Had a friend on facebook post one of those memes which make their rounds on an almost daily basis. This particular one was concerning “same sex marriage”.
So let me get this straight…………Kelsey Grammer can end a 15 yr marriage by phone, Larry King can be on divorce #9, Britney Spears had a 55 hour marriage, Jesse James and Tiger Woods, while married, were having sex with EVERYONE, 53% of Americans get divorced and 30-60% cheat on their spouses. Yet, same-sex marriage is going to destroy the institution of marriage? Really? Re-post if you find this ironic.
They are missing the real point behind all this. That there should be a legal option for any couple (same sex, oposite sex, or “other”) to have the same legal standing/”rights”, is NOT a problem with the majority of Americans, regardless of political views or affiliations. This includes financial obligations/rights/status, medical obligations/rights/status, and legal issues (contractual, and otherwise). Personally, I don’t care what, if anything, that goes on behind closed doors with this “couple” is any of my business. And if they want to be acknowledged as an “official” couple, it would seem a “Civil Union” is just the ticket.
The real issue is one of control, and of broad based acceptance of a given life style (be it GLTG, poly___ …fill in the blank, or something else), vice mere tolerance, by society at large. In gaining the status of being “married”, any of these groups/individuals are able to claim (if so desired) a societal justification for their chosen life style/actions. The “institution of marriage” is in disarray. Attacked both from within and without. It has gone through changes, the ease of divorce, for example. But that is the institution, and not the rite or sacrament. There is a difference. The institution is the societal fabric in which “the essence” resides. The rite or sacrament, is the essence. And for the most part, barring a tweak here or there, the rites or sacraments have remained as they always have.
Like it or not, marriage is either considered a “rite” or “sacrament” conferred on a couple by the religion of their choice. As it stands right now, none of the mainstream religions fully endorse and or allow for anything other than one man and one women to be bound together in the bond of “holy matrimony”.
The only reason (at all) that the “State” is involved is to insure all legal statutes have been observed (parties have met the legal age requirements, medical issues, legal issues ).
Again, all the above legal issues, and a couple more, can be addressed by allowing for “Civil Unions”. And as the state already allows for Justices of the Peace, and other dually appointed “agents of the state”, to perform “civil marriages” … unions sanctioned by the state, but not necessarily by any given religion … this agency is already in place. To this end perhaps all unions preformed by the state should be more properly called “Civil Unions”, getting the State out of the business of officiating marriages entirely. And returning this back solely to the religious side of the house.
If you want to be married, perhaps forming your own “religion”, or following, and insure the tenants of your new found faith allow for the inclusion of same sex partners in your marriage rite. But to usurp the word, and by extension, the rite of marriage, which begs the issue of churches sooner or later being forced to marry any and all who come to their respective doors, is at best little more than being childish by those who demand this happen. And suggests there is more at play here than merely being allowed the same status and rights accorded to those who are currently allowed the formal rite/sacrament of marriage.