No. 492 - An Essay on Gay Marriage
Preface: This is MY opinion. You're free to disagree and argue with me, but I will NOT tolerate a flame war. I know a lot of people will disagree on points, but any display of hatred and intolerance will result in immediate removal from friends list and deletion of comments.
I read a few things recently that really, really bothered me. It’s centered around Prop 8 in California, but this is really about Gay Marriage in general. First, let us look at the exact wording for Prop 8:
The official ballot title language for Proposition 8 is "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry." The entirety of the text to be added to the constitution is: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."1
Shall the California Constitution be changed to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry providing that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California?2
There’s also Prop 102 in Arizona:
Proposition 102 would amend the Arizona Constitution to provide that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state.3
And Florida’s Amendment 2:
This amendment protects marriage as the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife and provides that no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.4
Now let us take a trip through history. The word “marriage” didn’t exist in the English language until around 1250-1300 A.D. It was derived from the Middle English word “mariage,” which also means “to wed.”5 The word “wed” didn’t exist until 900 A.D., which also was derived from the Middle English word “wedde,” meaning “to pledge.”6 Obviously the idea of marriage has been around much longer than these words have existed.
According to an article written by theweekmagazine.com,
The first recorded evidence of marriage ceremonies uniting one woman and one man dates from about 2350 B.C., in Mesopotamia. Over the next several hundred years, marriage evolved into a widespread institution embraced by the ancient Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans. But back then, marriage had little to do with love or with religion.7
The article also notes:
Marriage’s primary purpose was to bind women to men, and thus guarantee that a man’s children were truly his biological heirs. Through marriage, a woman became a man’s property.7
Back in these ancient times, life wasn’t exactly flourishing. Civilization was just beginning to develop, and so the biological need to reproduce was very strong. Things like money and wealth was starting to rise as people began to learn how to use land to farm for food. Land property was becoming popular. The union of two people, a man and a woman, through marriage gave families a bond that was linked to wealth and land ownership. While I’m sure the concept of love existed, the focus of bringing a man and woman together was to allow a family lineage to continue, for a man to receive an heir or a daughter he could force an arrange marriage to gain more power and wealth. “For much of human history, couples were brought together for practical reasons, not because they fell in love.”7 As stated before, marriage had nothing to do with religion.
Religion didn’t enter the picture of marriage until the Roman Catholic Church took control. “[T]he blessings of a priest became a necessary step for a marriage to be legally recognized. By the eighth century, marriage was widely accepted in the Catholic Church as a sacrament, or a ceremony to bestow God’s grace. At the Council of Trent in 1563, the sacramental nature of marriage was written into canon law.”7
Let’s step away from marriage and look at the history of homosexuality.
The earliest record of homosexuality is found in Chinese documentation:
Formal historical data provided by ancient records dealing with male homosexuality in China can be dated back to the Shang Dynasty (c. 16th century - 11th century BC), according to Li Yinhe in her book History of Chinese Homosexuality.8
Homosexuality has always been found in nature, and it wasn’t always an uncommon occurrence.
Li claimed that during the powerful Han Dynasty (206 BC - 220 AD) the homosexual activities of emperors and ministers were frequently preserved in the historical records. According to the "Historical Record" and "Han Dynasty Records", almost all emperors of the Western Han Dynasty had lovers of their same sex.8
“The Roman emperor Nero, who ruled from A.D. 54 to 68, twice married men in formal wedding ceremonies, and forced the Imperial Court to treat them as his wives. In second- and third-century Rome, homosexual weddings became common enough that it worried the social commentator Juvenal. … Yale history professor John Boswell says he’s found scattered evidence of homosexual unions after that time, including some that were recognized by Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches.”7
The problem people have with homosexuality these days is based solely around social and religious demonization of what already occurs in nature. Marriage between man and woman has obviously been the popular route to go because it ensured human survival, in addition to other “practical” reasons of giving a man legal property over his wife, his children, and the potential to gain wealth through marriage. A union between two men or two women would not be fruitful in obtaining children because it is biologically impossible. And therefore it’s evil? Well, that’s what the Hebrews of ancient times made the popular Christian world believe.
