Issues, issues, get me some tissues.
No, this isn't about poetry.
For the last session of Bible study we talked about homosexuality, and covered some pretty wide ground. Here's the one conclusion we all agreed on:
Marriage, as a legal institution, is COMPLETELY BLURRED with marriage as a religious institution.
This is a problem, because then people who subscribe to a religion that teaches marriage as a religious institution between a man and a woman, and ALSO are in a position to make laws regarding marriage as a LEGAL institution (which ought follow no religious teaching) face the complete interconnectedness of the two institutions, and often, because of their beliefs, fail to see the existence of two separate institutions.
According to Wikipedia, marriage predates reliable recorded history (does anyone know if this is true?). This isn't a problem, though. What needs to be recognized is the actual presence of two categories of the institution. The religious category has uncountable different institutions, for example: monogamy, polygamy, polyandry, even things like the Catholic Priesthood as espousal to the church. This isn't a problem either.
The problem comes when a government has to define exactly what kinds of relationships are included within the definition of the legal institution. This is a problem when the legal definition contradicts the religious beliefs of an individual. The issue then becomes skewed into the question of which religious relationships the government should recognize. The answer is none. The legal status of marriage should have nothing to do with the religious status of marriage. Indeed, this often occurs: people can be legally divorced while religiously still considered married. Any divorced Catholic is an example. So why is it that people still mix the two so consistently? The state has no right to recognize religious status. It merely has the right to confer status of its own.
So why is the conferring of that status being limited by religious beliefs? Or rather, why is the definition of eligibility for such a status being influenced by religious beliefs? Following this pattern, it would be illegal for Catholics to divorce, because such is religiously forbidden except in extreme cases. But Catholics have just as much right to a legal divorce as anyone else. And this right is upheld by the state, which is a good thing. In my mind all practicing Catholics are married twice: once by the state, once by the church. The church simply offers no divorce option. So the LEGAL bond of marriage is completely dissoluble, and this is good.
So back to the topic of homosexuality. If a Catholic has the right to a legal divorce (as well one should, it being in this way a RELIGIOUSLY unbiased institution), why is it that the RELIGIOUS teaching of marriage as between a man and a woman has allowed the institution to be RELIGIOUSLY biased in a different way? Such an institution should instead be LEGALLY biased, that is, limited by the United States Constitution rather than by religious views. While it is true that the constitution was in itself partially limited by some religious views on the part of its creators, it was a document created by people in seek of religious freedom, and as such, not a document intended to impose religious beliefs on a population.
Now recently some people have been trying to write that same "man-woman" religious belief into the constitution. John has already ranted sufficiently on this topic. What I've been trying to do here is explain exactly why I agree with his point of view, and perhaps propose a solution.
I believe the amendment in question was called something equivalent to "Definition of Marriage." In my mind, this is exactly what we need. But such a definition should include the expressed absence of religious influence on the institution, and define the institution as the constitution and its amendments would have it. This would prevent such perversions of the institution as allowing people to enter into marriages with people who could not plausibly offer consent, or, in the case of minors marrying, requiring the consent of both the minor and his or her parent or guardian, as well as defining it as an institution between humans only. If any of these things goes against the constitution, I'd like to know about it.
The religions can practice their own institutions however they please. Being a Catholic, if I receive the religious status of marriage, I will consider it indissoluble. Thus, even if I were to be legally divorced, I would still be religiously married. So in a sense, legal divorce does not go against my beliefs, because the legal institution is different. This also means that if I were be religiously married but never receive the legal status, I would still consider myself married, for life.
My proposition would complicate the issue of annulments offered by the church, as the religious order would then hold no power over the legal institution. But that's another reason why the legal status is, and should be, dissoluble.
The state must define its own institutions by the guidelines set by the constitution. Not by a religion (ANY religion) because unlike, for example, Japan, we do not have an official state religion. (Theirs is Shintoism, if I recall correctly. I don't know how much it affects their legal institutions.)
So tell me. Where does two people of the same gender wishing to obtain a legal and financially beneficial status go against the constitution? You believe marriage is between a man and a woman? Fine. So do I. But I only believe that about the particular RELIGIOUS status I hope to one day enter into. The LEGAL status is, and should always be, a different matter.
