Hello Friends.
Ever since
the Supreme Court handed down their decision on marriage equality I’ve been
thinking about what, if anything, I should say on the subject. I decided I did
have a few things I wanted to share and I thought a blog would be the best way
to do it.
I’m curious about the people who think that “Holy Matrimony” has always been the custom and that by changing the law to recognize same sex unions we are doing something akin to altering the length of a day or changing the location of the moon. Anyone who knows history should recognize the fact that marriage has changed through the centuries. In the earliest days of Christianity marriage was frowned upon by the elders who thought that celibacy was the ideal. If a man needed to have physical union with a woman then marriage was grudgingly accepted. It wasn’t until the tenth century when couples, looking to have children, went to their priest to ask for a blessing of their union that the church became involved at all. Even then marriage was a civil contract between the parties and no religious witness to the union was necessary to make it recognized as legal.
The Catholic Church made marriage a sacrament in the twelfth century but the priest was there only as a witness for the church. The sacrament was always bestowed by the parties upon each other. (At least that’s what I was taught all those years ago by a wonderful IHM nun.)
Up until recently marriage among the upper classes was more often than not a way to consolidate fortunes. It was nothing but a business contract and certainly nothing that involved Christ or his love. It was not a joining of two hearts as much as it was a joining of two families for financial or political purposes. Among much of society marriage was simply the contract that was demanded so a man would take care of his offspring.
We aren’t asking that your church be forced to perform our marriage ceremonies. We aren’t asking that you be forced to cheer from the sidelines as we are permitted to make decisions regarding a spouse’s health care. We are simply asking that the communities where we live, work, and pay taxes be made to grant us the same rights as our married heterosexual counterparts. Are two men or two women who have committed to each other not worthy of the same civil consideration as the guy up the street who is now on wife number three?
I’m curious about the people who think that “Holy Matrimony” has always been the custom and that by changing the law to recognize same sex unions we are doing something akin to altering the length of a day or changing the location of the moon. Anyone who knows history should recognize the fact that marriage has changed through the centuries. In the earliest days of Christianity marriage was frowned upon by the elders who thought that celibacy was the ideal. If a man needed to have physical union with a woman then marriage was grudgingly accepted. It wasn’t until the tenth century when couples, looking to have children, went to their priest to ask for a blessing of their union that the church became involved at all. Even then marriage was a civil contract between the parties and no religious witness to the union was necessary to make it recognized as legal.
The Catholic Church made marriage a sacrament in the twelfth century but the priest was there only as a witness for the church. The sacrament was always bestowed by the parties upon each other. (At least that’s what I was taught all those years ago by a wonderful IHM nun.)
Up until recently marriage among the upper classes was more often than not a way to consolidate fortunes. It was nothing but a business contract and certainly nothing that involved Christ or his love. It was not a joining of two hearts as much as it was a joining of two families for financial or political purposes. Among much of society marriage was simply the contract that was demanded so a man would take care of his offspring.
We aren’t asking that your church be forced to perform our marriage ceremonies. We aren’t asking that you be forced to cheer from the sidelines as we are permitted to make decisions regarding a spouse’s health care. We are simply asking that the communities where we live, work, and pay taxes be made to grant us the same rights as our married heterosexual counterparts. Are two men or two women who have committed to each other not worthy of the same civil consideration as the guy up the street who is now on wife number three?
While I truly
respect those who think that their marriage is blessed because of their
particular religious beliefs I don’t understand why those who are most
adamantly opposed to marriage equality believe giving their LGBTQ neighbors equal
rights under the law will put their marriage, or the institute of marriage, in
some sort of jeopardy. That's akin to saying that you can't eat pizza because I don't like tomatoes. It makes no sense.
For those
who cite Leviticus in the Old Testament as the proof of the Lord’s condemnation
of homosexuality I believe that eating pork and shellfish are equally
condemned. So for that matter is wearing two different types of cloth at the
same time as well as having your body tattooed. You don’t get to pick and choose with Leviticus. You
either take the whole thing as the literal word of God or you don’t. I prefer to look to the New Testament where Christ told us to love one another as he loves us. There is no mention of conditions or limitations on that love.
In a nutshell it comes down to the fact that I’ll respect your civil rights if you respect mine. We don’t have to see eye to eye. We just need to treat each other without rancor and hate. If we can remember the golden rule and treat each other as we wish to be treated the battle will be won.
In a nutshell it comes down to the fact that I’ll respect your civil rights if you respect mine. We don’t have to see eye to eye. We just need to treat each other without rancor and hate. If we can remember the golden rule and treat each other as we wish to be treated the battle will be won.
Last but not least, for those who think that the Founding Fathers never intended for equality to be the law of the land I doubt that Adams, Jefferson or Franklin thought that owning an AK-47 or a Sig-Sauer automatic was a right to be given to the guy who has the budget to own one of those puppies. Again my friends, you don’t get to pick and choose what applies to you and what applies to those you disagree with. Civil rights apply to all.
As a post
script…After I wrote the above I was thinking of what might happen if the courts had decided to make all things equal by not recognizing marriage at all. Religious folks could still have their ceremonies and be recognized as spouses in the eyes of their church but the state would simply see them as two folks who lived together and shared a home. No tax breaks, no consideration for inheritance, no legal rights to make medical decisions and the half of the couple who did not actually give birth to a child would have to jump through the hoops of adoption and whatnot to be seen as a parent or have the authority to make a medical decision in case of an emergency. Isn’t giving your LGBTQ brethren a few rights better than giving up those rights?
Well said, Mary Anne. Thank you for putting this up.
ReplyDelete