The popular Christian world - that’s what we live in today. 78.5% of Americans follow some form of Christianity, and 1.7% of Americans are Jewish.9 That means, out of the 303,824,640 people who live in the United States, 233,337,323 people are taught that according to the Bible, “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”10
It’s quite obvious not everyone believes in this statement, but enough find it to be a fundamental foundation of his/her belief system. Obviously no sane person is going out killing homosexuals for going against the bible, just as no one is stoning adulterers,11 women aren’t being punished for wearing men’s clothing,12 and no one is stoning their children because they are being disobedient.13
Don’t the above statements sound ridiculous? Yet at one time in history, people WERE punished for these so-called “crimes.” But as time went on, society changed. It changed to allow those things to be socially unacceptable or to be acceptable. Sure, adultery is still socially unacceptable, but imagine if we put every single adulterer to death because of it. The world would be much less populated; just as it would be less populated if we punishing women who wear men’s clothing, or killing disobedient and drunken sons and daughters. But we, as a society, have moved away from that.
So why can’t we move away from the idea that homosexuality is wrong? Why do we still have to preach this form of intolerance towards another HUMAN BEING just because of who he or she chooses to LOVE? Because it goes against your religion? Because you find it morally wrong? Because you feel uncomfortable that allowing one man and one man to marry, or one woman and one woman to marry, will eventually lead to other strange and completely unheard of forms of love to marry? A man who wants to marry two women. Two women who want to marry one man and each other. Oh gosh, not polygamy! But hasn’t that been around SINCE THE BEGINNING OF TIME as well?
Who are we to judge who can love each other? Here we are, people of the “free world,” setting limitations on how love can be defined. We’ve gotten WAY past the need to reproduce for the survival of mankind. Hell, there are so many unwanted children in the world, but evidently we need to set limitations on which people are allowed to adopt and take care of those children. Single parent? Forget it! A gay couple? Well they aren’t allowed to marry, so according to the new law, they aren’t allowed to adopt either.14
Forgetting about the whole religious implications of marriage, today’s society - particularly in the United States - say that you should marry for love. You want a marriage to last? Love is a key element. Arranged marriages most often leave people completely unsatisfied and full of loathing. We preach LOVE! Marry for love! Not for wealth! Not because of family obligations! BUT FOR LOVE!
Oh, but if you’re gay, you can forget it. Marriage is a religious right. You love each other? Good for you! Just don’t try to ruin my idea of husband and wife because that’s fundamentally wrong, according to my religion.
What exactly IS marriage these days? It’s nothing more than a civil contract between two human beings (defined by law as man and woman in most states) which gives “state/country recognition, child adoption rights, tax rules, and other legal benefits” to the couple.15 Where exactly does religion lie in all that? OH, IT DOESN’T.
So as part of your religion, marriage is define as one man and one woman, and anything else would be complete blasphemy. Hey, if that’s what you believe and that’s what your church believes, then so be it. But I don’t see in any of the earlier mention clauses that amend state constitutions that if those amendments are NOT passed, that ALL churches everywhere in that state MUST perform a marriage of the same gender. Do you see it? I don’t.
But so many religious institutions fear that if it is legal by law to marry two people of the same gender, that those two people can sue said institution for not allowing them to marry. According to the first amendment, a government cannot interfere with a religious institution.16 So even if an angry gay couple decides to sue, the court would not rule in favor of the couple. But you want to know what I think? If that particular church isn’t going to marry same-sex couples, they probably wouldn’t even be attending that church.
That’s the great thing about America. There are a billion churches in close proximity of each other. Unsatisfied with one? Just go down the street to another. Can’t find one close to you? Go to the next city! Surely you’ll find one that will suit your beliefs. If it’s really that important to you, making a commute to church shouldn’t be such a big deal.
I think what a lot of people are missing is that marriage does not have to be a religious sacrament. But if a gay couple wants to marry and doesn’t want to go through a religious ceremony, they cannot simply go down to the court house and have a civil union.
“But they can sign up for domestic partnership! It’s almost the same thing as marriage.”
That’s not the point. Most people in today’s society see marriage as the highest form of commitment. It tells someone that you truly love them; that you want to spend the rest of your life with them; that you will be with them until some force separates you. THAT is marriage, in the metaphorical sense, without ANY religious implications. That sentiment is strengthened by the legal bindings, because I’m certainly not going to want to have to go through the process of joint taxes for someone I only think I love. Marriage can make a person feel special, to feel like you’re truly each other’s soul mate, to feel like you are the world to your partner. It’s symbolized in the ring on each other’s finger. It’s symbolized in the piece of paper that is given to you by the state that you receive either through a religious ceremony or through a court house or city hall.
