Topic: Gay Rights
Happily NEVER after? Marriage is an institution, but who wants to be in an institution?by Raven West, J.D.
(libertarian)
Monday, June 1, 2009
If the proponents of "traditional marriage" want to use the Bible to validate their resolve, then men should be allowed to have more than one wife. And, if we are to follow equal protection doctrine, then women should be allowed to have more than one husband as well!
But it seems that those Bible thumpers use the "Great Book" like a Chinese menu; picking out the passages they agree with, while ignoring those which, in today's modern civilized would never be tolerated. Incest and polygamy was a way of life in those days, not to mention the way women were treated.
What exactly are those who are opposed to same sex marriage so afraid of? With the high rate of divorce, marital affairs, infidelity on and off the Internet, just what is so great about "traditional" marriage that they think would be destroyed if more people were given equal rights to marry?
In this economic climate, imagine how much more business would be generated if there was an increase in marriage? From the cost of a marriage license, to thousands of dollars generated by the wedding industry, not to mention the enormous potential new clients for marriage counselors and divorce attorneys!
At the basis of the controversy has very little to do with an individual's sexual preference as it has with dollars, specifically employer paid health insurance. What any of this has to dowith two people who love each other is anyone's guess.
The same lame arguments were used to prevent people of different races and religions from forming a legal contract in the past are being resurrected today. In many states, "traditional" marriage was only legal between a "white" woman and a "white" man. It's only been in recent years that couples were pronounced husband and wife, yet there are some, more "traditional" ceremonies, the Priest will pronounce the couple man and wife. Is this the "traditional marriage" they're fighting so hard to maintain?
Over and over again our government has failed miserably to legislate morality. The pleasure police are at our every door and window, from victimless vice laws to increases in prohibitions on smoking. But just how far are we going to allow conservative religious zealots to try and legislate LOVE?
Of course this entire argument would be moot if we could eliminate government intervention and control of marriage in the first place, but it will be many more generations before society reaches that ideal.
"Traditional marriage" ain't that great in the first place. Perhaps the Gays will find a way to improve on this tradition and show the rest of us what the vows of marriage are truly about.
Maybe that's why those who oppose these marriages are so afraid.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 6 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Raven West, J.D. only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Raven West, J.D. is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
I don't know what Bible you've been reading, but nowhere in Scripture is polygamy spoken of with approval. While it is true that some major figures in the Bible had more than one wife, there is no suggestion that this was the natural or approved state of affairs. Jacob was tricked into taking two wives. David and Solomon had multiple wives, but Scripture makes it clear that they were corrupted by them.
In Genesis 2:24 the institution of marriage is clearly defined as the union of one man and one woman. In the New Testament, Jesus spoke of marriage as being between one man and one woman, and even considered divorce and remarriage (serial polygamy) to be tantamount to adultery: "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery." (Mark 10:11-12) Men married to more than one woman were barred from leadership positions in the first century church.
As for the debate over same-sex marriage, it is really about civil marriage, a legal institution that is a bundle of rights and obligations. By "rights", I don't mean the kind of inalienable rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The "rights" that adhere to civil marriage are in reality claims against the property and behavior of third parties. You mentioned that "the controversy has very little to do with an individual's sexual preference as it has with dollars, specifically employer paid health insurance". Exactly. People -- who may or may not approve of same-sex marriage -- will be forced, at gunpoint, to treat all marriages equally.
In a truly free society, marriage would not be a function of the State. Individuals could choose to honor or ignore religious marriages or any contractual arrangements two (or more) people of whatever sex choose to make. But we don't live in a truly free society. The effect of legalizing same-sex marriage is to force millions of people who do not approve of the practice to offer the same benefits to same-sex married couples that are offered to heterosexual couples.
Posted By: Robin C. Westmiller
Date: 2009-06-01 08:52:29
Phil,
Your comment: The effect of legalizing same-sex marriage is to force millions of people who do not approve of the practice to offer the same benefits to same-sex married couples that are offered to heterosexual couples.
The effect of NOT legalizing same-sex marriage is to force millions of people who believe in equality under the law to be treated as second-class citizens. No where is it written that any employer MUST provide health insurance, or any other benefits to their employees, it is their choice to do so.
What if that same employer was opposed to people of different RACES getting married, or having children? Are they too being "forced" to offer same benefits to mix-raced couples? If your analysis is solid, then what you're actually saying is that it is the "right" of those individuals who oppose anyone's personal choices to be able to take those choices away from others because they don't approve of them. Not in this country!
However, I do agree with you that marriage should NOT be a function of the State, but as long as it is, and as long as that State is a member of the U.S.A., under a Consitution of Equality, then that State's rights must be given equally to all.
I don't know what Bible you've been reading, but nowhere in Scripture is polygamy spoken of with approval. While it is true that some major figures in the Bible had more than one wife, there is no suggestion that this was the natural or approved state of affairs. Jacob was tricked into taking two wives. David and Solomon had multiple wives, but Scripture makes it clear that they were corrupted by them.
What a load of bull! The Bible specifically says that Solomon was corrupted by his marrying Pagan wives, but that would seem to contradict the repeated assertion in the same Bible that he was known for his incredible wisdom. How could such a wise man be misled by women? It seems more likely that we are dealing with a set of scriptures written by many different people who had different views of the united kingdom of Israel-Judah under David and Solomon and those conflicting views got thrown together in what eventually became the Old Testament.
If God did not approve of polygamy in Old Testament times, He would have made a explicit prohibition of it even for kings. He didn't, of course. The specific limitation of marriage to monogamy was a man-made interpretation of the Biblical laws. And what Jesus said has no bearing on what David and Solomon did, since they were 1000 years before His time.
I never claimed to be an expert on the stories which are in the bible and as a Jew, have totally no knowledge of what Jesus said or didn't say regarding polygamy or anything else. I do know the Mormons practiced poligamy as part of their religion.
We are human beings with enormous capacity for LOVE and the ability to love one person, or multiple people, no matter what religion you follow, with the intellect to make choices irrespective of relious zealots who insist on following only THEIR way and insisting that others follow THEIR way and no other.
What goes on in the privacy of one's home is none of anyone's business, ESPECIALLY government. FREEDOM means exactly that, to be FREE to love, to be happy and to live this very very short life that we have the best way we know how.
To be able to share our lives with the person we love, even if that person is of another race, religion OR the same sex is the utlimate freedom and the true path to happiness and joy.
We don't need groups of individuals constantly telling us that our choices are "wrong", or raise millions of dollars for legal action to be sure that others do not recieve the very rights that are enjoyed by FREE Americans.
Our Constitution states: "WE THE PEOPLE of the United States". I follow the text of the Constitution far above the text of any Bible.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
