Marriage...is it really religious anyway?

In light of the upcoming initiative to make marriage defined as a man and a woman in California, I felt it my duty and obligation to post the following. Although I did not write it I believe it to be completely true. My friend Casandra posted this on facebook and I could not have expressed my own sentiment about the issue any better. So rather that write my own I have posted hers. I encourage all those who read this to take it in to consideration and welcome any comments as it is an important issue that will likely effect society any way that it turns out this upcoming election.



I think it is an important question to ask whether this means that marriage is an open institution. First of all, I'd like to say that I believe that "civil unions" (the legal unions of people) should be a government contract and that "marriage" should be a religious contract. I think that would really solve much of the problem. But my ideas are neither here nor there 'cause nobody is ever going to get rid of marriage as a government institution. I think that regardless of how we try as a society to keep things the same, marriage will continue to change. It was only 40 years ago that interracial marriage was illegal (see Love v. Commonwealth of Virginia), and I would argue that very few people today consider interracial marriages a problem. Furthermore, I would argue that interfaith marriages are a pretty recent phenomenon. So, does opening marriage to same-sex couples open a can of worms? I would argue that it is the worm of a previous can.

Unfortunately, I think there's little anybody can do about being called a homophobe or a bigot if they support Proposition 8. Again, I refer back to the civil rights plight of African-Americans. It was commonplace only a few decades ago to view blacks as inferior in every way, but that idea is now shunned and those who support it are ostracized as racists. Less than 40 years ago, it was uncommon to see women in "the workplace" and they were not welcome there, but people who feel that way today are considered sexists. So, I would say that there isn't really anything anyone can do. Society changes (for better or worse) and those who don't change with it are rejected.

I would argue that the "institution of marriage" has already lost all of it's reverence. I think that the divorce rate is a clear indicator that our society's reverence for marriage has been lost. I would argue that gay couples are no less fit to be married and raise families. I think about my family (and the large number of degenerates within it), and then I consider my gay friends, which makes me realize that my degenerate family is far less qualified to (or deserving of) being married and raising a family. If there are going to be qualifications on who can be married, I think there are better benchmarks than gender. This, of course, segues into a much larger discussion about the change in the nuclear family and whether it's been better or worse for society =D.

For those that support Proposition 8, I would invite you to consider how much (or how little) your concerns about gay marriage mirror concerns about interracial marriage. I would invite you to consider the implications of the similarities and whether the concerns are something with which the government should intervene. And I would invite you to consider the role the religion in marriage versus the role of the state in marriage and whether the state can allow something that a religion does not. Please consider where "the church" stands on interracial marriage:

As evidenced by the ever-increasing divorce rate, marriage is simply a difficult process in the best of circumstances. When the complexities and stresses of race differences are added to the situation, it is far more likely that divorce will occur. Therefore, interracial marriages are discouraged by [the Church]. -Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p.527) and contemplate how similar or different it is from same-sex marriage.

I would also invite you to consider the implications of not legally protecting same-sex families. For example, what happens to the children if the biological parent dies—is it really fair to not allow their other "parent" to raise them. Or, if a same-sex couple splits, it is really fair to not protect the visitation rights of one of the "parents." If a same-sex couple is raising a family where one "parent" is a home-maker, is it fair that because they are making the sacrifice to care for their family, they should be denied health insurance coverage through their "spouse." The government has placed so much on the marriage contract, that the legal protections and economic benefits are huge. Is is really fair to deny those benefits based on gender?

To those who say, "I believe in equal rights. Just don't call it marriage," I would ask if you would say the same thing in reference to race. Would you feel okay allowing black people to marry, but classify it as "black marriage?" My guess is that most people would find this notion offensive, if not just a little bit silly. I contend that to make this distinction for gay people is no less silly or offensive.