But people continue to insist that homosexuals cannot fall into this category of “marriage” because his or her partner is not of the opposite sex. I guess I missed the memo that love can only form between a man and woman.
It must be extremely hard for transgender and transsexual people. If a person is born without a sexual identity, what then? Are they not allowed to love? If a woman has a y-chromosome in her DNA, but her body develops a vagina and breasts, does that mean she’s not allowed to love a man? She was supposed to be a boy after all! But what if she’s a lesbian? Does that mean she can go down to the courthouse and get married to her lesbian lover because she can prove that she is indeed a man by DNA make-up?
What about people who have a sex change? Or people who are born with both male and female parts? If their birth certificate says he is female, but he decides he identifies as being a male more, does that mean he can’t marry his long time girlfriend because he was a female by nature? What then?
All these complicated issues and problems that can be cleared up with redefining marriage as “a union between two people.” And I don’t believe that a union between two people has to be mutually exclusive. If a woman falls in love with two men, and she wants to marry both… by all means! Love is love is love is love. Just as humans are humans are humans are humans. LOVE between people shouldn’t be limited.
In my process of looking up bible quotes, I found this lovely statement that I will end this with:
“Remind the people to … be ready to do whatever is good, to slander no one, to be peaceable and considerate, and to show true humility toward all men. At one time we too were foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures. We lived in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another.”17
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)
2. http://www.smartvoter.org/2008/11/04/ca/state/prop/8/
3. http://www.azsos.gov/election/2008/Info/PubPamphlet/Sun_Sounds/english/Prop102.htm
4. http://election.dos.state.fl.us/initiatives/initdetail.asp?account=41550&seqnum=1
5. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marriage
6. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/wed
7. http://www.islandmix.com/backchat/f9/origin-marriage-50901/
8. http://www.china.org.cn/english/2002/Oct/44940.htm
9. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html
10. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=3&chapter=20&verse=13&version=31&context=verse
11. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2022:22-24;&version=31;
12. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2022:5;&version=31;
13. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2021:18-21;&version=31;
14. http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Arkansas_Unmarried_Couple_Adoption_Ban_(2008)
15. http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/245632/gay_marriage_vs_civil_union_an_argument.html?cat=9
16. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment
17. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Titus%203:1-5;&version=31;
I read a few things recently that really, really bothered me. It’s centered around Prop 8 in California, but this is really about Gay Marriage in general. First, let us look at the exact wording for Prop 8:
The official ballot title language for Proposition 8 is "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry." The entirety of the text to be added to the constitution is: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."1
Shall the California Constitution be changed to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry providing that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California?2
There’s also Prop 102 in Arizona:
Proposition 102 would amend the Arizona Constitution to provide that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state.3
And Florida’s Amendment 2:
This amendment protects marriage as the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife and provides that no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.4
Now let us take a trip through history. The word “marriage” didn’t exist in the English language until around 1250-1300 A.D. It was derived from the Middle English word “mariage,” which also means “to wed.”5 The word “wed” didn’t exist until 900 A.D., which also was derived from the Middle English word “wedde,” meaning “to pledge.”6 Obviously the idea of marriage has been around much longer than these words have existed.
According to an article written by theweekmagazine.com,
The first recorded evidence of marriage ceremonies uniting one woman and one man dates from about 2350 B.C., in Mesopotamia. Over the next several hundred years, marriage evolved into a widespread institution embraced by the ancient Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans. But back then, marriage had little to do with love or with religion.7
The article also notes:
Marriage’s primary purpose was to bind women to men, and thus guarantee that a man’s children were truly his biological heirs. Through marriage, a woman became a man’s property.7
Back in these ancient times, life wasn’t exactly flourishing. Civilization was just beginning to develop, and so the biological need to reproduce was very strong. Things like money and wealth was starting to rise as people began to learn how to use land to farm for food. Land property was becoming popular. The union of two people, a man and a woman, through marriage gave families a bond that was linked to wealth and land ownership. While I’m sure the concept of love existed, the focus of bringing a man and woman together was to allow a family lineage to continue, for a man to receive an heir or a daughter he could force an arrange marriage to gain more power and wealth. “For much of human history, couples were brought together for practical reasons, not because they fell in love.”7 As stated before, marriage had nothing to do with religion.
