Are We Looking At Marriage The Right Way?

One of the things that I have been looking at for some time are the basic paradigms involved in the definition of marriage. By definition, marriage does several things for a couple in a union: 1. It allows the couple to have a legal voice in how a person is medically cared for when, by accident or illness, they become incapable of doing so for themselves. 2. It gives a couple societal and legal advantages that better allow for the security and nurturing of children. 3. It allows that the death of one parent will not leave the child an orphan. 4. It allows for better management of financial resources and the accumulation of capital.

I'm certain that there are many other advantages, but these four are perhaps paramount, in terms of the social and financial advantages that marriage provides within the framework of any culture. Marriage customs always arise out of the economic and social contexts of the culture they develop in. Right now, there are more women than men in our culture. How are the women who can not find a suitable man supposed to deal with old age? What about men who are not capable of bonding with women? Are they to be condemned to a solitary existence and denial of basic human rights and needs - simply because they are not what the religious wish them to be? Another aspect of marriage, that no one from the "save marriage" side of the divide seems to want to bring into an arena is this: "Marriage is a civil contract between two or more individuals." End of statement. Anyone who wants to get married has to obtain a marriage license from their state or locality of residence before they can declare themselves as being legally joined, unless their union is deemed to be a “common law contract” by mandate of a court of law during a child custody or division of community property dispute during the break up of a long term cohabitation or one that has produced offspring . In either case, this is, in fact, the consummation of a civil contract with legally defined rights and obligations that can only be legally dissolved through the judicial system by means of commonly accepted practices and judicial reliefs being granted. Individually defined remedies and agreements with respect to child custody, financial obligations and community property divisions being placed into effect by court mandate. The fact that many people choose a religious ceremony does not enter into the law with respect to who oversees the contract being made. In many cases, people elect to have the ceremony performed by a non-religious entity such as a justice of the peace, ship's captain, secular wedding purveyor or a judge. The wedding vows or agreements are not in any way legally defined. A point of fact is that a lawyer can draw up any type of agreement the couple undertaking the agreement cares to state. In short, just because something is culturally customary does not give it automatic legal precedence. If this were the case, then non-religious marriages would be illegal, pretty much in the same way that the Roman Catholic Church once disavowed any marriage not performed within their church as being "an improperly constituted cohabitation" under their theology and dogmatic definitions. With regard to the religious aspects of marriage, I can only state that it bothers me that the religions mandate that marriage be "...for better or for worse, in sickness and in health, in riches and in poor, till death do you part." yet they make no religious exceptions about the fact that many people in many congregations have married, divorced and remarried - frequently producing offspring from two or more unions. Jesus stated, “Except for the cause of adultery, there is no cause for divorce.” Yet almost all mainstream religions do not demand repentance for the couple living in a continued state of adultery and sin under their own religious tenets! One can only wonder how they manage to allow this type of "sin" - by their own scriptural definitions - yet cry "foul" when those who do not even subscribe to their religious tenets ask for the same legal rights and obligations they demand be respected for themselves! All of this in a Constitutional Republic that forbids the establishment of a national religion. It would seem to me that God's word can have varying and arbitrary meanings according to how many people are offering tithes or are filling up their pews of a Sunday. Silly me! I have always thought that all sin was equal in the eyes of God. By what right do the religious close their eyes to a rampant, self proclaimed "sin" in their own midst, yet disallow rights and privileges to those outside of their voluntary adherence to their communities of faith and obligation? What this does is mandate that all people adhere to their religion in order to obtain legal status – which sounds pretty much like an implementation of a state religion to my simple way of thinking. The problem here is that religion is attempting to define who is and who is not allowed to gain these benefits. From a very real perspective, this then becomes a very real threat to those who can not, by reason of biological diversity or beliefs, adhere to the perceived tenets of the mainstream of the population and religion of our country. This is, in fact, a "moral" tyranny and violation of separation of church and state that must not be yielded to under any circumstances. If this is allowed to continue, who will be disenfranchised next - and for what reasons? It is a fact that about one in every 435 babies is born sexually deviant. Churches do not even admit to this well known and very real fact of life. Most are sexually androgynous and can not be empirically defined as either male or female by the mere appearance of their genitalia - if even present. It has now even been proven that XX and XY do not even necessarily define a person's sex as there are XXY and even cases where seemingly "normal" XY individuals have developed into fertile females that have naturally conceived