It is one of the most amazing things to see when a society refuses to grant a right that would seem to be so simple, the right to love and live with whoever one wants to. Yet this is what is happening in America today. The Land of the Free is lagging behind the Old World of Europe and clinging to an ideology at odds with the very foundations of America. Thomas Jefferson in The Federalist Papers recommended to our young nation that we keep religion and state separate. Remarkably the people that are against the idea of gay marriage (marriage as a state institution, not marriage as a religious one since our laws do not cover what a religion recognizes as valid) are almost exclusively against it because it would somehow taint the "holiness" of the United States. They have no qualms, however, with accepting tax exemption and would argue that religion should be separate from the state in that matter. It would seem they want to have their cake and eat it too. The simple fact of the matter is that marriage as a state institution should be available to all and should not be exclusively held by those who are heterosexual. Marriage to the person one loves simply, from a state standpoint, means that two people wish to enter into an exclusive contract with certain binding terms that sets that relationship apart from friendship. It is not, from the standpoint of the state, a matter that concerns religion at all. If those who wish to ban it based on their religious beliefs persist in their public opposition, they should also be willing to be taxed and nonexempt from their other public duties (nondiscrimination laws, etc.). If they are unwilling to do so, then they should be willing to allow the state to extend the right to marry to any two consenting adults, regardless of gender. What do you think? Should gays be allowed to marry?
[polldaddy poll=7424473]
For a thoughtful approach to the subject, check out Matthew Lee Anderson's blog at http://mereorthodoxy.com/. Best regards.
ReplyDeleteThe approach taken in the blog recommended is strictly from a religious viewpoint of what marriage is, not what the state defines as marriage. It is indeed thoughtful and deserves to be allowed as a comment because of fairness, but to associate whether gays should be allowed to marry legally (not religiously) in the context of religious tradition is not fair to the issue. There has never been an argument (or at least a serious one) that the church should be required to recognize any state right (e.g. the church is not required to condone controversial art, but the state is because of the principal of free speech) nor is that argument made here. The argument here is that the right to enter into a contractual relationship cannot be justifiably limited to a particular group and denied to others. In addition, the argument would be that the reciprocity clause of our Constitution makes the refusal of states to recognize a judicial act (marriage falls under a judicial act as does divorce, another right that the church is not obligated to recognize-e.g. the Catholic church does not recognize divorce) of another state an affront to the union. The religious view on gay marriage, even when it is a favorable one is irrelevant to the legal or state view. Even the argument of tradition becomes irrelevant when we consider that the tradition of marriage (from the religious and legal viewpoint) varies wildly from religion to religion, place to place, and time to time. The argument of legal marriage for gays must come from what our legal system has demanded since its foundation, and that is equality for all.
ReplyDeleteThank you for the perspective, because in order to reconcile what should be done, one must always at least consider the feelings of the groups that are affected by it. It is important to present every argument, no matter where it fits, in this matter in order for the reader to make the best decision for them. That is why I will always allow thoughtful comments like yours, though I do reserve the right to rebut (and will extend that self-same right to you). I feel that only through open dialogue can any matter be resolved. So I sincerely thank you for the link and will gladly welcome all thoughtful replies.
Actually, it would be more interesting if the two of you had a dialogue on this. You both have put far more time and thought into this than I have.
ReplyDeleteYou're right, I had actually thought the same thing shortly after posting a reply. I do still appreciate your post though, encouraging good dialogue is equally as valuable as the dialogue itself.
ReplyDelete