Religion didn’t enter the picture of marriage until the Roman Catholic Church took control. “[T]he blessings of a priest became a necessary step for a marriage to be legally recognized. By the eighth century, marriage was widely accepted in the Catholic Church as a sacrament, or a ceremony to bestow God’s grace. At the Council of Trent in 1563, the sacramental nature of marriage was written into canon law.”7
Let’s step away from marriage and look at the history of homosexuality.
The earliest record of homosexuality is found in Chinese documentation:
Formal historical data provided by ancient records dealing with male homosexuality in China can be dated back to the Shang Dynasty (c. 16th century - 11th century BC), according to Li Yinhe in her book History of Chinese Homosexuality.8
Homosexuality has always been found in nature, and it wasn’t always an uncommon occurrence.
Li claimed that during the powerful Han Dynasty (206 BC - 220 AD) the homosexual activities of emperors and ministers were frequently preserved in the historical records. According to the "Historical Record" and "Han Dynasty Records", almost all emperors of the Western Han Dynasty had lovers of their same sex.8
“The Roman emperor Nero, who ruled from A.D. 54 to 68, twice married men in formal wedding ceremonies, and forced the Imperial Court to treat them as his wives. In second- and third-century Rome, homosexual weddings became common enough that it worried the social commentator Juvenal. … Yale history professor John Boswell says he’s found scattered evidence of homosexual unions after that time, including some that were recognized by Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches.”7
The problem people have with homosexuality these days is based solely around social and religious demonization of what already occurs in nature. Marriage between man and woman has obviously been the popular route to go because it ensured human survival, in addition to other “practical” reasons of giving a man legal property over his wife, his children, and the potential to gain wealth through marriage. A union between two men or two women would not be fruitful in obtaining children because it is biologically impossible. And therefore it’s evil? Well, that’s what the Hebrews of ancient times made the popular Christian world believe.
The popular Christian world - that’s what we live in today. 78.5% of Americans follow some form of Christianity, and 1.7% of Americans are Jewish.9 That means, out of the 303,824,640 people who live in the United States, 233,337,323 people are taught that according to the Bible, “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”10
It’s quite obvious not everyone believes in this statement, but enough find it to be a fundamental foundation of his/her belief system. Obviously no sane person is going out killing homosexuals for going against the bible, just as no one is stoning adulterers,11 women aren’t being punished for wearing men’s clothing,12 and no one is stoning their children because they are being disobedient.13
Don’t the above statements sound ridiculous? Yet at one time in history, people WERE punished for these so-called “crimes.” But as time went on, society changed. It changed to allow those things to be socially unacceptable or to be acceptable. Sure, adultery is still socially unacceptable, but imagine if we put every single adulterer to death because of it. The world would be much less populated; just as it would be less populated if we punishing women who wear men’s clothing, or killing disobedient and drunken sons and daughters. But we, as a society, have moved away from that.
So why can’t we move away from the idea that homosexuality is wrong? Why do we still have to preach this form of intolerance towards another HUMAN BEING just because of who he or she chooses to LOVE? Because it goes against your religion? Because you find it morally wrong? Because you feel uncomfortable that allowing one man and one man to marry, or one woman and one woman to marry, will eventually lead to other strange and completely unheard of forms of love to marry? A man who wants to marry two women. Two women who want to marry one man and each other. Oh gosh, not polygamy! But hasn’t that been around SINCE THE BEGINNING OF TIME as well?
Who are we to judge who can love each other? Here we are, people of the “free world,” setting limitations on how love can be defined. We’ve gotten WAY past the need to reproduce for the survival of mankind. Hell, there are so many unwanted children in the world, but evidently we need to set limitations on which people are allowed to adopt and take care of those children. Single parent? Forget it! A gay couple? Well they aren’t allowed to marry, so according to the new law, they aren’t allowed to adopt either.14
Forgetting about the whole religious implications of marriage, today’s society - particularly in the United States - say that you should marry for love. You want a marriage to last? Love is a key element. Arranged marriages most often leave people completely unsatisfied and full of loathing. We preach LOVE! Marry for love! Not for wealth! Not because of family obligations! BUT FOR LOVE!
Oh, but if you’re gay, you can forget it. Marriage is a religious right. You love each other? Good for you! Just don’t try to ruin my idea of husband and wife because that’s fundamentally wrong, according to my religion.
