What is marriage anyway? And why are gay people so violently in favor of it?

Put down your rotten tomatoes and cabbage, my blue state comrades! Take off your cross stompers, my homo-anarchists friends! I just want to express a couple of views that are not meant to condemn anyone but to put everyone on a level playing field when it comes to this whole marriage thing. Specifically this same sex marriage issue. Actually, I want to talk about the institution of marriage on the whole and how it is, that more than half of those who engage in marriage cannot seem to stay with it.

It strikes me funny that gay people are so intent on getting in on something that at least 50% of the straight people who get into it, can't seem to get out of fast enough!

Whether you want to believe it or not, religion is NOT what a state says it is. Or what the voters say it is. Or what a judge says it is.

Marriage, is a religious institution. We can twist it or marginalize it all we want but that is a fact. Marriage is about two people (a man and woman as defined by all religious doctrine) who become one flesh in the eyes of God. In religious terms it goes even farther. It's purpose under the Catholic faith was, from it's origins, specifically for procreation and the extension of the church. Today in nearly all non-Judea Christian religious circles, marriage is meant as a means to multiply the numbers living in faith to whatever religion the couple follows. We can look as closely as Europe to see the booming numbers of Muslims and how they dwarf the rate of multiplication in Christian, Jewish and Humanist families. Whether intentional or not the end result will inevitably be on overwhelming majority of Muslims in Europe as compared to non-Muslims (which is beyond the point...)

The point is that "Marriage" is a religious principle (sacrament or what have you) that at until fairly recently was not open to a civil definition (it has only been over the last 100-150 years). As Christians, we have been given a biblical directive that we must submit to, support and obey the laws of the land and government in which we live. Meaning, that though we may well not agree with whatever the official civil stance, yet we still must respect it and honor it. Example being, that we may not like or agree with our leader's agenda but we must pray for and be respectful of that leader.

There is one major exception however. Being when a law, leader or governing body supports or tries to legislate from a position that is in violation of biblical law. That brush could obviously be quite wide or narrow depending on the believer. However for the sake of argument let's just say the believer is not fanatical and is not unreasonable in their interpretation of the bible. While I do believe in the Bible as the inspired and infallible Word of God. I also have to use some common sense. There are many laws stated in the bible that are simply absurd in relation to modern society. However, marriage and the biblical laws in relation to marriage are quite consistent throughout the bible, from the very beginning in the book of Genesis with Adam and Eve. One man and one woman, of one flesh, made in the image of God Himself. Therefore it is clear that once the civil authority has begun to venture outside of the biblical definition of marriage to be anything but one man and one woman, it is time for a change in the Christian's stance on civil union.

Why is it that we have made and continue to make marriage the benchmark at which we categorize the parameters by which couples are considered for insurance, rights to visitation during hospitalization, taxes and the like? As far as the civil legalities, I think the time has come for the government on all levels to begin to classify every legal union (whether it be heterosexual, homosexual or otherwise) as a civil union. Frankly, we all know (whether or not we want to acknowledge it) that the battle about same sex marriage is less about the rights that come with marriage and more about the semantic hijacking of the word "marriage". It's all a name game... "Husbands" and "Wives" and "Married" couples. Give me a break! Let's face the facts!

Let’s allow the word and principle of marriage to stay where it belongs… in the church and before the eyes of God who created the idea in the first place. Let the government govern. Let "civil union" be the new standard at which we measure the means by which couples rights and benefits, tax rates and the like come. Marriage ought best be left to the church. If you really want to be "married... go to a church... meet with a clergyman who has authority under that particular churches law to marry couples and if you meet the requirements of that denomination... be married... at the alter... on God's ground! If you are gay and want to be married and have a religious leaning and really want to be "married", go to a denomination that accepts homosexuality and gay marriage and by all means get married. But marriage in the church should NOT in anyway be accepted by the civil authorities. Civil unions should have standards that are established by the state and governed by the state alone. Not the church.
But if in fact what is important to you are the rights that are given to heterosexual "married" couples, then certainly a civil union that will establish those equal rights will be adequate. Otherwise, the whole battle that we are all engaged in on some level is simply a ruse over a word. "Marriage".

A friend on my Facebook stated after Connecticut allowed for same sex marriage... "Separation of church and state! Way to go Connecticut!"
Well, I can't agree with you more my friend. Let's separate the church institution of marriage from every state! Let's let the church and its sacraments be separated from the state. Permanently!

And that "separation of church and state" thing is something I am going to tackle in an upcoming blog but suffice to say, those of you who scream that all the time don't even know what that means! (hint... it's NOT in the constitution. At least not in the context that you want it to represent. But. Alas. That is for another day!)

Anyway...

I have referenced an article from the New York Times (I know... can you believe) that I felt really spoke to this subject. It's worth the read.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/26/opinion/26coontz.html?ref=opinion

Until next time. Remember. I'm a lovah not a fightah.

Andy