to stop it.
It would make me sick to see Bush get reelected because of public resistance all the media homosexuals are making right now. It would make me sick to see that Constitutional Amendment get passed because 2/3rds of Americans think homosexuals are pushing too hard, too fast for equality. It would make me sick to see everything homosexuals have done to promote equality up until this point come crashing down around them because election year tempers flare and people overreact. That's why I think the gay community should cool it on the activist front and just keep things low-key until after November. That's why I think they should be satisfied with recognition of civil unions, and not force the politicians' hands into "defining marriage." Civil rights is a marathon, not a sprint, and if the Democratic candidate has to constantly defend his position on this issue, rather than talking about jobs/Iraq/etc., he won't stand a chance of winning the election.
I sympathize and support homosexuals in their fight for equal rights and recognition, but a part of me can't understand why the word "marriage" is so important, so long as they get the same legal protections and priviledges. Historically, marriage has never been about love or devotion, but rather about property and forging alliances between families. Most marriages of the past were arranged as a way of keeping people in power. The ceremony is less about the two people involved as it is about uniting the monetary resources of two families.
Some may call it unromantic, but personally I think "marriage" is overrated. Is a couple's love for each other not really real until a carbon rock is exchanged? Are people not allowed to be devoted to one another until someone else pronounces them that way? Why are humans the only species on Earth that can't pair up for life without a slip of paper saying that they've paired up for life? I guess I just feel that "marriage" isn't something that government or religion has a business trying to define. It is an institution between two individuals committed to caring for one another.
(sigh) Looks like I turned a simple reply into a lengthy rant. My apologies for being too wordy for LJ's good. :(
First, a copy of Wolphstrykes post in question, then my reply follows.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hot Topic: Gay Marraiges
I am watching the news items on gay marraiges with a mixture of anxiety and confusion. Anxiety, because of the personal involvement. Confusion, because I don't understand why there is a controversy in the first place.
After all, we're talking about marraige as a LEGAL institution, correct? It is a legal declaration of living status that creates a convenience for both the residents and for the system. It's among the same levels as declaring a dependent. Tax breaks and census tracking and whathaveye... Heck, some states have common-law marraiges for people who have lived together for some years... a kind of "You've lived together X-number of years, congratulations the state now considers you married! Here's your new tax status."
I would better understand it if the argument were over the grounds of religion, because some organized religions do forbid same-sex relations, or at least heavily frown upon them.
I suppose it can be argued in that same-sex couples cannot reproduce, therefor it is not conducive to a government to add legal sanctioning to the religious one, as they will not be able to immediately add to the future generations. If that is the case, however, what about adoption? Granted, at this time same-sex couples rarely can legally adopt. The most grounded objection in my opinion is the prejudice the child is bound to be subjected to by peers and by peers' parents. The same objection can be and has been applied, however, to parents of mixed race, regardless of gender.
That second one is being beaten down, thankfully. I hope the former is as well.
Are we not able to separate the legal institution of marraige from the religious one anymore? Marraige existed in a religious, ceremonial sense long before laws recognized and catagorized the living status of individuals... and at least for a time, it was the ceremonial view that carried more weight in declaring a couple's devotion than the law.
Has that now swung the other way, at least here in America?
I am also concerned about what this means for our nation... it is apparent that regardless of reasons, our society holds the legal recognition of marraige as an important part of every-day life... yet states are disagreeing in no small detail over what constitutes a legal marraige. A marraige made in one state will not be recognized in another. Yes, this would make divorce a hell of a lot easier... but to me it holds the potential for a severely divided nation.
Unless that talk of creating a Constitutional Amendment becomes more than talk.
So... I watch the news, concerned.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>After all, we're talking about marraige as a LEGAL institution, correct? It is a legal declaration of living status that creates a convenience for both the residents and for the system.<<
Marriage, defined strictly in terms of legal status, is more commonly referred to as civil unions. A title that confers all the legal benefits of marriage without actually being called marriage. The great controversy is that many people view the concept of marriage strictly in religious terms, and make no distinguishment between what their church says and what the law should say.
Which brings me to the next quote...
>>Are we not able to separate the legal institution of marraige from the religious one anymore?<<
Unfortunately, I'd say that we've never been able to separate them. Or at least, a good 50% of the population hasn't. Far too much of American culture is centered around a belief that Christianity should define our society's common law. It's why we have "In God We Trust" on our money and "Under God" in our pledge of allegiance (and why most people somehow believe they've "always been there.") It's why Congress starts its sessions every day with prayer. It's why there're so many people who are actively working to take the word "evolution" out of schools and "creationism" in. It's why so many people get riled up whenever some plaque or monument bearing the Ten Commandments gets removed from a courthouse, even when it should never have been there in the first place.
A lot of Christian Conservatives have the nasty habit of proclaiming themselves as victims even as they persecute those who don't think as they do. They see our society as one of declining moral values and gays as primary purveyors of that decline. Hence the reason for thier position that "the institution of marriage is under attack, and we must defend it." The truth is that most of them simply don't like homosexuals, and will do whatever they can to make them feel unwanted and unequal.
But that's a generalization. There are a lot of people who are quite open to the idea of equal rights for homosexuals, but are concerned about what legal recognition of gay marriages will inevitably lead to. Will polygamous marriages be next? What about incestuous marriages? Where does one draw the line between equality and morality? People are frightened of change because they don't have answers about what's going to happen as a result of them, so they fall back on simply continuing "what we've always been doing," so they won't have to deal with it.
That's why it concerns me to see the issue of gay marriages becoming so prominent in the national spotlight at this point in time, mere months from when we will decide whether to keep or replace our nation's president. As much as I believe that homosexuals should have the same rights and freedoms that heterosexuals do, I know in my heart that society just isn't ready for that yet. And whenever I see news items from Massachusetts or San Francisco about gays pushing strongly to have those rights, I'm worried about the kind of reaction it will generate from the rest of the country. I'm worried about how strongly they will push back to stop it.
It would make me sick to see Bush get reelected because of public resistance all the media homosexuals are making right now. It would make me sick to see that Constitutional Amendment get passed because 2/3rds of Americans think homosexuals are pushing too hard, too fast for equality. It would make me sick to see everything homosexuals have done to promote equality up until this point come crashing down around them because election year tempers flare and people overreact. That's why I think the gay community should cool it on the activist front and just keep things low-key until after November. That's why I think they should be satisfied with recognition of civil unions, and not force the politicians' hands into "defining marriage." Civil rights is a marathon, not a sprint, and if the Democratic candidate has to constantly defend his position on this issue, rather than talking about jobs/Iraq/etc., he won't stand a chance of winning the election.
I sympathize and support homosexuals in their fight for equal rights and recognition, but a part of me can't understand why the word "marriage" is so important, so long as they get the same legal protections and priviledges. Historically, marriage has never been about love or devotion, but rather about property and forging alliances between families. Most marriages of the past were arranged as a way of keeping people in power. The ceremony is less about the two people involved as it is about uniting the monetary resources of two families.
Some may call it unromantic, but personally I think "marriage" is overrated. Is a couple's love for each other not really real until a carbon rock is exchanged? Are people not allowed to be devoted to one another until someone else pronounces them that way? Why are humans the only species on Earth that can't pair up for life without a slip of paper saying that they've paired up for life? I guess I just feel that "marriage" isn't something that government or religion has a business trying to define. It is an institution between two individuals committed to caring for one another.
(sigh) Looks like I turned a simple reply into a lengthy rant. My apologies for being too wordy for LJ's good. :(