What exactly IS marriage these days? It’s nothing more than a civil contract between two human beings (defined by law as man and woman in most states) which gives “state/country recognition, child adoption rights, tax rules, and other legal benefits” to the couple.15 Where exactly does religion lie in all that? OH, IT DOESN’T.
So as part of your religion, marriage is define as one man and one woman, and anything else would be complete blasphemy. Hey, if that’s what you believe and that’s what your church believes, then so be it. But I don’t see in any of the earlier mention clauses that amend state constitutions that if those amendments are NOT passed, that ALL churches everywhere in that state MUST perform a marriage of the same gender. Do you see it? I don’t.
But so many religious institutions fear that if it is legal by law to marry two people of the same gender, that those two people can sue said institution for not allowing them to marry. According to the first amendment, a government cannot interfere with a religious institution.16 So even if an angry gay couple decides to sue, the court would not rule in favor of the couple. But you want to know what I think? If that particular church isn’t going to marry same-sex couples, they probably wouldn’t even be attending that church.
That’s the great thing about America. There are a billion churches in close proximity of each other. Unsatisfied with one? Just go down the street to another. Can’t find one close to you? Go to the next city! Surely you’ll find one that will suit your beliefs. If it’s really that important to you, making a commute to church shouldn’t be such a big deal.
I think what a lot of people are missing is that marriage does not have to be a religious sacrament. But if a gay couple wants to marry and doesn’t want to go through a religious ceremony, they cannot simply go down to the court house and have a civil union.
“But they can sign up for domestic partnership! It’s almost the same thing as marriage.”
That’s not the point. Most people in today’s society see marriage as the highest form of commitment. It tells someone that you truly love them; that you want to spend the rest of your life with them; that you will be with them until some force separates you. THAT is marriage, in the metaphorical sense, without ANY religious implications. That sentiment is strengthened by the legal bindings, because I’m certainly not going to want to have to go through the process of joint taxes for someone I only think I love. Marriage can make a person feel special, to feel like you’re truly each other’s soul mate, to feel like you are the world to your partner. It’s symbolized in the ring on each other’s finger. It’s symbolized in the piece of paper that is given to you by the state that you receive either through a religious ceremony or through a court house or city hall.
But people continue to insist that homosexuals cannot fall into this category of “marriage” because his or her partner is not of the opposite sex. I guess I missed the memo that love can only form between a man and woman.
It must be extremely hard for transgender and transsexual people. If a person is born without a sexual identity, what then? Are they not allowed to love? If a woman has a y-chromosome in her DNA, but her body develops a vagina and breasts, does that mean she’s not allowed to love a man? She was supposed to be a boy after all! But what if she’s a lesbian? Does that mean she can go down to the courthouse and get married to her lesbian lover because she can prove that she is indeed a man by DNA make-up?
What about people who have a sex change? Or people who are born with both male and female parts? If their birth certificate says he is female, but he decides he identifies as being a male more, does that mean he can’t marry his long time girlfriend because he was a female by nature? What then?
All these complicated issues and problems that can be cleared up with redefining marriage as “a union between two people.” And I don’t believe that a union between two people has to be mutually exclusive. If a woman falls in love with two men, and she wants to marry both… by all means! Love is love is love is love. Just as humans are humans are humans are humans. LOVE between people shouldn’t be limited.
In my process of looking up bible quotes, I found this lovely statement that I will end this with:
“Remind the people to … be ready to do whatever is good, to slander no one, to be peaceable and considerate, and to show true humility toward all men. At one time we too were foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures. We lived in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another.”17
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)
2. http://www.smartvoter.org/2008/11/04/ca/state/prop/8/
3. http://www.azsos.gov/election/2008/Info/PubPamphlet/Sun_Sounds/english/Prop102.htm
4. http://election.dos.state.fl.us/initiatives/initdetail.asp?account=41550&seqnum=1
5. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marriage
6. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/wed
7. http://www.islandmix.com/backchat/f9/origin-marriage-50901/
8. http://www.china.org.cn/english/2002/Oct/44940.htm
9. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html
10. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=3&chapter=20&verse=13&version=31&context=verse
11. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2022:22-24;&version=31;
12. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2022:5;&version=31;
13. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2021:18-21;&version=31;
14. http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Arkansas_Unmarried_Couple_Adoption_Ban_(2008)
15. http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/245632/gay_marriage_vs_civil_union_an_argument.html?cat=9
16. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment
17. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Titus%203:1-5;&version=31;