Attacks on marriage?
I live in New Hampshire, where same-sex marriages were legalized recently. There is now a bill before the state legislature to change this recognition into "civil unions" and I sent a message to a number of my legislators to voice my opposition.
Last night I got two responses from one of these legislators. I'm posting my reply, and below it you can read one of her responses, the slightly more coherent one. I hope the rest of her communications do not read like this one, because this message leads me to doubt her competence to hold office, operate a motor vehicle, or engage in any reasoned discussion.
-------
Ms. Tremblay,
We agree in some respects. Most importantly in that marriages sanctioned by a church have nothing whatsoever to do with government, and that government should never be able to influence what ceremonies are conducted and recognized by any given church, parish, or congregation.
Marriage, as a "SACRED gift," can be hard to pin down. Which version of that sacred gift is the correct one? In the Old Testament there are not only plural and multiple marriages, but also concubines, and the divine order for a prophet to lie with his wife's servant that she might bear him a son further muddies the waters. Religious limits on marriage have changed over time. Priests were allowed, and even encouraged, to marry until the eleventh century (and continued to be married or engaged in long-term relationships on the side for centuries after that, as long as they were quiet about it). I've run across historical references to weddings being conducted for same-sex couples in Europe in the middle ages---not as a common thing, but also not treated as something so extraordinary as to bring out the pitchfork-waving mobs beloved of some films.
The relationship between any married couple and their community of faith must be mutually agreeable among that group of people. No State can influence that.
Marriage is also a purely secular institution. It has an effect on tax filings, insurance, who a hospital can speak with (especially with the HIPAA laws now in place), school contacts, inheritance, and a wide range of other operations of government and daily life. It's something I'm aware of because my wife kept her maiden name when we were married more than twenty years ago, and we sometimes have to verify our status as a married couple.
Trying to establish two versions of secular marriage confuses everyone, especially since "civil union" is a term that is meaningless in some places, and has different meanings in the locations that have tried to define it.
For this last reason, I'd like to ask you to consider the secular institution only. It should either be called "marriage" for all couples, or it should be called "civil union" for all couples, but the legal status for all couples should be the same, and that status should be instantly recognized anywhere the couple might travel.
I believe in the institution of marriage. I am still married to the only wife I will ever have.
I do not think that the institution of marriage is threatened by the marriage of same-sex couples, especially since I know such couples who have been in long-term, monogamous relationships for many years, and who want nothing more than the same things that my wife and I can have without any questions being raised. If marriage is being threatened, it is more at risk from the likes of Mark Sanford, John Ensign, and Newt Gingrich, who have all demonstrated complete contempt for their wives, and for both the sacred and legal aspects of marriage, at the same time that they were lecturing the rest of us on how important marriage is.
Trying to create two versions of state-sanctioned marriage is the problem that HB 474 represents, and that is the problem I had hoped you could help address in the legislature.
Religious sanction is not the issue. What is important is that a same-sex couple who have spent decades in a stable, committed relationship, with the support of families, friends, employers, and even their churches, should be able to be "married" with exactly the same rights and privileges as a man and woman who meet in Las Vegas and make a trip to the Elvis Chapel three hours later to exchange rings.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this matter.
--[my name]
On Jan 30, 2012, at 9:48 PM, Tremblay, Stella wrote:
Mr [my name, spelled wrong]:
Thank you for taking the time to write. Marriage is a SACRED gift that was instituted before ANY Government was formed. A Government that bends to the will of those that are determined to change the sanctity of the "Family" and change "Marriage" to suite their own purposes INSTEAD of the original purpose for which it was intended; will cause the destruction of the Government and its' people. We will NOT prosper; neither will WE survive as a nation. One needs only to study History to see trends repeated. When Nations reject Natural Laws, and families deteriorate, Society on a whole suffers. We see the decay around us today.
All citizens are entitled to "Rights" according to the Bill of Rights. You are allowed "Free Speech", "Bear Arms", "Pursuit of Happiness (Property originally)", etc. Marriage is NOT a "RIGHT". YOU are able to live where you want, with WHOM you want, and Work in both Government and Private Sector jobs. Where are your "Rights" being violated? HB474 is a bill that is very reasonable. In my opinion, civic unions is a compromise that is difficult for me to swallow; however, it is part of the bill. Recognition of marriages that have already taken place is also in the bill. If YOU believe that you are being discriminated against in this country...you are not facing reality. Arabic Nations do NOT allow YOU the freedoms that you enjoy here. I believe that you should have the choice to live as you like, (which you do) but you do NOT have the RIGHT to FORCE your views on those that understand that "Marriage" was sanctified by God between a man and a woman… from the creation of the earth. The Founding Fathers, who pledged their lives, their sacred honor to bring about a "REPUBLIC" form of Government stated that it would only survive and thrive for a MORAL and RELIGIOUS people. I ran as an elected official on Principle. I would rather FEAR GOD than man! I do not change according to the whims of those few that demand their needs met in contrast to what this country was founded on, and to IMPLY their freedoms have been taken! That is a LIE! Please read HB474 in its entirety. It is a fair bill.
