Some Clear Thinking About Marriage
In the Times today:
Separate secular from sacred by drawing a bright line between civil arrangements and the sacrament of marriage. Each state would limit itself to defining marriage as civil benefits for committed couples (as mandated by state law) — and each religious group would be free to define marriage according to the tenets of its faith.
Distinguishing between the civil and religious aspects would also help calm both sides of the debate.
I think a lot of the opposition to gay marriage results from muddled thinking about the church’s and state’s roles. That is, your average church goer hears “California legalized gay marriage” and thinks – perhaps encouraged in this confusion by willfully ignorant leaders like James Dobson – “Oh my gosh, now churches have to have ceremonies for gay couples even if those churches think being gay is an abomination.” That is not true, of course. No church could be forced to marry a gay couple. All it means is that the state will now have to extend the same secular benefits to gay couples that it does to traditional couples. Considered like this, a gay couple having a state marriage license is no different than a gay person having state driver’s licenses. Not something to be worked up about.
It cuts the other way, too. Granted, not having those secular benefits is a serious hardship, and can lead to unconscionably awful situations. But even so, whether or not a gay couple is truly married has nothing to do with those benefits. Marriage is a matter of love, commitment and trust. The state did not create it and the state can not take it away. Yes, Louisiana is proud to have encoded ignorance and bigotry. But gay marriages in Louisiana are marriages, whether the state likes it or not.
Whether or not the law ever changes to reflect this distinction, it’s a good one to keep in mind. If nothing else it simplifies the debate.
July 22, 2008 at 2:26 pm
I completely agree. I guess that’s why I don’t let the debate get to me. I’m not about to force anyone to go against their principles, as much as I disagree with them, everyone is entitiled to their own view points. Though, getting those benefits to live life with your loved one, just as any straight couple can do, would make life so much easier, I don’t need that to justify my love. As long as everyone leaves us be and let’s us live our life together, I feel blessed. Not everyone in this life gets to find their soulmate and, in other countries, being gay is sin the government punishes by death. Maybe we’ll always be second class citizens in some people’s eyes but God has smiled down on us.
July 22, 2008 at 3:36 pm
I like this logic b/c it allows me to be a politically correct homophobe. Since, religiously speaking, I don’t believe gay marriages to be valid, I can just choose to ignore them. If it’s just a state institution, it won’t be recognized by anyone whose religious opinions differ anyway. It’s kinda like the Emancipation Proclamation freeing slaves in the rebellious southern states during the Civil War.
July 22, 2008 at 6:29 pm
So if I read this correctly your saying being married doesn’t matter?
I don’t agree with gay marriage but I do agree that people should get married
to show a comment to each other.
July 23, 2008 at 6:42 am
you did not read it correctly.
i’m saying marriage is something different from the civil benefits the state bestows on married couples. the “gay marriage” fight is really only about the latter. if more people would recognize that, i do not think it would be such a fight.