The United States of America is based on the idea of personal freedoms and equality. The right to pursue what makes you happy within the constraits of the law. Now, many desenters of gay marriage say that gays have common-law marriages and other marriages are religious practices that should abide by the laws of that religion. However, if you consider the actions of heterosexuals practicing that same religion, they shouldn't be allowed to marry for the same reason. Lets take Christianity, for example, because that is the main religion that has problems with this. In Christianity, it says to not judge others, to be kind and respectful to others, to turn the other cheek, and, when it comes to marriage, does "til death do us part" ring a bell?
Lets start with the judging others. The people who are against gay marriage violate this first ideal. They are judging what these people do as wrong and immoral, but if you want to go with this arguement, isn't it God's duty to judge others? Remember, judge not lest ye be judged. If you want to get away from the religious quotes "those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones". Priests say that gay marriage and the gave lifestyle is against God, but then, what is homosexual pedophila? These priests violate their purishiners' trust, they destroy young boys, then they condemn homosexuals for being immoral. Is that not hypocrytical?
Moving away from the religious aspect of this arguement, there's the equality issue. This country prides itself on being considered a defender of equal rights. While this country's rules aren't nessicarily equal, they provide for equal opprotunity. By definition of these laws, it is the government's duty to allow the equal opprotunity of gays to marry. The arguement that it "defiles the sanctity of marriage" is beyond ridiculous. The sanctity of marriage hasn't been the same since the advent of divorce. Til death do you part was supposed to be binding. You get married, you stay married until one of you died. There were no one-day marriages. Back when there was a sanctity of marriage to protect, then there's the tiniest possiblity that the arguement may have standing. But now, with marriages that last less than 32 hours and a divorce rate that is half the married population, there is no sanctity gays can destroy.
More to the point, I bring up my strongest point. What right do we have to medle in someone else's life? How would we like someone else to medle in our lives? No heterosexual couple would have to deal with the question of whether or not they can get married. How is that equal in a country where equality is a very important fundimental law?
Share this post on:
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
No votes yet
My view on Gay Marriage. Please feel free to argue with me. I always like hearing--or in this case reading--new points of view.
As a Christian, I cannot be "for" gay marriage, but as a libertarian, I don't necessarily want government intervention (and definitely don't want the federal government to over-ride the states' rights on the issue).
I can understand, though, why religious people are upset. "Marriage" is a religious institution (unlike a civil union) and government recognition of gay marriage is sort of like the government giving such a relationship a level of religious recognition.
Either way, seems trivial. If gay marriage is legal, they'll be hard pressed to find any priest or pastor to marry them. The Simpsons is a great tool for education sometimes.
It's not like Christianity has a monopoly on marriage or even created the concept of marriage. Those that disagree with gay marriage don't have to marry them. There are plenty of us who would be more than happy to do so.
"We don't receive wisdom; we must discover it for ourselves after a journey that no one can take for us or spare us." -Marcel Proust
...I appreciate your "hands off" attitude where it comes to the government telling people who should or should not get married. But, I have to point out a few flaws in the arguments you cite.
First of all, marriage is not a "states' rights" issue. While I do have sympathy for the idea of states' rights over federal rights, the Fourteenth Amendment has defined certain fundamental protections which apply to all citizens of the United States, regardless of what state they might live in. And, based on the precedent of the Supreme Court, spoken mose eloquently in the case of Loving v. Virgina (1967)...
"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/loving.html
This case specifically cites the Fourteenth Amendment as a justification for taking the question of who can get married out of state hands by defining the practice as a fundamental right.
Next, marriage is not simply a "religious institution." Historically speaking, marriage originated in the civil sector, and only relatively recently (around the 10th century C.E.) did the christian church decide to get into the marriage game. Religious folks are perfectly welcome to disapprove of same-sex marriages if they wish, but they have no more reason to stop them, or to preempt the terminology applied to them, than they do for any other marriage of which they disapprove on religious grounds.
Finally, I would suggest that your statement that gay people would be "hard pressed to find any priest or pastor to marry them" is completely unfounded. Already there are several major christian denominations that are willing to perform these weddings (such as the Episcopal Church, just to name one).
Anyway, I just felt like throwing that in.
percivale
I am not a huge fan of the idea..but if that what makes them happy then cool! but well idk defnitly dont like the idea!
If I may direct you to my blog on the issue, it's from the same pro-perspective, but it has different points. I mention in mine, that if marriage is a christian exclusive, why allow pagans, athiests, or anyone else to get a marriage license? Gays aren't antichristians. There are in fact several gay christians.
The only thing I have to say with the constitution, is that by denying homosexuals the right to marry is giving people grounds for discrimination. That is flat out saying that you are not worthy of the same privelages heterosexuals are.
Excellent blog though :)
I think Gay marriage is perfectly fine (of course without the religious view on it). If people are truly in love with their own sex to where they would go through all the trouble of being stared at in public and pointed at and laughed at, I say let them be. It's enough to stand out in the world in not so much of a good way, and its another to get your rights taken away. I really do not at all understand why the huge controversy... we're all human and we're all unique.. just because "american society" doesn't agree with a simple action, doesn't exactly mean its terrible, wrong, and should be forbidden
I agree with your views, but typically I have found that it is easiest to leave religion completely out of the argument. Marriage is not solely a religious practice. Marriage is a legal process. The argument that marriage should be left for straight people because of what the bible says, is ridiculous. There are two types of marriage: religious, and legal. The two must be differentiated. What a religious establishment's feelings towards marriage are, doesn't matter at all in an argument concerning legality, due to separation of church and state. A religious views doesn't change whether or not same-sex marriage is constitutional. I think the constitution is pretty clear when it states that EVERYONE deserves equal rights. I think it is also clear, that civil unions are not enough, because they are not the same. The African-Amercan civil rights movement taught us that separate is not equal. Legally, its a no brainer. It becomes a problem when some people confuse the words democracy and theocracy. Same-sex marriage should be legalized.
I believe homosexuals should be granted the same rights heterosexual couples have. Leaving out religion, because that is a whole ground for discussion in and of itself, marriage also provides many legal benefits. Not excluding the fact that you love the person, but it provides tax benefits (filing joint income tax returns), inheriting a share of spouses estate, priority in financial/medical decisions for your spouse, and social security benefits. These can all improve the lifestyle of a couple.
It could then be argued that people would get married for the wrong reasons, but don't people ALREADY get married for the wrong reasons. Using young women that marry old, dying, rich men as an example. I think it would strengthen society and personal self-esteem. Many people have problems with coming out to the public, so if we recognized the homosexual community it would make it easier on gay, lesbian and bisexual people to express who they are.
So let gays and lesbians to marry? Well if the chuch won't do it, then the court will. It's a conterverisal issue and either way, sometime soon it'll pass. I see that happening. Other than that, if it makes them happy, then whatever. Personally, I don't care about this. Let the courts decide on that. Plus, I do not mind if somone is gay or married gay.
One issue I've heard discussed is whether the government has the right to sanction marriage at all. Marriage, theoretically, can only be sanctioned by God/church, not the secular government. Just a thought, I don't really know what I think.
You guys are missing the christian point. They aren't exactly judging. They are just saying what's wrong. The point is it is a sin just like any other. The christian point is that gay is said to be wrong in the bible. In order to be a christian you must agree with the bible. How can you be gay and believe in the bible. Does any religion say gay marriage is right? Everyone just mentions christianity because of what they've heard and because it's the main religion in america. There are other religions. What is the benefit of gay marriages? They can't have kids.