For the last session of Bible study we talked about homosexuality, and covered some pretty wide ground. Here's the one conclusion we all agreed on:
Marriage, as a legal institution, is COMPLETELY BLURRED with marriage as a religious institution.
This is a problem, because then people who subscribe to a religion that teaches marriage as a religious institution between a man and a woman, and ALSO are in a position to make laws regarding marriage as a LEGAL institution (which ought follow no religious teaching) face the complete interconnectedness of the two institutions, and often, because of their beliefs, fail to see the existence of two separate institutions.
According to Wikipedia, marriage predates reliable recorded history (does anyone know if this is true?). This isn't a problem, though. What needs to be recognized is the actual presence of two categories of the institution. The religious category has uncountable different institutions, for example: monogamy, polygamy, polyandry, even things like the Catholic Priesthood as espousal to the church. This isn't a problem either.
The problem comes when a government has to define exactly what kinds of relationships are included within the definition of the legal institution. This is a problem when the legal definition contradicts the religious beliefs of an individual. The issue then becomes skewed into the question of which religious relationships the government should recognize. The answer is none. The legal status of marriage should have nothing to do with the religious status of marriage. Indeed, this often occurs: people can be legally divorced while religiously still considered married. Any divorced Catholic is an example. So why is it that people still mix the two so consistently? The state has no right to recognize religious status. It merely has the right to confer status of its own.
So why is the conferring of that status being limited by religious beliefs? Or rather, why is the definition of eligibility for such a status being influenced by religious beliefs? Following this pattern, it would be illegal for Catholics to divorce, because such is religiously forbidden except in extreme cases. But Catholics have just as much right to a legal divorce as anyone else. And this right is upheld by the state, which is a good thing. In my mind all practicing Catholics are married twice: once by the state, once by the church. The church simply offers no divorce option. So the LEGAL bond of marriage is completely dissoluble, and this is good.
So back to the topic of homosexuality. If a Catholic has the right to a legal divorce (as well one should, it being in this way a RELIGIOUSLY unbiased institution), why is it that the RELIGIOUS teaching of marriage as between a man and a woman has allowed the institution to be RELIGIOUSLY biased in a different way? Such an institution should instead be LEGALLY biased, that is, limited by the United States Constitution rather than by religious views. While it is true that the constitution was in itself partially limited by some religious views on the part of its creators, it was a document created by people in seek of religious freedom, and as such, not a document intended to impose religious beliefs on a population.
Now recently some people have been trying to write that same "man-woman" religious belief into the constitution. John has already ranted sufficiently on this topic. What I've been trying to do here is explain exactly why I agree with his point of view, and perhaps propose a solution.
I believe the amendment in question was called something equivalent to "Definition of Marriage." In my mind, this is exactly what we need. But such a definition should include the expressed absence of religious influence on the institution, and define the institution as the constitution and its amendments would have it. This would prevent such perversions of the institution as allowing people to enter into marriages with people who could not plausibly offer consent, or, in the case of minors marrying, requiring the consent of both the minor and his or her parent or guardian, as well as defining it as an institution between humans only. If any of these things goes against the constitution, I'd like to know about it.
The religions can practice their own institutions however they please. Being a Catholic, if I receive the religious status of marriage, I will consider it indissoluble. Thus, even if I were to be legally divorced, I would still be religiously married. So in a sense, legal divorce does not go against my beliefs, because the legal institution is different. This also means that if I were be religiously married but never receive the legal status, I would still consider myself married, for life.
My proposition would complicate the issue of annulments offered by the church, as the religious order would then hold no power over the legal institution. But that's another reason why the legal status is, and should be, dissoluble.
The state must define its own institutions by the guidelines set by the constitution. Not by a religion (ANY religion) because unlike, for example, Japan, we do not have an official state religion. (Theirs is Shintoism, if I recall correctly. I don't know how much it affects their legal institutions.)
So tell me. Where does two people of the same gender wishing to obtain a legal and financially beneficial status go against the constitution? You believe marriage is between a man and a woman? Fine. So do I. But I only believe that about the particular RELIGIOUS status I hope to one day enter into. The LEGAL status is, and should always be, a different matter.