Finally I wrote down my reaction instead of meaning to but never getting around to it!
I just read the Newsweek article on Gay Marriage (which you can look up should you wish to read it-I’m too lazy to post the little blue thing here). While the author poses several interesting argument, in my ever humble (*cough*) opinion, like so many others he has completely missed the point once again.
I agree with two of his main arguments. First, the biblical idea of marriage does not neatly translate into “one man, one woman”. Maybe, if you only read the first two or three chapters of Genesis and then skip immediately to the New Testament, you might be able to extrapolate that. Given the entire bible however, it is easy to argue that the “one man, one woman” bit has more to do with the place and time. Granted at no point do we have two men or two women, but still there is certainly diversity in the biblical idea of marriage.
Second, we do not necessarily want biblical law regarding marriage, or anything else, as national law. The bible does not allow for divorce. I completely support any church that does not want to recognize the divorce of anyone they married and to prohibit re-marrying anyone who has been previously married. In fact, I wish more churches would do that. It would impress me. However, that doesn’t mean I think that the government should prohibit divorce. Should be outlaw fornication? Give me a break. (While I’m at it, isn’t it about time we legalized prostitution. I can sell my body for manual labor, but not for sexual purposes-isn’t that just slightly ridiculous. Again, I’m not saying that I think prostitution is moral, in fact my opinion of men who use prostitutes is fairly low, but should it be illegal?)
Still, the author then goes on to try and convince people that we should have religious/legal gay marriage. Isn’t it about time we got over that hurtle and recognized a little seperation between church and state?
It seems to me that there are two to three primary reasons for marriage. The first is social. We don’t have weddings for the bride and groom (who aren’t going to remember much of it anyway), we have them for the parents and extended family and the community. When the little old Chinese lady at the laundry mat asks me, “your boyfriend?” and I say “my husband”, it means something different. Part of that difference may be legal, part of it may be spiritual, but there is definitely part that is social. Marriage is first and foremost a social construct.
The second primary reason is legal. Obviously the law is an extension of society, but it is able to offer formal protection. I was told, by an accountant, of a couple who had never legally gotten married for tax reasons (btw, I wish someone had mentioned before I got marriage that you pay more in taxes once you’re married!). Their parents thought they were married, their community thought they were married, even their kids thought they were married-only their accountant knew otherwise. Clearly they were socially married, as society viewed them as married, but legally they weren’t. So if one of them died suddenly or ended up in the hospital or whatever, there would have been problems.
Legally marriage is a contract. Because this contract has existed in our cultural for as long as we can remember and because it exists in some form everywhere around the world, we haven’t done a very good job of clarifying all the details. Frankly I wish we would so I could have read what I was signing when I got married. In fact, it seems that you don’t get of since of the contract until you try and get divorced, when you have to separate all of the legal ties that bind you. Most of the contract seems to be able property (i.e. economic) and about children (though legally aren’t they practically property?)-though there is a bit, a rather unclear bit, about sex. (I think that bit is more clear religiously than legally.)
Finally, the possible third reason for marriage is religious. It would be healthy for our society to realize that this bit is optional. As an agnostic, I can go to a judge and get married. At that point I am married by the power vested by the State of New York. Right now, the State of New York will also vest that power into religious figures, hence giving us “god and the State of New York”. Those are separate things. A person can, should they wish, get married under god without the legal bit. There is no religious reason that I can think of why a marriage under god without the State of New York should be any less binding in whatever gods’ eyes than with it. Again, you could argue that the Christian god does not recognize divorce (which, as the article points out, is mentioned as wrong more frequently than homosexuality) without making divorce illegal. In fact, it seems that is exactly what Jesus was arguing, since my understanding is that Jewish law did recognize divorce.
It is probably pretty clear that I am appalled that we have not yet legalized gay marriage and that there is an active attempt to block it. I know a lot of people resist because they cannot separate the notion of a legal marriage and a religious marriage. It has gotten to the point where we are arguing semantics-“I’ll support a civil union, but marriage has to be between a man and a woman.” My answer is, let’s separate the whole thing. When my uncle got married in Germany, they first got married in a courthouse with only a small circle of family and very close friends their to witness the occasion. The next day they had a big church wedding. In Germany the church cannot legally marry you. That hasn’t stopped people from getting married in the church, but it does mean that there are two separate ceremonies. Why can’t we do that here? To get married you already have to go to the courthouse to fill out the paperwork. Why did I need a pastor or judge to then read some vows, which are not legally binding, in order to make it official, legally of course? Obviously I would have still had a ceremony, including as we did a religious figure to make the parents happy (weddings, again, are really about the parents).
The Catholic Church wouldn’t marry me because I’m not Catholic. That’s fine. And if Catholicism is the only way to god, then you can say that I’m not married in the eyes of god. I’m not saying that anyone should force the Catholic Church to marry me. I am saying, that as a legal adult citizen of the United States, the government has no right to deny me the legal benefits and obligations of marriage. Nor should any consenting adult couple be denied those rights.
PS I know a lot of people think homosexuality is wrong. Making something legal doesn’t make it moral. Also I know a lot of people react violently to it because they think it is gross. Frankly there are a lot of people who are married right now of whom the thought of sexual activity is beyond gross. Actually, the thought of the sexual act without hormones and lust to persuade you otherwise can be a little gross.
