An epiphany on gay marriage

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 04, 2012 3:56 PM GMT
    This is going to be really long, so just move along if that's a problem.

    Several years ago, when I first heard about the topic of gay marriage, it struck me as odd...gays don't get married. I had never heard of such a thing and, like most people, change is bad. However, over the years, I've been converted, but only in my heart. Because of my very religious upbringing, I could never really wrap my head around all the pro and con arguments. Last weekend, my partner and I were out to dinner with some friends, and the topic of gay marriage was raised. Now I and most people attending were staunch supporters, but there were two gay men who said they were not. Their arguments were all religion based and most of the proponents of gay marriage tried to argue with those religious tenets. Well, we all know you can't argue religion, so nobody got anywhere. Sometime later in the week, I had an epiphany that makes the whole thing very simple. It's quite clear that we're entitled to marriage equality. Bear with me and stick it out to the end, if you've got the patience.

    Marriage, I suppose, was originally established as some kind of religious rite. Whatever the various religions decided was fine, as it didn't impact all the other people who were no part of the religion. The problem arose, when the politicians granted special rights to those who were breaks, other benefits. I believe the current count of such federal benefits based solely on marital status is in the hundreds. The government had no other definition of marriage, so they kept the one the religious bodies used...a union of a man and a woman.

    Why that's a problem is that our Constitution and our Bill of Rights say that the State (government, whether federal, state or otherwise) (1) can't pass any law that establishes (or benefits) any religion and (2) that no law in the United States can discriminate against anyone based on their...gender...

    What I've now realized is that because of (1) above, all these benefits, given to religiously established married persons are unconstitutional (because the State is benefitting a religious body) and therefore those benefits must be revoked. In the alternative, they are unconstitutional because of (2) above since they adopt a definitional term that discriminates because of gender. The government's definition of marriage must be extended to any two persons because laws cannot discriminate based on gender. The end result is the marital benefits granted by the State must be revoked or extended to a union of any two persons.

    It doesn't matter under this scenario that the churches still only recognize a marriage between a man and a woman, but the government's definition MUST change. We don't care that the churches still refer to marriage as between a man and a woman. We need to stop arguing with them and let them have their way as far as marriage is concerned within the walls of their own religion. It's their attempt to impose their individual religious beliefs on the masses that is objectionable.

    Once I was able to separate church and state...the way our constitution requires...the whole thing became quite clear.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 04, 2012 4:45 PM GMT
    Hey rigsby, there's more. Legal benefits for married couples are global, though different depending on culture and country.
    Marriage was always about legal benefits. Like this; legal legitimacy of offspring, dowries, rights of inheritance etc etc and that goes way back. Waaaaaayyyyy back. icon_wink.gif

    "From the early Christian era (30 to 325 CE), marriage was thought of as primarily a private matter,[citation needed] with no uniform religious or other ceremony being required."

    Here's an interesting look at marriage legal issues back in the first couple of centuries AD


    Your bible referencing friends didn't think about Adam and Eve. Were they married? As well, how did their children have children? (incest)

    The bible also OK'd polygamy among other types of marriage unacceptable today.

    Here's an old tarot card depicting a wedding. Often all that was required was the couple walking together under a bower. Once out the other side, they were married.