Instead of searching for something to write about, lately I've been waiting for a topic to jump out at me rather than writing for the sole purpose of producing a blog post. Now don't get me wrong; even if I wasn't innately passionate about a subject prior to writing, the process of research, contemplation and analysis always pivots me into a temporary obsession with whatever issue I am discussing. Don't believe me? Watch...
Apples. Yeah, apples are alright I guess. They're round and glossy. Crunchy and sweet. I eat them regularly. They're full of nutrients and loaded with health benefits. In fact, they're absolutely delicious. In fact, I love apples. Actually, I need an apple. Now. Where are all the apples? Did someone eat the last apple? I CAN'T LIVE WITHOUT APPLES!
See that thought process? It happens with my blog posts every time. Even so, I've been making it a point to write only when I'm extremely passionate about a subject matter, which brings me to this post.
Gay marriage. I know, I know... I'm a raving liberal that can't keep my political orientation in my pants. Sorry. I'm not ashamed to admit that the topic of civil gay marriage is one closest to my heart. In my opinion, the right for two consenting adults to marry one another is so starkly a civil right that cannot be marred by the blurring of church and state.
That is why I was both excited and relieved when the 2012 Republican Presidential candidate Jon Huntsman (who happens to be Mormon)recently declared his support for gay marriage outside of church institutions. In an op-ed piece for The American Conservative, Huntsman wrote:
"conservatives should start to lead again and push their states to join the nine others that allow all their citizens to marry. I’ve been married for 29 years. My marriage has been the greatest joy of my life. There is nothing conservative about denying other Americans the ability to forge that same relationship with the person they love."
He went on to assert that religious institutions should not be forced to accept gay unions within their respective churches.
This bold statement, made by a Republican nonetheless, was so poignant for me not because it will revolutionize the way members of the church perceive gay marriage (it won't), but because it marks a clear delineation between religion and politics.
I am well aware that the official stance of the LDS church will never waiver concerning gay marriage within its institution. I understand that this position is backed by eternal beliefs of gender, family and procreation. My intention was never to challenge eternal principles or to infer that our religious belief system is faulted. My only concern and consequent argument is that religious beliefs should not permeate into political legislature. Religion should not attempt to force those who do not accept our system of truth to live within the confines of our beliefs. Just as religious institutions are given the freedom to autonomously practice their rituals, rites and beliefs, so should political decisions be made free from the constraints of religious conjecture.
A prominent argument I've found in opposition to gay marriage is that it will degrade the sanctity of marriage. Really? I'm sorry to say, but when the divorce rate is sitting at around 45%, domestic abuse runs rampant, extramarital affairs are commonplace and swinging is the new cool thing to do, I'm pretty sure straight people have already degraded the inherent godliness of marriage. It is harsh and somewhat naive to say that two women who have been in love for years would further the downward spiral of marriage. And I don't want to be naive. I'm sure gay people will get divorced, abuse each other, have affairs and put their watches in a bowl for a swinging good time as well. But shouldn't they be allowed the opportunity to debauch what was once so divine, just as much as us straight people?
Okay, I don't want to be a Debbie Downer. I do believe that marriage can still be sacred, especially when faith and God are in the equation. But the sacredness of marriage is not dependent on civil law or constitutional amendments. It is contingent upon individual couples upholding their vows and covenants to ensure its sacramental meaning. But civil society should not be expected to comply with our belief that marriage is consecrated by God. Like it or not, a lot of 'Mericans don't even believe in God, and as beloved freedom entails, we are constitutionally banned from forcing others to adhere to any religion, creed or code.
This is the way I see it. I have been married for nearly 5 years. I was married by sacred ritual in an LDS temple. When I was married, I promised to keep faith and God a part of my marriage to ensure its sanctity and success. I believe that the success and sacredness of my marriage is contingent upon me and my husband's ability to maintain a relationship with God. I don't believe that allowing two men to marry would have any effect on my personal relationship with God or my husband. If it did, well that wouldn't be saying much for my marriage or my faith.
"But what will we teach our children?" I've heard people ask. Teach them that when two consenting adults love each other, they get married. Teach them that when two Mormons love each other, they get married in the temple, which does not (and never will) allow same-sex marriage.
So tip of my hat to you, Jon Huntsman, for being a real American through and through. Not only are you a Republican in support of gay marriage, but by asserting that religious institutions should not be forced to accept prospective changes to civil marriage, you were able to uphold your religious devotion, all while observing the tenets of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. That, my friends, is a taut tightrope to walk.
