 |
Editorial, Salem Gazette, Friday, April 28, 2006
When discussing same-sex marriages, as it seems we'll be doing for the foreseeable future, the question that should be considered is not whether homosexual couples have the right to be married; it's why the government should have any official say in the matter at all. The institution of marriage is just one of many holdovers from a time in our country's early history when the church and state, while theoretically separate, were, for better or worse, culturally united. Marriage was not invented in the halls of Congress, it was and always has been a religious rite.
In Christian early America, church leaders insisted it be defined as the bond between a man and a woman, and similarly religiously indoctrinated governmental leaders followed suit as they fashioned laws to insure the sanctity of marriage and the welfare of its participants (even, however inexplicably, through the creation of tax breaks).
In 2004, we heard a discussion among state legislators who want to appease those on one side of the issue by maintaining marriage as being between a man and a woman, while offering "civil unions" to same-gender couples. In reality, however, government never should have been in the business of legislating a religious institution like marriage in the first place. If the state has a say in what constitutes a legal marriage, why doesn't it also govern our baptisms, confirmations, Eucharistic ceremonies, and the like?
Ultimately, marriage is, and always should have been, the exclusive domain of religious institutions, not legislative bodies. Government never really should have been doing anything other than recognizing civil unions in whatever way it's legislators see fit - primarily, without discrimination and, secondarily, in accordance with the desires of its people, as with other civil matters.
It may all be more a matter of semantics than anything. In effect, our government should abolish "marriage" within the context of its laws and tax codes, and license only civil unions. The church should neither expect nor desire the government to define marriage or dictate it course. There's little wonder why legislators are floundering around so badly on the subject of what should be a strictly religious matter. These are not our spiritual standard bearers, despite the fact that archaic and inappropriate laws, which have long clouded the separation of church and state, continue to cast them in such roles.
The current debate over same-sex marriage is just another one of the growing pains our nation faces as it comes to grips with the fact that we do not live in a theocracy, that legislators are no longer assumed to be Christian (however variously understood), and that we cannot expect our elected officials to effectively legislate morality.
Any couple should be legally allowed to enter into a civil union. For those who insist on getting married, talk to your religious leaders, not your lawmakers.
 |
= |
Gay Fabulous!
(These places are especially welcoming to gay and lesbians. We are in the process of evaluating every listing on our site to determine their "fabulousness." Let us know if you feel a listing should be designated as Gay Fabulous or to suggest a listing we might have missed entirely!) |
All images and text © copyright GaySalem.com and cannot be used without permission. |
|
