|
 
 
|
 About me Contact me |
|
|
About me Contact me |
|
Articles recently commented on:
Follow Mar Matthias on Twitter Follow Rev. Mother Theresa on Twitter
Website thumbnails generously provided by ShrinkTheWeb |
Gays and marriage by Mar Matthias Darin This is a venomous topic... Especially in light of Prop 8 being passed in California and similar laws in other areas. I have made my position on this quite clear: I don't believe Gays should have the right to marry. Now before you go jumping to the comment box to send a flaming response to this, read on. You will be surprised at what I have to say, and ultimately, may even agree irregardless of your sexual orientation. Lets starts by defining marriage. Marriage started out as and will continue to be a "religious sacrament", subsequently involving the church in political activities. "Separation of Church and State" pundits have a real problem here. If the state governs marriage licenses, they are literally bringing the church, and its moral standings and practices, into the middle of government actions. This is a bad idea. Having said that, it is also a bad idea having the government regulate the church on its belief system. Doing so becomes discrimination and infringes on an individual's religious rights. So, how do we keep the state out of the church and vise-versa? Simple, the government stops issuing marriage licenses all together. Some may scoff at this, but there are very huge benefits, above and beyond what I have already mentioned, to all parties involved, including the state. Furthermore, no new laws need be written and the method is available right now. Before we delve into the legalities of the state, lets look at a marriage license as administered by the government. Marriage licenses give couples certain "rights". However; from the legal standpoint, they leave out allot of important details. Divorce court is a clear example of all the short comings of a marriage license. The case and issues the surrounded Terry Schiavo illustrate even more pitfalls of a marriage license. Marriage licenses are very limited and don't address the many issues that arise in the above illustrations. We do, however, have a legal framework that does address all of the above limitations and more. The laws involved are solid and have already passed the trials of time. A "Civil Union" can be created between any two people with a Durable Power of Attorney (DPA) and a Living Will (LW). I will refer to the combination as a DPALW herein. Ironically, a DPALW actually provides more rights then a marriage license and is completely void of any religious belief system and it provides complete separation of church and state. Lets look at the issues the a DPALW solves that a marriage license does not. First, in the case of Terry Schiavo, the DPALW can define a percentage of brain activity (15% is the current medical defined level) whereby a person is considered "alive". Second, a DPALW can define who can control and under what situations the control takes place. For example, if criminal activity is suspected, a second executor or an executor panel can be defined. How and where life insurance can be used in the event of death can also be defined. Now we'll examine other situations where a marriage license actually fails in protecting the people involved. If there are any children involved, who has control over them can be stated. If separation becomes a factor, where and what percentage of assets does each person in the "Civil Union" receive can be stipulated. (P)Alimony can be defined. There are so many more topics that can be defined or described that a DPALW far exceeds the limitations of a marriage license. From the governmental standpoint, marriage licenses are a disaster waiting to happen that really leave both individuals in the union left in a void in a large number of situations. Marriage licenses are bring a barge of religious values and beliefs into the situation, causing the state to get into the middle of a never ending mess. A marriage license can be contested on a number of levels as evidenced by divorce court and the huge backlog of pending cases. A DPALW offers a solution to all of these issues without any of the baggage associate with marriage licenses. From the standing of a modern day society, a marriage license is often not the best way and provides little or no legal footing in a wide range of issues. As a final statement, I believe society would be far better off by eliminating government issued marriage licenses and adopting the DPALW method for civil unions for all types of "Civil Unions", including "traditional marriages". 