Thought? Disagreements? Opinions? You know I always like to hear what you have to say...
Wow, this very well written. I could not agree more and I love everything about this!
ReplyDeleteFor years (since Prop 8 on my mission in San Diego in 2008) I've switched back on forth on gay marriage. I never thought I'd be where I'm at today. I'm far more accepting of the idea of gay marriage, but still not there yet.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your conclusion for the most part, but I have to disagree with some of your logic that got you there. But you make a good case!
I have a couple gay friends I'm fairly close to. Whenever I ask them personally and what they believe collectively as a community about why they believe gay marriage should be legislated comes down to 1 basic thing. 1. To have the same rights as heterosexuals.
I know the rules (at least a portion) that are thrown out: taxes, hospital visitation, children, and all of them are extremely important and I won't say a homosexual or heterosexual deserves it more than another, because I believe love is love and they should get equal rights.
My biggest thing though, and maybe I'm stubborn, but my biggest issue, is why do those rights have to become affiliated with marriage? So this goes back to where I said I don't agree with your logic. Sure, a ton of people don't believe in God, and husbands will go to hell for beating their wives (in my mormon heaven anyways), but marriage to "ME" is a sacred practice between a man and a woman.
Why can't legislation be passed to give gay couples the same rights without being married? Is it because of feelings? Honestly asking, no mockery.
I know hypotheticals don't always push the case and every analogy breaks down somewhere, but say gay couples practiced something for hundreds of years that hetero couples could not. And gays viewed it as the holiest form of union. Then I come in and say "hey, I want that." Do I deserve the rights? Yes, because of equality I do, but do I have to take something they cherish, adorn, and twist it and turn it against their will? Is there a way possible to obtain the rights of another orientation without "defiling" someone's values.
Because with any form of movement: feminism, gay rights, minority rights, there is a portion where the majority is almost "forced" to give up rights to appease the minority. Even if the country votes for gay rights, does that make it "right" or does it make it "justified"?
To me, I'm fine with having two men or two women together, receiving all the benefits I do. Seeing their partner in the hospital, being able to have an open loving relationship. But is it too much to ask to say, "Hey, this is marriage. You can do it if your a man and a woman. If your a man and a man you can get ________________."
Basically, I'm saying I don't believe its ethical or "American". A "marriage" does have legal implications, but its not a legal practice in its origin. Marriage is a very religious practice. But even that has been twisted out of control, to where its now a social custom.
Where do the rights of the traditionalist end and the changing of rights begin with minority groups? Where will the lines be drawn? Are we so concerned with minority groups feelings now that we neglect the majority to satisfy the minority? I want equal rights, don't get me wrong. But there are other ways of obtaining the same rights then by changing core values in other people's lives.
Exactly! Couldn't have said my personal opinion any better, thank you Matt!
DeleteHey Matt, thanks for your comment. I've definitely heard the "why can't gay people have the same benefits of marriage without calling it marriage" argument. It's obviously an important point and I should have addressed it in my blog, so thanks for bringing it up.
ReplyDeleteI can see how letting gay people have civil unions without calling it marriage could satiate the religious populace. But don't you think this is a little too close to "separate but equal"? Basically it would be saying that your union is almost like ours, but it's not quite good enough. I understand that the original definition of marriage consisted of holy matrimony under god, but there are many Americans who are married in a secular setting, with no priest or religious figure officiating the ceremony. There are many married Americans who believe that god is not a factor in marriage. Should we then deny them their right to marry, since they are not honoring the original definition of marriage?
You ask a valid question: where do we draw the lines between tradition and progression? But I would ask a similar question in return: where is the line drawn between religion and secular law? If the point of your argument is to say that gay people should not be 'married' because it doesn't honor the original divine definition of marriage, what do you say about atheist straight marriage?
The focal part of your rebuttal was pitted around the definition of marriage, being the union of man and woman under god. Why chose to defend only part of the definition (between man and woman) and forgive those who ignore the other part of its definition (under god)?
Sorry if my response was disjointed and repetitive... It's 6am and I'm writing on my phone while watching Caillou with harper. You'll know all about this soon enough :)
I think that rights should not be contingent upon either sexual orientation or marriage. Their are so many different situations in which the "rules" are just not fair. For example, I know 5 sets of single sisters (as in biological sisters) who have chosen to make their homes together,and several mother-daughter pairs and father-son pairs likewise. Is it fair that they should not be able to have the same benefits in taxation, survivorship, visitation, and insurance, and so on as any two other people? Why should sexual relationship be the only thing that determines whether a couple gets those benefits?