and born children. If two people born sexually androgynous want to marry, does the law disallow their union and which one is the man and which one is the woman - or does it even really matter? Can they adopt children? Does the church have the right to dictate their reality - even though, in many cases, the church does not even admit that such people even exist? While some may dispute that the church never mentions these type of individuals, I can state from my own perspective as a practicing Christian, that I have never once, in almost sixty years of church participation, ever heard a priest or minister mention these individuals from the pulpit. What I am attempting to point out here is that churches routinely deny reality for the sake of their perceived purity and universal "correctness" of their scripture and theological tenets. In short, Christian denominations are asking that the government sanction and grant illegal validity to what can only be construed as genocidal tenets of their faith. Talk about literal fascism! What next? Burning those who believe in Wicca at the stake? What about the rights of Islamic, Buddhists, Brahmans and Atheists - or does the law require that everyone be a fundamentalist Christian of conservative bent? There is a very blatant attempt to disallow any form of marriage other than one man and one woman to be legally defined as a marriage and have full access to the rights and privileges that marriage provides. OK...Fine! How about those who come from religious backgrounds where marriage to more than one woman is allowable? When I hear of this, I am reminded of the religious persecution that the Mormons (Church of Christ of Latter Day Saints) experienced for their beliefs that a man may have more than one wife. I am also reminded that those of Islamic faith have religious legislations that allow a man to have four wives. So much for freedom of religion - a first amendment guarantee that is increasingly sounding like it has a very hollow ring to it. I am also wondering how the very religious deal with the fact that King Solomon had a thousand wives - yet is considered to be one of the wisest rulers ever to reign over Israel? Things just do not seem to be all that concrete in terms of what Christianity seems to feel is appropriate in terms of what a proper marriage really is. I am also concerned for denominations that feel that all love is sacred. Why are their beliefs less sacred – or less legally protected - than those of mainstream Christianity? The real issue here is do we have freedom of religious or not? Limiting religious freedom, even a little, strikes me as being a lot like claiming something to the extent of "...just a little bit pregnant..." In other words, freedom of belief/religion is all or nothing. We all have it or none of us have it. What you deny others by legal mandate can be taken away from you by legal mandate as well. It only depends upon what group has political supremacy at the time. Just a note here on political expediency. At the current time, Islam is making great strides towards becoming the dominant religion world-wide. By implementing these sanctions against same sex marriage, the religious are establishing the very legal precedent that will ultimately allow Islam to suspend their constitutional guarantees and implement Shari Law - reducing evangelical Christians to a legal status just beneath that of a slave who professes Islam - and having to pay an alms tax for the privilege! By the way, if Shari Law is implemented, it will become quickly obvious that the evangelical Christian's right to proselytize will be curtailed with extreme prejudice. I hope they can enjoy it while they have it! They are releasing the beast that will eventually turn and devour them as well. It is a historical fact that today's religion is always tomorrow's heresy. From the perspective of gay or same sex marriages, I wonder what those who deny this right think they are doing to the children of gay parents or same sex couples for whom they are trying to provide? Many times their ex was a deadbeat or simply did not want the children. It happens and our legal system needs to be able to allow a loving and safe environment for these children. As there is also a large debate about whether or not same sex marriages have the right of adoption or to even raise children, a rational look needs to be done on exactly how these children will be granted access to a loving and nurturing environment - not provided by the current foster care system with its large scale abuses. If you deny them this right, who will take care of and love these children? The religious or an already failed foster care system? Heterosexual couples are not the only ones who have natural children. By the way, not all heterosexual couples have children. Does this mean that they are less "married" than heterosexual couples that have children? In other words, I can only assume that the religious intend that it should be only the children of heterosexual couples that deserve to be covered by the protections and privileges that marriage provides. Again, we are looking at something that can only be viewed as a religious tenet, denying a group of individuals their rights, in effect denying equal protection under the law to anyone who does not adhere to the beliefs and tenets of orthodox religion. While many Christians are concerned over the word "marriage" being applied to same sex couples - as Christians state it corrupts the usage of the word, "legitimizing homosexual values,” in effect "watering down" their religious beliefs. They have used scare tactics saying that if we allow homosexual marriage, it will be taught as "normal" to young children in schools. Frankly I do not see this happening - as parents still have the right and moral obligation to teach their children their own beliefs outside of the classroom. This is another fallacy as much as the oft stated Christian belief that "Gays don't reproduce so they must recruit." This is in no way an