Top tags: marriage, license, dpalw, licenses, state, church, defined, government, issues, civil Comments from anok 66.212.222.91 Lets starts by defining marriage. Marriage started out as and will continue to be a "religious sacrament", subsequently involving the church in political activities. Wrong. Marriage was the transference of property from one man to another. The church didn't officially involve itself in marriages until the middle ages, and then only for royal weddings. So, how do we keep the state out of the church and vise-versa? Simple, the government stops issuing marriage licenses all together. Marriage is considered a fundamental human right per the Declaration of Human Rights, and a protected fundamental right according to the US constitution, 14th amendment. Not going to happen my friend. DPALW will not guarantee of the same rights and protections as marriage does, but it isn't a bad idea to have some things outlined by legal laws like that. IF you have the money and legal know how to do it. I appreciate your ability to make it equal across the board by abolishing marriage altogether, however that won't happen as it's a fundamental right. You will have to reinstate civil unions, which do not provide all of the same rights and protections, or simply accept gay marriage. Comments from Mar Matthias Darin anok: Historically, the term marriage was not used as a legal right of the transfer of ownership of properity. The Romans are historically recorded as the "first" society to use this content. The union in Roman terms was more of a contract then the concept of a marriage. Marriage is not a "human" right as defined by the legal system. A look at history actually shows that a marriage can in many ways be conflictive, in the religious context, to the societial operations. Gay marriages are a clear example of that. During the 60's, interracial marriages were, and in some areas still are, as much of a hot bed as Gay marriages. A DPALW does have far more rights and protections then a marriage without the religious contexts and if written appropriately (there are legal standards that must be followed), does guarantee equality within the union. Furthermore, unlike a marriage, a DPALW is much harder, if not impossible under most circumstances, to contest on a court of law. As long as "marriage" is an acceptable government function, you can not seperate the church from the state. By using a DPALW as a basis for the civil union, the entire problem is sovled and the state and church are truly seperated. This not just limited to just Gay marriages, but all marriages as I state above. Comments from Mountain Woman 75.104.128.38 I am in favor of same sex marriage. However we need to dialog on this issue and I relish reading well thought out arguments that bring something new to the mix so I read your post with interest. I do not believe you are far off the mark because I believe at some point some couple who has been denied a marriage license based on their sex will challenge the legal definition of "marriage" and marriage as we understand it today will change most likely through the use of the court systems in the United States. That might already be the case in Connecticut. I also think the idea of "covenental" marriage is valid for Christians who live in the states where that is legal to enhance their commitment under God to each other. Anyway, there are no answers that will make everyone happy but I enjoyed reading a differing opinion that was intelligent and offered a possible solution. Comments from Mar Matthias Darin Mountain Woman: Thank you. I believe we need to move away from the religiously bound word of marriage and accept "union" as a governing embodiment of the concept. As long as there is a religious component involved, there will never be full acceptance. Prop 8 is a good example of this. The black populus voted overwhelming for Barack Obama and for Prop 8 (77%). This is a clear indicator the society at the institutional level can not incorporate religious termonology into a legal framework and have it work appropriately. Comments from Eric 68.84.22.242 I knew I liked coming to the site for a reason. As a gay male it may be surprising that I am against gay marriage. However, as long as the government recognizes other marriages I am for the passage of any gay marriage legislation. In a perfect world, the government would have nothing to do with any marriages altogether, and we would have alternate systems in place for legal and binding recognition of unions. If more people would think equality in terms of a compromise instead of "I want what they have" the world would be a much better place. Comments from Mar Matthias Darin Eric: I think what is most disturbing about the entire situation is the Gay community wanting a flawed, disasterous, and broken system. I'm not even sure a "compromise" would work. I believe the situation can only be solved by re-working the legal framework from the ground up completely seperate on any religious context. An example would be the Muslim populas which will never accept a Gay "marriage", but would be more receptive to a "Union". Comments from Jen 66.41.72.62 It's an interesting idea. I don't know that it will fly but who knows. Religion should be taken out of this equation. If two men love one another and want to commit to one another for their duration it seems discriminatory that they can't legally do so. Comments from Mar Matthias Darin Jen: Its the only way I think all sides will try to agree. Comments from Jackrabbit 216.96.205.221 You know, you've actually hit on something I've been struggling to come to terms with for a few years now! While I might not agree on all points, it seems you and I are thinking through things in a similar fashion, and I find that... encouraging, I suppose? Okay, so I'm an evangelical Christian (still trying to figure out what that means, btw) who voted for a gay marriage ban in my state back in 2006 and now regret it. Since then, I've been trying to think through the issues of faith and sexuality involved, and, well... the short story is that I'm