View the CNN article here: Obama: Biden comments pushed up same-sex marriage announcement
I have a problem with President Obama's announcement that he is in support of Gay Marriage.
As a Christian, I have certain beliefs related to my religion. There are activities allowed by our society's laws that I believe are contrary to God's will. But that doesn't mean I necessarily want to change the law to reflect my perception of God's will.
We live in a secular society with religious freedom. Different religions have different traditions regarding marriage. Non-religious people have their own beliefs and traditions. Our government should not give preference to any one of these groups, even if that group is the majority. To do so is in direct defiance of our country's tradition of personal liberty.
We should not recognize "gay marriage". We should also not recognize "heterosexual marriage", or polygamy, or line marriages, etc. Every "marriage" should be a civil union defined by marriage contract. The government should regulate these contracts by requiring that certain factors be addressed (i.e. allocation of assets, grounds for dissolution, child rights and responsibilities, etc.). To have a government recognized marriage, the marriage partners would see a lawyer, draw up a contract, sign and notarize it, and file with the County Clerk's office.
If the married couple (or group) wants to be married according to their religious traditions, they would then see their spiritual leader and be married according to the doctrine of their church.
Government recognized marriage and religious marriage should not be considered the same thing. They are distinctly different. One is legal, the other is spiritual.
Married "couples" have certain rights within our society, including taxes, property division, gifting rights, etc etc etc. Since the Government has set up those rules, they should also have the ability to define what their definition of Marriage is.
ReplyDeleteI would suggest a better alternative is to have an individual/church define what they believe marriage is, and have the government use a looser term for the concept, such as union or partnership. That way the two people who want to have the Government recognize them as together, they can fill out the paperwork and it's done.
Paul, I think you've basically restated what I said in this post... Unless I'm missing something...
DeleteBTW: We can pass legislation to protect insurance and employer costs, define spousal rights, tax regulations, etc.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Paul says, and what Rich says.
ReplyDeleteMarriage, to me, is a religious covenant between two people. If gays find a church to marry them and it is not in defiance of their interpretation of God's will, then they're married.
Legally, to earn the title of "spouse", a civil-union can be created between two people.
There are many states in the US where civil unions cannot legal form between same sex partners. Also, marriage is not defined by the OED nor by MW as a religious artifact. Simply put - it is my position that religious adherents can claim no exclusive provenance over the term
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure of the relevance to our modern debate.
DeleteWe have basically two opposing groups. One defines marriage as a religious tradition with set parameters. The other considers it a social institution that should be available to all citizens. Both believe "marriage" should be defined and regulate by the government.
I disagree with both groups. I believe that while most religions do have a marriage tradition, and that the US has largely followed the Judeo-Christian tradition, marriage is a social institution that should not be defined by, and should only be loosely regulated by government.
I have been saying this for a long time. Well put Rich!
ReplyDelete