I agree with two of his main arguments. First, the biblical idea of marriage does not neatly translate into “one man, one woman”. Maybe, if you only read the first two or three chapters of Genesis and then skip immediately to the New Testament, you might be able to extrapolate that. Given the entire bible however, it is easy to argue that the “one man, one woman” bit has more to do with the place and time. Granted at no point do we have two men or two women, but still there is certainly diversity in the biblical idea of marriage.
Second, we do not necessarily want biblical law regarding marriage, or anything else, as national law. The bible does not allow for divorce. I completely support any church that does not want to recognize the divorce of anyone they married and to prohibit re-marrying anyone who has been previously married. In fact, I wish more churches would do that. It would impress me. However, that doesn’t mean I think that the government should prohibit divorce. Should be outlaw fornication? Give me a break. (While I’m at it, isn’t it about time we legalized prostitution. I can sell my body for manual labor, but not for sexual purposes-isn’t that just slightly ridiculous. Again, I’m not saying that I think prostitution is moral, in fact my opinion of men who use prostitutes is fairly low, but should it be illegal?)
Still, the author then goes on to try and convince people that we should have religious/legal gay marriage. Isn’t it about time we got over that hurtle and recognized a little seperation between church and state?
It seems to me that there are two to three primary reasons for marriage. The first is social. We don’t have weddings for the bride and groom (who aren’t going to remember much of it anyway), we have them for the parents and extended family and the community. When the little old Chinese lady at the laundry mat asks me, “your boyfriend?” and I say “my husband”, it means something different. Part of that difference may be legal, part of it may be spiritual, but there is definitely part that is social. Marriage is first and foremost a social construct.
The second primary reason is legal. Obviously the law is an extension of society, but it is able to offer formal protection. I was told, by an accountant, of a couple who had never legally gotten married for tax reasons (btw, I wish someone had mentioned before I got marriage that you pay more in taxes once you’re married!). Their parents thought they were married, their community thought they were married, even their kids thought they were married-only their accountant knew otherwise. Clearly they were socially married, as society viewed them as married, but legally they weren’t. So if one of them died suddenly or ended up in the hospital or whatever, there would have been problems.
Legally marriage is a contract. Because this contract has existed in our cultural for as long as we can remember and because it exists in some form everywhere around the world, we haven’t done a very good job of clarifying all the details. Frankly I wish we would so I could have read what I was signing when I got married. In fact, it seems that you don’t get of since of the contract until you try and get divorced, when you have to separate all of the legal ties that bind you. Most of the contract seems to be able property (i.e. economic) and about children (though legally aren’t they practically property?)-though there is a bit, a rather unclear bit, about sex. (I think that bit is more clear religiously than legally.)
Finally, the possible third reason for marriage is religious. It would be healthy for our society to realize that this bit is optional. As an agnostic, I can go to a judge and get married. At that point I am married by the power vested by the State of New York. Right now, the State of New York will also vest that power into religious figures, hence giving us “god and the State of New York”. Those are separate things. A person can, should they wish, get married under god without the legal bit. There is no religious reason that I can think of why a marriage under god without the State of New York should be any less binding in whatever gods’ eyes than with it. Again, you could argue that the Christian god does not recognize divorce (which, as the article points out, is mentioned as wrong more frequently than homosexuality) without making divorce illegal. In fact, it seems that is exactly what Jesus was arguing, since my understanding is that Jewish law did recognize divorce.
It is probably pretty clear that I am appalled that we have not yet legalized gay marriage and that there is an active attempt to block it. I know a lot of people resist because they cannot separate the notion of a legal marriage and a religious marriage. It has gotten to the point where we are arguing semantics-“I’ll support a civil union, but marriage has to be between a man and a woman.” My answer is, let’s separate the whole thing. When my uncle got married in Germany, they first got married in a courthouse with only a small circle of family and very close friends their to witness the occasion. The next day they had a big church wedding. In Germany the church cannot legally marry you. That hasn’t stopped people from getting married in the church, but it does mean that there are two separate ceremonies. Why can’t we do that here? To get married you already have to go to the courthouse to fill out the paperwork. Why did I need a pastor or judge to then read some vows, which are not legally binding, in order to make it official, legally of course? Obviously I would have still had a ceremony, including as we did a religious figure to make the parents happy (weddings, again, are really about the parents).
The Catholic Church wouldn’t marry me because I’m not Catholic. That’s fine. And if Catholicism is the only way to god, then you can say that I’m not married in the eyes of god. I’m not saying that anyone should force the Catholic Church to marry me. I am saying, that as a legal adult citizen of the United States, the government has no right to deny me the legal benefits and obligations of marriage. Nor should any consenting adult couple be denied those rights.
PS I know a lot of people think homosexuality is wrong. Making something legal doesn’t make it moral. Also I know a lot of people react violently to it because they think it is gross. Frankly there are a lot of people who are married right now of whom the thought of sexual activity is beyond gross. Actually, the thought of the sexual act without hormones and lust to persuade you otherwise can be a little gross.