Posts
The Monday Perspective: Marriage
Well holy crap, look who actually has something to write about on Monday morning! I only got about three hours of sleep last night, so bear with me if this isn't written all that well.
I was talking to my mom the other day, basically being outraged over the fact that same sex marriage is only legal in four (I think? Can't remember) states. There is really very little that can piss me off faster than discussing that sad state of affairs. Four states.
My mom mentioned that one of our family friends (wickedly smart and notoriously argumentative) doesn't believe in same sex marriage. Before I flew off the handle, she added that he doesn't believe in marriage period.
Brian has been married for a long time with two lovely daughters. He loves his family. His point, then?
Marriage is a religious institution and therefore should not be recognized by the state at all. There is a division between church and state for a reason, and really, when I think about it, he's right. Civil unions should be recognized, not marriage. If a couple wants to get "married" within their church, fine! Go for it! But you should have to have an official civil union to have that "marriage" recognized by the state.
The rights granted to a married couple should not be granted to them because they're married, they should be granted upon a civil union.
So I guess right now you could say I'm "pro civil union" and "anti marriage" now. ^_^
I'm curious - what do you think?
This entry was posted on Monday, October 20, 2008
and is filed under
Monday Perspectives
.
You can follow any responses to this entry through
the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response,
or trackback from your own site.
6 comments:
What do i think?
I think the government should keep their personal and religious beliefs out of our "pursuit of happieness". If it makes a same sex couple happy to be married who the hell has the right to take away one of their/our constituionally prtected rights as a country?
I believe they should have every right to have a commitment cermony and have every right that straight couples do. I do not, however, believe it should be called marriage. Because it is a religious bond between a male and a female. At that: I also feel that if you do not consider yourself reglious, you should not have a 'marriage' as well.
Yes, I am a southern. No I do not hate the homosexual community. After all, my roomie and sister both are lesbian and I have many many friends that are gay and lesbians.
And it isn't just same-sex marriage that the FMA was issued against, it was more targeted towards polygamy sects. And technically it is up to the state's government not the nation's government whether to recognize the union.
All in all, let them have the benefits, the rings, everything else that surrounds a ceremony. It isn't fair to say they can't have anything at all. (Doesn't it seem strange that two animals can have a ceremony, but humans can't?)
This post cracked me up because I was on the phone with Brian (arguing about the value of public financing for presidential compaigns) when I read it. (Obviously his argument was less than compelling since I was reading while he was talking)
I have to admit that Kim's post intrigued me - made me think about what I feel the government does and does not have a "right" to approve of within the realm of adult human interaction and connection. Do we have the right to disapprove and deny polygamous unions? Why? As an ardent feminist, the whole idea of *any* patriarchal community raises my hackles, but polygamy doesn't just mean one man and many women. It's a plural union, period. The state approving of one man/one woman marriage makes sense within both an ecconomic and patriarchal mindset, but are we beyond that now? Am I missing all sorts of other issues aside from religious boundaries that would argue against non-traditional unions?
Sorry - I'm going on too long, but it's a fascinating subject and one that's worthy of respectful dialogue, like we're seeing here with your post and your comments so far.
I say people should be allowed to get married, same sex or not. Personally I don't see marriage in my near future and not because I'm against it. I just figure I won't fix something that's not broken.
Everyone should have the right to choose I think.
I'm completely fascinated by this subject right now. I really appreciated reading everyone's opinions - And now I can't stop thinking about polygamy after reading Kim and Mary's comments. Why shouldn't polygamous unions be permitted?
I still believe that no marriage should be recognized by the government. Period. Civil unions FTW!
I'm a progressive Christian. Quite progressive, so needless to say I don't see why same-sex marriages shouldn't be officially recognized by anyone, government, state, church, whatever.
I mean, above, someone stated (as well as Palin) that the definition of a marriage is the union between man and woman. But anybody with some intelligence who approaches Old Testament logic or New Testament logic with solely face value will immediately see holes.
Is this because only a man and woman can bear and raise children? Ok, but are you now saying that this is the only way to do it? Is there a problem with gay men adopting a child and raising it? Is there a problem with impregnating one of the women in a lesbian couple? How can there be when both hypothetical couples can raise a child and teach them morals just as well as anyone else? (Then we get into the debate of whether being homosexual is moral or not, we'd then have to define what the word moral means) If you're going to tell me that the child-bearing process is more important than the child-raising one, you can definite label yourself superficial.
Does one partner in a marriage have to be a woman in order to be a wife, or can one person do what a wife does, in essence, be a wife? A "wife" is an idea. Anyone can realize an idea.
All kinds of questions arise. But basically, same-sex couples deserve their rights and benefits just like anyone else in the world.
Post a Comment