ReplyDeleteFor example, my mom lives with us. She lived in the same house as us, and we really love her a lot. Why can't we choose to have her put on our insurance? When mom was in the hospital, all she had to do was let it be known that she wanted me to be there any time- I am listed on her medical POA- and I could be there all the. (Which was not the case when my husband was in the hospital for a procedure, and he had neglected to put me on "the list" ("Gays" are not the only who have trouble with HIPPA rules.) We should be able to designate whomever we want to be with us in times of need or plenty, and who we will share our lives, our money, our homes, our benefits.
If we are going to expand "couple" type privileges to non-traditional types of couples, then let's not forget that there are many other arrangements of families that do not include marriage. The fact that we are adults and citizens should be enough to let us make choices. We shouldn't have to be in a sexual relationship to have rights.
This is a good article. I am happy to see people pondering this issue without the hate-fomenting and hate-enabling discussions that are sometimes seen.
ReplyDeleteTo those who oppose gay marriage, I have questions: If one of the united gay couple decided to have a sex-change operation, would you change your opinion about their union? Should they then be allowed to marry in the Mormon temple (or anywhere for that matter)? And who would "certify" this operation had been performed? Lastly, is it morally correct to sanction medical procedures to ensure someone conforms to another's standards?
The other issue, perhaps more important to me, is when churches become regular, tax-paying entities (and therefore do not burden me with excess taxes to make up for their lack of payment) then perhaps I would consider those churches would have a defensible position in denying someone their equal rights. Not legally, of course, but perhaps morally.
I recall a time when in the midst of fighting for civil rights for African Americans, it was common among us white folk to proclaim, "I have a friend who is black" .....I found it amusing and annoying at the same time. Now, in this current battle for civil rights, how many times have we heard "I have a gay friend" ...or..."my relative is gay" Again, comical.
ReplyDeleteIn the future battles for human rights in this country (and I'm sure there will be many) I wonder if we have it in us to refrain from the common phrase of "knowing" someone but instead focus on what is just and right and fair.
Interesting thoughts! It caused me to revisit many questions that this issue has brought up for me: Why is the state defining marriage in the first place? If we are to truly live by "separation of church and state" couldn't we just have the state define equal rights (e.g. tax breaks, hospital visits, etc.) for unions and leave the marriage up to whatever religious or non-religious ceremony/party/etc. a person chooses? I am happy to get a civil union under state law for my heterosexual union and have my religion define what the marriage is. Many countries require a civil union and don't recognize religious unions as legal under the state (e.g. Spain), so why can't the U.S.? I don't need my state to define what marriage is or isn't to me since to me it is defined by my religion. If this is the case, neither the state nor any other religion could dictate to me what my marriage is or isn't and everyone else would have the same right. Maybe it's just a game of semantics, but I don't see how we can maintain religious freedom if we mix religion and state.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to Matt's question - There are many countries out there where the state holds 100% control of partnerships. The church does sealings, and the state does... everything else. This seems like such an ideal relationship between church & state to me.
ReplyDeleteNow, getting the US to emulate another country's system is... not quite likely. Given our current state of affairs, it seems like gay marriage is a step in the right direction, but I would agree with Christie, that the best solution here would involve a structural change to the way that the state does "couplings."
Steph, I can't wait for Calliou in the mornings...haha. I guess I would agree with you on one point, why get married if you don't believe in God? Or if you know religion won't be a part of your marriage? For those who wish to keep the most sacred, bonding, ritual in any religion intact, do what Matty was saying, Church does sealings, and the state does everything else. Unions between same sex couples and heterosexual couples who don't "need" religion.
ReplyDeleteWe have to face the fact that not everyone can enjoy the same rights, even within the mormon faith. Some can't go to the temple, because they choose not too. Its not fair that same sex couples who are attracted to the same sex should be punished and can't choose, but does that mean they deserve the right to push the boundaries of something so sacred to me? I don't think so.
Matt-I understand your point about equality and fairness. There is no way to satiate the entire spectrum of civil society. This is inevitable. But as members of the LDS church, we have the ability to maintain our sacred definition of marriage through temple sealing. We chose to be Mormon, and therefore we choose whether or not we want to follow the 'rules' and enter into the temple.
DeleteOn the other hand-gay people have not 'chosen' to live in a religion-saturated American society. They have no other option for marriage, as we do in the Mormon church. Sacred marriage rituals will always be available to worthy members of the church, so why deny others the ability to partake in the benefits of civil marriage? Allowing gay marriage in civil society will in no way push the boundaries of sacred temple marriage.