July 14, 2004
The GOP today faced a well deserved defeat today in their efforts to amend our constitution to specifically ban gay marriage. The amendment failed to gather enough votes to even allow further debate. Some of those opposed to the GOP amendment were republicans themselves; some conservative, several moderate. The main reason there were conservatives against the amendment was because they see it as a federal infringement on what has been a states issue since the founding of our republic. The moderates were opposed because they did not want to place bigotry into our constitution.
I am wholly against gay marriage. Why? I see it as a greater issue than just what is debated right now. My strong Catholic faith reaffirms to me that marriage is a sacrement of the church. Something that the state nor any government should have control or say in. The main problem is that the state "taxes" marriage in the issuance of a "marriage certificate". Why did they try and exert state control over what always has been a religous ceremony and in many faiths, a true sacrement?
Our founding fathers fully intended for our government to operate independently of any state sponsored religion. In their time, it was not necessary to write into our constitution the percieved constructs of what was termed an acceptable "marriage". If this definition would have been advanced earlier in the history of our country, marriages between different races would have been prohibited, marriages between different religions also would have prohibited, and even marriages between catholics and protestants would not have been allowed. Were they wrong in their interpretation of what construed an appropriate relationship for marriage?
I am not advancing gay marriage by any means. What I do advocate is that the state redefine its involvement in marriage. A marriage should only take place in the confines of a religous ceremony. That is where it originated and hundreds of years of government involvement in marriage has only weakened it as an institution. If a couple chooses to affirm their relationship with a civil union in a courthouse, or in front of a judge, or even a notary public, they should be allowed to do so, even gay people. They should be allowed all the protections that the law would allow a married couple to have, such as survivorship rights, child custody, rights of visitation, etc, because these rights are not something that can be taken away by a government or a religion, these are natural human rights that are irrevocable to the individual. If a state wants to require a couple considering marriage by the means of a religous ceremony to also have the same "license" as that of those engaging in a civil union, thats appropriate as well. Marriage then goes back to be performed in front of the pastor, where it should be.
The candidates for president and vice president are not having to address this potentially divisive issue before the election by a vote in the senate, and that is a benefit to the electoral process. Our current vice president's stance on this issue even differs from that of his wife. We are much better off considering this issue in many other ways before we attempt to amend our constitution based on blatantly partisan politics this election year.
The GOP today faced a well deserved defeat today in their efforts to amend our constitution to specifically ban gay marriage. The amendment failed to gather enough votes to even allow further debate. Some of those opposed to the GOP amendment were republicans themselves; some conservative, several moderate. The main reason there were conservatives against the amendment was because they see it as a federal infringement on what has been a states issue since the founding of our republic. The moderates were opposed because they did not want to place bigotry into our constitution.
I am wholly against gay marriage. Why? I see it as a greater issue than just what is debated right now. My strong Catholic faith reaffirms to me that marriage is a sacrement of the church. Something that the state nor any government should have control or say in. The main problem is that the state "taxes" marriage in the issuance of a "marriage certificate". Why did they try and exert state control over what always has been a religous ceremony and in many faiths, a true sacrement?
Our founding fathers fully intended for our government to operate independently of any state sponsored religion. In their time, it was not necessary to write into our constitution the percieved constructs of what was termed an acceptable "marriage". If this definition would have been advanced earlier in the history of our country, marriages between different races would have been prohibited, marriages between different religions also would have prohibited, and even marriages between catholics and protestants would not have been allowed. Were they wrong in their interpretation of what construed an appropriate relationship for marriage?
I am not advancing gay marriage by any means. What I do advocate is that the state redefine its involvement in marriage. A marriage should only take place in the confines of a religous ceremony. That is where it originated and hundreds of years of government involvement in marriage has only weakened it as an institution. If a couple chooses to affirm their relationship with a civil union in a courthouse, or in front of a judge, or even a notary public, they should be allowed to do so, even gay people. They should be allowed all the protections that the law would allow a married couple to have, such as survivorship rights, child custody, rights of visitation, etc, because these rights are not something that can be taken away by a government or a religion, these are natural human rights that are irrevocable to the individual. If a state wants to require a couple considering marriage by the means of a religous ceremony to also have the same "license" as that of those engaging in a civil union, thats appropriate as well. Marriage then goes back to be performed in front of the pastor, where it should be.
The candidates for president and vice president are not having to address this potentially divisive issue before the election by a vote in the senate, and that is a benefit to the electoral process. Our current vice president's stance on this issue even differs from that of his wife. We are much better off considering this issue in many other ways before we attempt to amend our constitution based on blatantly partisan politics this election year.
posted by Mark at 4:37 PM
0 comments