Last night I got two responses from one of these legislators. I'm posting my reply, and below it you can read one of her responses, the slightly more coherent one. I hope the rest of her communications do not read like this one, because this message leads me to doubt her competence to hold office, operate a motor vehicle, or engage in any reasoned discussion.
-------
Ms. Tremblay,
We agree in some respects. Most importantly in that marriages sanctioned by a church have nothing whatsoever to do with government, and that government should never be able to influence what ceremonies are conducted and recognized by any given church, parish, or congregation.
Marriage, as a "SACRED gift," can be hard to pin down. Which version of that sacred gift is the correct one? In the Old Testament there are not only plural and multiple marriages, but also concubines, and the divine order for a prophet to lie with his wife's servant that she might bear him a son further muddies the waters. Religious limits on marriage have changed over time. Priests were allowed, and even encouraged, to marry until the eleventh century (and continued to be married or engaged in long-term relationships on the side for centuries after that, as long as they were quiet about it). I've run across historical references to weddings being conducted for same-sex couples in Europe in the middle ages---not as a common thing, but also not treated as something so extraordinary as to bring out the pitchfork-waving mobs beloved of some films.
The relationship between any married couple and their community of faith must be mutually agreeable among that group of people. No State can influence that.
Marriage is also a purely secular institution. It has an effect on tax filings, insurance, who a hospital can speak with (especially with the HIPAA laws now in place), school contacts, inheritance, and a wide range of other operations of government and daily life. It's something I'm aware of because my wife kept her maiden name when we were married more than twenty years ago, and we sometimes have to verify our status as a married couple.
Trying to establish two versions of secular marriage confuses everyone, especially since "civil union" is a term that is meaningless in some places, and has different meanings in the locations that have tried to define it.
For this last reason, I'd like to ask you to consider the secular institution only. It should either be called "marriage" for all couples, or it should be called "civil union" for all couples, but the legal status for all couples should be the same, and that status should be instantly recognized anywhere the couple might travel.
I believe in the institution of marriage. I am still married to the only wife I will ever have.
I do not think that the institution of marriage is threatened by the marriage of same-sex couples, especially since I know such couples who have been in long-term, monogamous relationships for many years, and who want nothing more than the same things that my wife and I can have without any questions being raised. If marriage is being threatened, it is more at risk from the likes of Mark Sanford, John Ensign, and Newt Gingrich, who have all demonstrated complete contempt for their wives, and for both the sacred and legal aspects of marriage, at the same time that they were lecturing the rest of us on how important marriage is.
Trying to create two versions of state-sanctioned marriage is the problem that HB 474 represents, and that is the problem I had hoped you could help address in the legislature.
Religious sanction is not the issue. What is important is that a same-sex couple who have spent decades in a stable, committed relationship, with the support of families, friends, employers, and even their churches, should be able to be "married" with exactly the same rights and privileges as a man and woman who meet in Las Vegas and make a trip to the Elvis Chapel three hours later to exchange rings.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this matter.
--[my name]
On Jan 30, 2012, at 9:48 PM, Tremblay, Stella wrote:
Mr [my name, spelled wrong]:
Thank you for taking the time to write. Marriage is a SACRED gift that was instituted before ANY Government was formed. A Government that bends to the will of those that are determined to change the sanctity of the "Family" and change "Marriage" to suite their own purposes INSTEAD of the original purpose for which it was intended; will cause the destruction of the Government and its' people. We will NOT prosper; neither will WE survive as a nation. One needs only to study History to see trends repeated. When Nations reject Natural Laws, and families deteriorate, Society on a whole suffers. We see the decay around us today.
All citizens are entitled to "Rights" according to the Bill of Rights. You are allowed "Free Speech", "Bear Arms", "Pursuit of Happiness (Property originally)", etc. Marriage is NOT a "RIGHT". YOU are able to live where you want, with WHOM you want, and Work in both Government and Private Sector jobs. Where are your "Rights" being violated? HB474 is a bill that is very reasonable. In my opinion, civic unions is a compromise that is difficult for me to swallow; however, it is part of the bill. Recognition of marriages that have already taken place is also in the bill. If YOU believe that you are being discriminated against in this country...you are not facing reality. Arabic Nations do NOT allow YOU the freedoms that you enjoy here. I believe that you should have the choice to live as you like, (which you do) but you do NOT have the RIGHT to FORCE your views on those that understand that "Marriage" was sanctified by God between a man and a woman… from the creation of the earth. The Founding Fathers, who pledged their lives, their sacred honor to bring about a "REPUBLIC" form of Government stated that it would only survive and thrive for a MORAL and RELIGIOUS people. I ran as an elected official on Principle. I would rather FEAR GOD than man! I do not change according to the whims of those few that demand their needs met in contrast to what this country was founded on, and to IMPLY their freedoms have been taken! That is a LIE! Please read HB474 in its entirety. It is a fair bill.