empirical statement, but one based strictly upon religious superstition and exclusionary beliefs. One's sexual orientation is increasingly being shown to be entirely hard-wired, which is definitely not true for religious beliefs! Christians simply do not happen - they must recruit. People are not born Christian - they convert! So where is all of this leading? Simple! We are now faced with a need to assure that all people are treated equally under the law. The dichotomy professed by the sanctimonious, self-righteous believers of legalistic Christianity also maintain that any same sex civil union must be, by default, a homosexual union. This is not a stipulated fact as it is possible for two heterosexuals to have a same sex union of convenience, for mutual support, without sexual practices being a part of the union. The only way that I can see to separate church and state with respect to marriage is to define all unions, between consenting adults, as a "civil union" under the law and not deny anyone the privileges and protections provided by such a union. The "marriage" aspect of a civil union can be done under the auspices of one's religious preferences with appropriate ceremony - if so desired. If a couple wishes to be joined under a holy covenant, then allow them to do so. However it should have no overriding validity from a legal standpoint, as to do so blatantly violates the basic premises of separation of church and state. I believe the same rules apply to all unions between consenting adults. In other words, separate the church from the state with respect to the joining of two people for a socially-enhancing partnership. Religion and government should never be allowed to travel in the same boat. If a couple wishes to have a religiously-based union, that is strictly between them and God. The government has no duty or obligation to view their union as being in any way more valid or sustainable than the contractual union of any other individuals. I find this to be a very fair concept as, frankly, the divorce rate of the religious is not demonstrably lower than that of secular society. So what gives them the right or ethical/moral prerogative to define or judge what others do or need? It would seem that the religious leaders are talking out of both sides of their mouth on the issue of same sex marriage - or about their own morality - when push comes to shove. By redefining all marriages as civil unions, we can allow all people to share the same benefits and obligations and not allow a simple majority of people to dehumanize and blatantly disallow others the same advantages they expect and demand for themselves. Right now, civil unions do not universally allow "next of kin" status in areas like inheritance and medical permissions. Under the gentle auspices of the Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA), same sex couples are denied upwards of fifteen hundred rights and privileges that heterosexual couples enjoy, even though the same sex couples still work for a living and pay taxes. If we are not going to allow these couples the same rights, permissions and protections as heterosexual couples, by what right do we demand that they pay more taxes – unfairly oppressing them while reducing their financial security and ultimately affecting the safety and welfare of any children they may be raising - or hampering them in taking care of each other? From my perspective, some may have some mental reservations regarding the legitimacy of same sex couples based upon their religious beliefs however, if the Constitution is to have any true value as a contract between all of the people it covers, then by what right do the religious or secularly orthodox, for that matter, have to define what morality that others must live by - especially when their beliefs produce definable and tangible harm to those they oppress and deny? There is a very apparent double standard at work here. People are demanding that they receive rights and protections that they mandate not be allowed those who do not believe as they do. Silly of me, perhaps, but I do believe that what rights you do not extend to others you can not expect to receive for yourself. I remember the old sayings , "What comes around, goes around." "You will reap what you sow." Do not expect to have any freedom that you deny others. It simply is not an equitable or a reasonable expectation as those you persecute will eventually demand parity - and most likely get it - if history has any validity as an indicator of the future. I am afraid that we can no longer be governed by the wishful thinking of those who preach a morality they themselves can not effectively live up to. The world is what it is and religion can not be universally applied as not all people believe the same things. It is not a "one size fits all" application - as evidenced by the fact that people have repeatedly come to blows over whether or not baptism requires that a person become "all wet" to become scripturally adequate, be "sprinkled with water" to suffice - or the "miracle of transubstantiation" literally turns bread and wine into the body and flesh of Christ. To insist that marriage live up to anyone’s religion for validity is to state that the Constitution, and its amendments, are now null and void and that we will be required to live in a theocracy. Perhaps Christians should be aware that their namesake was crucified under the protocols of a theocracy. The outstanding single fact that emerges here is that Christians believe that their morality and rights, based solely upon self-stated religious mandates, overrule civil law and define the constitutional rights of others. This way lies outright tyranny and religious persecution. M.K. Gandhi once stated, “Poverty is the worse form of violence.” From the way that the LBGT, and others who do not adhere to Christian standards of conduct are being routinely discriminated against, it becomes all to obvious that Gandhi knew what he was talking about. Just my humble opinion. Joanie