Mirage of Marriage
There
is no reason why Gays, or Lesbians should not be able to marry. It is
a basic civil liberty that we as a people have the right to pursue
happiness. It is guaranteed in the Constitution. Civil Unions are the
alternative poised by the opposition, which falls under the
principles of separate but equal. We know how that turned out.
Separate is never equal. You may object to the premise behind a man
expressing love for another man, but outside of religious text, give
me one good reason that they can not share the bonds of matrimony?
"And
if that is right, it is problematic treating like cases differently,
“separate but equal,”discrimination for the law to recognize
homosexual and infertile heterosexual couples differently, even if,
as under a civil union regime, the difference is only of name"
(Steorts
2011)
People clamor about the sanctity of marriage when there are more
divorces in our country then ever before. The Kardashians made a
mockery of marriage by televising a multimillion ceremony that ended
hours after the last check was cashed.
In
2004, President George W. Bush said: "If
courts create their own arbitrary definition of marriage as a mere
legal contract and cut marriage off from its cultural, religious, and
natural roots, then the meaning of marriage is lost and the
institution is weakened." He offered no support
for the cultural history of marriage and obviously failed to review that
portion of history. The natural roots of marriage are in fact a legal
contract to provide clear succession of title and wealth for the
spouse and any children that could have come from the union.
"Marriage reform, and the discussions that it provoked, raised
questions not simply about love and personal happiness, but also
matters of prime importance to the
State: issues about the nature of equality and individual liberty;
the role of the State or Church (and their institutions of
administration, judicature and governance) in personal comportment
and affiliation; the nature of the household and of property
transfer; duties of individuals to each other; citizenship rights;
population increase; the meaning of care and obedience."
(Achinstein
2010) Achinstien goes on further to break down the legal and
contractual issues of marriage in her paper. While the 1600's might not be a huge account throughout history, it
shows a precedence that is a mere four hundred years old.
In
addition the reference to the sanctity of marriage brings up yet
another point of the contract issues of marriage. Sanctity by
definition is a holy word, it has religious connotation rather then a
legal ramification. "I
contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American
people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, prohibiting the free
exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of
separation between church and State."
(Thomas Jefferson) If a founding father felt that the intrusion of of
the church in affairs of the business of government was of such great
importance, I am sure there was a damn good reason. So let us get to
the real issue here, as to how a another couple getting married
reflects on our own views of marriage, or what does the married
couple get out of it. There are of course tax breaks, immigration
issues, and without citing the variety of issues that come with those
fiscal benefits, tell me how a homosexual couple would violate those
privileges any different then a heterosexual couple would?
The
modern perception of marriage is not based on these fiscal or
parental needs anymore. When you think marriage you think love, not
coitus resulting in the production of offspring. It is not
permissible to divorce your spouse on the simple basis that they
failed to provide you with children. I am sure you can use that as a
basis of an argument, and even in that it is easier to get divorced
then it is to get married in our country. Divorce laws support
something as simple as irreconcilable differences can result in the
termination on the marriage contract. Yet to get married you have to
submit to the license acquisition process, pay several fees, and many
times receive consoling from a member of the church you wish to be
married in. You have to get married by an official invested with the
legal power to oversee the ceremonial union. In some states you
merely need to share cohabitation with an eligible person for a set
period of time to be presented as a married couple though. With such
paradoxical restrictions on the terms of what is legally marriage
though, I find it hard to defend the idea of the sanctity of marriage
being protected for any other reason then enforced religious
discrimination.
Modern
marriage has an affiliation of a more emotional regard. The accepted
norm is that two people fall in love, if that love last they
celebrate it with a union. That union is refereed to legally as
marriage. Part of the magic of love is that you do not get to pick
with whom you fall in love with, and that is not a quantifiable
aspect that government has the right to judge or rate. It is an
emotional counterbalance that needs to be separated from the state
as the church, and for the same reasons. Logic and civil expectations
are not welcome in the emotional acceptation of religious ideology.
To do so opens more doors to disrupt the civil liberties of others
that do not happen to agree with the religious views of those in
power. I cite Afghanistan or Iran as a prime examples of the dangers
of a theocracy. It is an understanding of the definition of marriage
that we have to tread carefully in order to support our rights and
freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. In that assumption of the
freedom of religion also implies the freedom from religion. Laws
should enforce the social morality without regard to the emotional
affairs of the citizenry of the country. In essence laws should not
impede upon happiness, but rather protect the pursuit thereof.
In
establishing this as a civil right one might argue that being
homosexual is a choice, and therefore does not warrant the
protections under law of racial views or cultural behavior. A person
does not choose to be black, or white, they are simply born that way.
Some might say that you have a choice in sexual preference, while the
jury is out on that, it would be moot to use that as a basis of
argument. Choice is the essence of freedom, and choosing to be or not
to be something does not alter the validity of that behavior or need
to be affiliated with a set group. If so then persons of any
religious perspective could be questioned on their right to practice
their faith based on it being a choice. However we have laws
established to protect homosexuals from hate crimes, and those of all
religious views. To me that establishes a precedence that regardless
if it is a choice or not, it is still subject of discrimination. So
either being homosexual is a civil liberty regardless of it being a
choice, or religious views are not a protected civil right because
they are a choice as well.
Many
years ago it was taboo to marry across racial boundaries. In the
sixties it was frowned upon for a black person to marry a white
person. The same issues of bigotry where used to support the defense
of marriage. While many arguments were presented about the disregard
of the cultural beliefs and history of marriage, laws were in enacted
to preserve and protect the right of mixed race couples to marry. No
church or social group was allowed to force their beliefs on another
for such simple racist or bigoted beliefs. It in no way harmed the
value of the marriage of those preaching about racial purity. On that
basis what reflection would two women being married reflect any
different on the marriage of a heterosexual couple? We have to ask
ourselves did that Black man, who married his White lover really harm
our own relationships or concept of marriage? Or perhaps we are just
no ready to accept the happiness of others when we ourselves struggle
to be happy, and have trouble living up to outdated concepts of
social constraints?
So
as a straight traditionally married man, I offer this as something to
ponder. If you allow others to be tread upon, how long before your
own ideology is tread upon. What makes this country great is its
ability to adjust and adapt to do what is right for all. Doing the
right thing does not always mean doing the right thing for you, it
means doing the right thing. In order to enjoy your freedom, you must
respect the freedoms of all people. You must defend them as you would
defend your own, or you will find yourself reflecting on the work of
Martin
Niemöller, "First they came for.." and standing alone with
no one else to help protect your rights as well.
Works
Cited
Steorts,
Jason Lee "Two Views of Marriage" National
Review; 2/7/2011, Vol. 63
Issue 2, p39-42, 4p .Academic
Search Premier. Web. 25 Nov. 2011.
Achinstein,
Sharon. "Saints Or Citizens? Ideas Of Marriage In
Seventeenth-Century English Republicanism."Seventeenth
Century" 25.2 (2010): 240-264.Academic Search Premier.
Web. 23 Nov. 2011.