actually having to start from scratch. Regardless of where I land on same-sex desire or same-sex marriage, there are a few things that have bothered me about the whole debate: 1) that marriage is a religious institution but governed in a civil sphere; I think, in this sense, people lost the argument over the 'sanctity of marriage' about a hundred and fifty years ago. 2) that marriage is a contractual obligation that offers legal protections that are, by definition, unavailable to large parts of the population; 3) that, in actuality, gay marriage per se is not illegal anywhere in the US. As long as you can find a practitioner willing to perform a ceremony, anybody can have a non-legal marriage ceremony that is binding in the eyes of some philosophical or moral institution but not in court. What they cannot get is legal recognition of that fact. That means to me that what we're fighting over is actually marital rights and not really the right to marry. 4) that many Christians (depending on denomination) seem to make no conscious distinction between a marriage pledged in the name of God and a secular marriage. Why? 5) that many Christians also do not recognize that, like any relationship outside of wedlock, same-sex relationships have importance to the personal and mental well-being of the people involved and can create a stable social environment. They're treated as having zero social value. This bothers me. Okay, so... I'm not 110% sure where I stand on gay marriage, unlike you. I think that, putting my faith aside, it may be necessary for the good of the society. But I do think that there's a disconnect between allowing certain rights in a contractual agreement like marriage to some and forbidding it to others in a similar situation, which seems to be what you're picking up on, too. So, instead of allowing gay marriage, I've been asking fellow Christians, "would you be comfortable with giving up all legal rights that come with a marriage in order to keep marriage between one man and one woman?" That would solve the rights issue, and if the argument is purely about keeping marriage between one man and one woman and keeping the holiness of the institution, ideally I would think some people would be okay with this. Strangely, the response to my question hasn't been that positive. ;) I don't know: where would you sit on those five points? Some of them are identical to yours, but not all, and I still lack your conviction on the right answer. I'm very open to suggestions at this point! Comments from Mar Matthias Darin I tend to agree with you on your first point. On your second and third point, this is where I believe the civil union or a DPA/LW would be the better approach and within the actual praticalities of a government, just from a secular stand, change the name to avoid a clash between the religious and secular defination. Your forth point is a good one and one I have no idea to. It does make sense to have some sort of distinction. My best guess is because of the use and religious contexts associated with "marriage." I know where I stand on the religious context. As to the secular issues and resolving them, I'm tossing ideas in the dark hoping that one could lead to a workable and peaceful solution. I personally believe the government should have no say in a religious marriage and by the same token, the church should have no say in a secular union. Knowing the answer doesn't imply knowing the best way to achieve it but as long as we can have a debate on the topic, there is hope that we will come up with an approach that everyone will agree is plusaible, Comments from Jackrabbit 76.114.86.170 Thanks for the good and thoughtful response! You're right-- I think that we're picking up on the same issues and have similar concerns regardless of how we each approach the solution. The main difference is #5-- I think that part of me focuses a bit more on the practical side of human relations just because of my personal situation. But #4 has bugged me for a while, and I wonder if it's because many people in the religious community have used civil marriage as an easy band-aid for troubled relationships that need God a heck of a lot more than they need a marriage license. I can't count how many times I've heard the phrase "well, at least they're married now" in church, used in reference to toxic, failed or completely secular relationships. If gay marriage ultimately becomes a norm, what will happen to that easy relationship fix in the religious community? Are super-religious parents of kids in sexual trouble really going to be able to say that marriage fixes any sexually fallen relationship, especially when marriage gets extended to same-sex couples as well? It sort of creates an interesting category crisis, in my mind... In any case, it's something to think about! Comments from Mar Matthias Darin Very true. You've asked some very good questions that I'm not sure can be answered. The dynamics of a heterosexual marriage can be very fragile in at times, a society has had thousands of years to learn about such complex interactions. The same-sex marriage is quite literally going to be a "learn as you go" approach. Plus there are going to be pockets of society that will never accept a same-sex marriage. The Muslim and Jewish groups are two groups that will simply never accept the "misuse" of the sacrament of marriage. Trying to force secularize the word "marriage" will continue to be a hot bed of turmoil for a very long time to come. I can not see how we, as a society, are ever going to resolve this as long as people cling to the concept of a "religious marriage." The traditional concepts of marriage do not protect either person in the marriage in our modern day society. The only solution I can see for both heterosexual and same-sex marriages in a secular society is to move away from the "marriage" idea altogether and approach the issue from a purely secular union concept.
PermaLink Home
Please share your thoughts on this article. |
|
![[Valid RSS]](http://matthiaschronicles.tanaya.net/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")
