The Problem With Gay Marriage Isn't The Gay Part
Gay marriage is a huge, polarizing issue. The crux of the issue isn't homosexuality, oddly enough. It's the anachronous, illogical entanglement of church and state concerns in the institution of marriage as we know it. Marriage, as a concept, has different implications depending upon the context in which it's being discussed. It has religious aspects as in the joining of two souls under God and it has the legal implications of binding many of the responsibilities of two people in a sort of contractual joining of two individuals under the State. One's credit affects the other, the burden of debts are shared, insurance coverage spans between them, etc. These are two very different facets of the institution which would be extremely complicated to manage simultaneously in the best of circumstances. When the fact that one is a religious matter while one is a state matter are considered, that alone is enough to warrant a separation of the two into separate arrangements entirely, to say nothing of the practical complications that arrise due to their comingling.
Upon separating the two aspects of marriage as per one of the founding principles of our nation, the problem then becomes somewhat easier to discuss and manage.
If the legal facet of marriage is reduced to a contractual comingling of responsibilities and benefits as currently connoted by the institution of marriage, the emotional and moral offenses incurred by those who resist the concept of gay marriage so strongly, would seem to be removed. Even if homosexuality is not condoned by a person's religion, what would they care if two people would like to share responsibility for each other's debt? I'm sure they would still condemn the lifestyle as a whole, but legalities of the situation would no longer be encumbered by the moralities of it. As an aside, under this new separate model, there doesn't seem to be a logical defense for outlawing polygamy. Who cares if 10 people want to all be responsible for each other. The concept would need its own nomenclature, a la Civil Union, and would have to be executed by an agent of the government, Justice of the Peace, County Clerk, whathaveyou.
Marriage then, would be a purely religious concept having no legal implications. It would be carried out by a religious agent.
People who currently object on religious grounds would have no basis to object when discussing the legal implications and now that the religious piece would be its own separate concern, homosexuals would have no basis to object.
1 comments:
The way I see it denying gays the right to marry is little more than legislated morality, (which I think is your point) and I despise that sort of thing on the basis that while the morality of the majority may be on my side today, it could well swing in another direction tomorrow.
Let’s face it aside from the legal implications of a marriage, the marriage license is little more than a piece of paper, it brings to mind the scene in the Wizard of Oz , when the Wizard hands out the diploma, heart, and medal of valor. He explains that they all had those things all along they were only missing some physical representation, some tangible object to prove it.
That’s the wedding license, it is the tangible item you hold up to say look we are committed to each other.
The fact is you could claim to be married and who, other than the state, would know? When I put my wife on my insurance at work they never asked for a copy of my marriage license, when we bought our home no one asked for proof that we were married, so what real purpose does that license serve?
Should a church be allowed to refuse to marry a gay couple? Of course, should the state? No.>
Along those lines I do not believe the state should outlaw polygamy, I mean do you really care if 9 women want to marry one guy? After all he is the one who has to deal with PMS X 9, the same goes for prostitution. While I think it should be regulated by state health dept, I do not see any good reason for it to be illegal, the only reason it is, is because it offends some uptight folks.
As for Gay marriage, I could care less if they let them marry, because face it at the end of the day no one will take it serious anyway and for those that say it cheapens the institution of marriage or makes a joke of it…Sorry Hollywood did that years ago.
Post a Comment