I was reading an article in the paper this morning about "same sex marriage" and it occurred to me, it's all about the semantics. I've removed myself from both 'for' and 'against' groups because I see valid arguments on both sides of the issue.
Religious groups believe "marriage" should be between a man and a woman,and most believe it should be for the purpose of procreating. Equal rights groups believe no one should have the right to tell another who to love and to whom they may commit themselves. I believe there is a compromise we should consider with which the true "Christian" should be able to live and let God decide.
I have a not-so-unique issue. I believe strongly in marriage and family and have led by example all my adult life, but my son is gay and I also believe he should have the right to commit himself to the person of his choosing. I struggle with this every day. My religion tells me it is sinful for him to live a gay lifestyle. My faith and my heart tell me that his lifestyle is not a choice and is not sinful. I raised him and know that this is not a rebellious path of his choosing. Being gay is not easy and it certainly isn't a "cause" he chose to champion.
My proposal is simple and in my mind makes perfect sense for more situations than just the hetero and gay population. We should have a law that recognizes "marriage" as a union performed with the blessing of a church and "civil unions" for those legally uniting outside the blessing of any church. In other words, all would be "Legal Unions" in the eyes of the law. Not just for hetero and homosexual couples but couples that have chosen to cohabit without sex and to be responsible for each other; for the purpose of raising a family or providing committed companionship to each other. Let marriage be a term for religion.
Single mothers and single fathers struggle everyday to meet the needs of their children and so many need public assistance for the minimum requirements of living; food, shelter, medical care, etc. Single people grow old and die of lonliness because they don't marry or remarry.
If our society allowed one adult to commit to another to help each other with day to day needs like cooking meals, providing guidance, security and structure for children, sharing household chores, financial support, companionship, etc and insurance companies, the IRS, hospitals, etc. were directed to recognize them as committed relationships with rights and coverage similar to married heterosexual couples, I believe life would be less complicated.
Because couples can share household expenses and childcare needs, there would likely be fewer people on public assistance and fewer children left to run the streets antagonizing neighbors with loud parties and profane language. I'm betting fewer old people would die alone and the overall quality of everybody's life would be improved.
Religions can define "marriage" in the manner of their choosing, same-sex or not, and their followers can join a church based on their beliefs, but the real choice is for all of us......do we really believe in treating all people equal as God tells us and the Constitution demands? Do we believe in respect for all. I think sexual preference should be a private matter, but we force people into the public light by making them fight for basic rights that shouldn't depend on sexual preference in the first place.
While your reasoning is sound, you hit the issue on the head when you said it was a matter of semantics. The problem is that words have power. They define how we see ourselves and those around us.
ReplyDeleteA large component that still needs to be addressed when talking of US law is there is meant to be a separation of church and state. To propose two standings in the law (marriage vs. union) doesn't uphold this and also further delineates an "other" (if not lower) standing of those committed through union vs. those committed through marriage.
Religion aside, two seperate terms in the law cannot promote equality; history has shown that attempts at taking a "seperate, but equal" approach to social polity do little to uphold the notions of equality this nation is meant to be founded on.
In turn, gay and lesbian individuals are still made to feel they are fighting the same two opponents, Church and State, at once.
I meant to say the law should recognize Marriage and Civil Unions only as "Legal Unions" with the same standing.
ReplyDelete