So I was watching "The Princess Bride" the other day, and I cannot help but laugh at the scene when "Prince Humperdink" and "Princess Buttercup" get "married." The bishop in the scene has one of the worst speech impediments imaginable; it is just so wrong.
As I was watching, I thought about the recent events in California. I now have two states in the Union where I can get married legally (to someone I would want to marry; that's for the smart asses who would argue that I can marry any woman legally across the land). Once again, "I was really proud of my country for the first time in my adult lifetime" (hat tip to Michelle Obama).
I know that gay marriage remains a thorny issue for many, but it is becoming passe for so many more. I know that it is simplistic to think it, but I really think that we need to see all marriages as civil marriages. I think that that is the crux of this issue: religious marriages versus civil marriages. Any marriage sactioned by the state is a civil marriage, and thus marriage in that regard should be subject to the laws of the land, including the U.S. Constitution. There is no modification of the law to include more than a party of two, or people who are underaged, or animals, as the slippery slopers would have you think.
If one wants a religious marriage, then take that up with one's church. That has nothing to do with the state, nor should it. No one can force a priest or a pastor to perform a marriage between two members of the same sex, and I would be against any law that said as much. But, the city hall has no legs in this case, and it should not be in a position to discriminate.
Unless there is a sweeping opinion from the SCOTUS, I imagine that we will watch as more states move to adopting gay marriage. Personally, I will be happy to know that I can enjoy marital bliss in more places across my country. And, I look forward to the day, when it is not an issue at all.
6 comments:
With all that was said in your blog. Does that mean you are thinking about marriage?? LOL. I know that they need to fix that law to make it closer for you to get married whenever that might be because those 2 states aren't close and gas is high. Not like you would be going to South Beach or the islands like yours truely. That law sucks I think you should write a letter to BHO. ASAP!!
dmh
Guess I'll start things off . . ., as an ordained clergyperson who will perform weddings in the church on a regular basis in some point in my life, I take the marriage option seriously. I am called to uphold God's law as it is stated in His Word. If I perform a wedding I feel is not sanctioned by God, then I must follow that because I will have to answer for my decisions.
With that said, I agree with your point that no church should be forced to marry anyone, whatever their preference. I think that if we strengthened the laws of domestic partnerships and called the marriages civil unions, then we would not have this problem.
Unfortunately, people will take this issue to the churches and I do forsee cases coming against chruches who refuse to marry couples.
Jesus said "Render unto Ceasar, that which is Ceasar's and render unto God that which is God's" Matthew 22:21. With that I believe that marriage as a state of being is an institution that is of God and that Civil Unions should be matters of the state.
You attempt to dismiss legitimate concerns as a “slippery slope,” but would you support marriage between three or more people? If not, why not? Many pro-gay marriage thinkers are now realizing the inevitability of such a step. What about a brother and sister (assuming they are sterile)? Why not a 12 year old emancipated minor and a 60 year old man? Finally, how about a wife who dies, but gives consent for her husband to keep “loving” her? All of these examples reflect social norms (like the prohibition on gay marriage). If the argument for gay marriage revolves around “the consent of two loving adults,” all of these things should be allowed. If you are going to throw out the traditional concept of marriage, I think it would be responsible to explain why you don’t want to throw out all of these conventions?
Gay marriage doesn't really keep me up at night, but I think to be honest the proponents need to address these issues.
I would really be interested in your thoughts.
Anonymous 2:
These arguments are ridiculous. Very few (if any, really) brothers and sisters are seeking marriage as opposed to gayse and lesbians where 1000s upon 1000s would like to enjoy the same rights as all the straight folk.
In what state can a 12 year old be emancipated? Minors do not have the mental facilities to make mature decisions, thus we have laws to protect them. Gays and lesbians do have such a capacity to make these decisions and thus should be granted the same rights as other adults.
"Finally, how about a wife who dies, but gives consent for her husband to keep “loving” her?"
Aren't we talking about marriage and not necrophilia? What does necrophilia have to do with anything?
In some societies, bigamy is legal (just not ours). If we had a majority of people who believed bigamy was legitimate, or bigamists had a strong enough lbby, then its legality in this country would probably change.
-Cheun Chang
For Cheun Chang:
See this link for information on the emancipation of minors in the US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_of_minors
Note the links at the bottom that can provide you with the laws by state.
The point is that gay marriage advocates need to come up with a theory for why gay marriage should be legal, but these other acts should not be legal. Moral revulsion is not enough. Lots of people think gay marriage is morally wrong. Lots of people think that a 14 year old (the age of emancipation in CA)marrying a 60 year old is morally wrong. Why should one be allowed, and the other not?
For anonymous:
As I stated: there aren't any states that would emancipate a 12 year old.
The point is the tide is turning. In the states where it has been passed, there are a majority of people who think gay marriage should be allowed. The moajority of youth believe gay marriage is valid so it is only a matter of time before more states follow suite.
As in the past, marriage is regulated by state and not the federal government so it up to the states to decide if gay marriage is legal.
-Cheung Chang
Post a Comment