america, married
by Ryan Porter
Published: February 27, 2008
Gay marriage.
The phrase alone ignites a fire in all politically minded people. Discussion on this topic instantly brings many people to arms, whether it is to fight for liberty or to defend tradition. So what if I told you that the fire burning inside you could be laid to rest? That this issue could be settled to the satisfaction of both sides of the political divide? It can be done.
Here’s the deal.
There is a disconnect between the opposing sides of this issue, and it stems from the very word: marriage.
Opponents of gay marriage say that marriage is a union reserved for one man and one woman and the arrangement cannot be altered. This view is typically, and by typically I mean always, influenced by the religious belief that homosexuality is immoral. Marriage did in fact originate in Christendom as a God-ordained union between believers joined in “holy matrimony.” Therefore, opponents view gay marriage as a corruption of a religious institution. They will rarely say that this is their reason for opposition as they dress it up in an argument for “tradition,” but I have not come across any atheists who oppose gay marriage.
Proponents of gay marriage believe that the issue falls under the right to pursue happiness and cite that it is not made illegal under the constitution. They argue that it will not negatively affect anyone, and while it may be nontraditional, tradition is not lawful. Although marriage has Christian roots, marriage itself has been secularized and is no longer reserved solely for believers.
Most churches, of course, side with opponents for the same reasons, but let us be realistic. Many Americans are not Christians and, therefore, cannot be expected to live Christian lives. Muslims would never expect me, a Christian, to live a Muslim life, so why should our expectations be any different?
So what is the solution? Basically there ought to be two distinct kinds of marriage: one governed by the Church and one governed by the State with each enforcing their own rules. These distinctions must be quite definite so it is clear under which umbrella of standards one resides. This solution goes one step further than civil unions. With this system in place the Church can maintain its belief-based institution and those outside the Church can take advantage of the benefits of a State-sanctioned union.
This system will actually be advantageous to both sides. Homosexuals will get the obvious benefits that married couples do now, and the Church will regain a distinct, sacred institution that has been secularized, in its view, since its inception. Win-win, right?
At this point the proposed solution seems to be the only reasonable way to solve the issue. Although marriage has traditionally been a heterosexual union there is no constitutional basis for the prevention of homosexual marriage. Religion operates on tradition. Government operates on laws. The two must not be confused. As Father of the Constitution (and fairly credible reference on American law) James Madison said, there must be a “perfect separation” between church and state and any overlap will serve as a “…corrupting influence on both…”
Smart guy, that Madison.
—
(email this article or post to social network)
—
April 19th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Well thank you, I have been trying to figure this one out for a long time. Your solution makes sense to me.