gay marriage...a rebuttal
inspired by an article......
The problem is really one of semantics.
Marriage is as institution predates modern religion. It has been present in civilized societies since they began. It has always been a contractual arrangement allowing the transfer of assets and finances. Before it was a religious institution, it was an institution of politics and barter. That is not the issue today, however. No matter how it came to be apart of the religious system, it currently stands as a very important part of most monotheistic faiths. In terms of modern American Life the institution of marriage has two facets: one religious and one secular.
In our society marriage is governed by both the church and the state. As it stands you can be married by a religious figure and/or a certified justice of the peace. The point is that, whatever you call it, straight Americans have access to both secular and religious unions, acknowledged by the government, that provide political and religious benefits. The real issue is that the government has no place in regulating religious and moral ideology. That ball is in the church’s court. Furthermore, if the government gives political and social benefits to one group or community, then it has no choice but to provide those same benefits to all citizens of this country, in accordance with the current Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
The so called “elite” fraction of the gay community does not want the rights extended under a different title with its own set of standards and mandates, because that implies a difference between citizenship. The only difference is anatomy, an area that should not enter into legislation any more than skin color, religion, or gender. By making social and political distinctions, differences become the key issue. By pointing at the differences you ostracize a minority group even further. A more correct idea would be the obverse: broadening the legislation to include everyone or drafting new legislation for all. If the government regulates marriage for heterosexual couples, then it should do likewise for homosexual couples under the same circumstances. If the government does not want to destroy the “sanctity of marriage” then it should not legislate on it at all. Perhaps the government should civilly unionize both heterosexuals and homosexuals and leave marriage up the Church.
I understand her feelings and beliefs on the subject, however, it is my personal opinion that changing labels and classifying distinctions in legislation for different groups, only further divides populations and perpetuates our society’s ignorance, prejudice, and allowance for discrimination. There was a reason that Separate but Equal was not a solution for Black Civil Rights. The government should be analyzing the separation between Church and State, not the right of marriage. Marriage is only a word…..its meaning is assigned by the people, communities, and institutions that use it. Currently we are all on different pages when defining it. We should all be less sensitive and the government should separate the real issue from one of semantics……
Currently it is illegal to engage in homosexual acts in over 41 states. Government benefits, inheritance rights, familial decisions, adoption, and many other rights are denied to millions of couples all over this country. Verbal and Physical discrimination against homosexuals is rampant and in some cases permitted in almost every state. Social tolerance of gay people is predominantly restricted to large cities and it is still dangerous in most rural areas across the country.
Let us also remember how long this particular struggle for acceptance has been going on, longer than most minorities. Look to history for the importance of the steps we are currently taking.
We are not asking for the right to religion, which is a battle for an individual, their faith, and the Church. We are asking for what Jews fought for. We are asking for what the Puritans fought for. We are asking for what African Americans fought for. We are asking for what Women fought for.
We are asking for freedom from Oppression.
We are asking for Acceptance.
We are asking for the right to live our lives!
The problem is really one of semantics.
Marriage is as institution predates modern religion. It has been present in civilized societies since they began. It has always been a contractual arrangement allowing the transfer of assets and finances. Before it was a religious institution, it was an institution of politics and barter. That is not the issue today, however. No matter how it came to be apart of the religious system, it currently stands as a very important part of most monotheistic faiths. In terms of modern American Life the institution of marriage has two facets: one religious and one secular.
In our society marriage is governed by both the church and the state. As it stands you can be married by a religious figure and/or a certified justice of the peace. The point is that, whatever you call it, straight Americans have access to both secular and religious unions, acknowledged by the government, that provide political and religious benefits. The real issue is that the government has no place in regulating religious and moral ideology. That ball is in the church’s court. Furthermore, if the government gives political and social benefits to one group or community, then it has no choice but to provide those same benefits to all citizens of this country, in accordance with the current Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
The so called “elite” fraction of the gay community does not want the rights extended under a different title with its own set of standards and mandates, because that implies a difference between citizenship. The only difference is anatomy, an area that should not enter into legislation any more than skin color, religion, or gender. By making social and political distinctions, differences become the key issue. By pointing at the differences you ostracize a minority group even further. A more correct idea would be the obverse: broadening the legislation to include everyone or drafting new legislation for all. If the government regulates marriage for heterosexual couples, then it should do likewise for homosexual couples under the same circumstances. If the government does not want to destroy the “sanctity of marriage” then it should not legislate on it at all. Perhaps the government should civilly unionize both heterosexuals and homosexuals and leave marriage up the Church.
I understand her feelings and beliefs on the subject, however, it is my personal opinion that changing labels and classifying distinctions in legislation for different groups, only further divides populations and perpetuates our society’s ignorance, prejudice, and allowance for discrimination. There was a reason that Separate but Equal was not a solution for Black Civil Rights. The government should be analyzing the separation between Church and State, not the right of marriage. Marriage is only a word…..its meaning is assigned by the people, communities, and institutions that use it. Currently we are all on different pages when defining it. We should all be less sensitive and the government should separate the real issue from one of semantics……
Currently it is illegal to engage in homosexual acts in over 41 states. Government benefits, inheritance rights, familial decisions, adoption, and many other rights are denied to millions of couples all over this country. Verbal and Physical discrimination against homosexuals is rampant and in some cases permitted in almost every state. Social tolerance of gay people is predominantly restricted to large cities and it is still dangerous in most rural areas across the country.
Let us also remember how long this particular struggle for acceptance has been going on, longer than most minorities. Look to history for the importance of the steps we are currently taking.
We are not asking for the right to religion, which is a battle for an individual, their faith, and the Church. We are asking for what Jews fought for. We are asking for what the Puritans fought for. We are asking for what African Americans fought for. We are asking for what Women fought for.
We are asking for freedom from Oppression.
We are asking for Acceptance.
We are asking for the right to live our lives!