The Amendment Proposed:
Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman. No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect.
The first sentence is ok in my mind. If people want to be anal-retentive on that terminology, so be it. I guess I agree that different terms should apply to traditional unions vs non-traditional unions.
The second part is the discriminatory part. This is being taken as the ability of companies and the like to deny any sort of benefits to a life partner. It also helps to stop one partner from being able to visit the other, or to provide medical decisions in various situations. Now, if you've lived with someone for 30 years, they most likely know you.... why shouldn't they be allowed to obtain your medical records or make decisions? There would obviously have to be extra legal precaution to be sure that both parties want this to be the case, but isn't it worth it?
I don't see how voting No on this in any way discriminates against anyone.... a No vote leaves the issue to still be resolved, and changes nothing regarding straight couples. You can't argue that providing medical and job-related benefits to same-sex couples is somehow discriminating againt straight couples.... you're just providing equal rights to both groups. I'd concede that we shouldn't provide job-related benefits unless the two are in a legal union; however, the medical things like making life-or-death decisions should be provided to same-sex couples just as with straight couples. Maybe have a cohabitation requirement? That way, there's a better chance that both will know the other's preferences.
The legal process we have now for straight couples could and should be applied to same-sex couples. I've known gay people in my life (one lives on my floor), and they are people too.... they should be treated as such.
Finally, to draw some parallels inspired by other readings. Do we disallow non-white couples benefits that white couples are allowed? No. Do we disallow non-Christian couples benefits that Christians are provided? No. (Please understand that this is just an example, and the groups picked out have no significance other than that they provide 2 different groupings to compare.) Race, religion.... why not sexual orientation, too?
Another interesting point gleaned from my Religion class that weakens religious moral arguments: In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus specifically states that divorce in ANY case but being unchaste is not allowed.... but society today allows it. If you don't allow homosexual unions, don't you then have to disallow divorce?
Posted 10/30/2004 at 12:20 AM by golferzozz
don't get me started on measure one or the defensive marriage amendment
four arguments
I. Religious Institution
II. Sanctity not protected thru Disallowment
III. Tenth Amendment > Let's keep it that way <
IV. Full Faith and Credit
Posted 10/30/2004 at 12:59 AM by wjethromiller
If we're going to divorce the church completely from state, we'll have this as an issue. As Christians, we believe the marriages should be permanent for life. We also believe that marrying of a different race is unadvisable. Let me explain that last sentence, so I'm not considered a racist pig--if we take modern biology, and compare different human "races," we find very little difference that makes up what color we are (very little compared to the total difference between each, EACH human). Race, to Christians, is whether we believe in the same God or not. Marrying someone who is also a Christian helps us be a Christian. Marrying someone who is not can be detrimental to faith. A lot of earlier biology dealing with the descent of man considered aborigines and other races to be less evolved--giving a reason for people to scream their racism at people. But God tells us to love everyone.
If we were to institute a "perfect" institution of marriage in Christianity, it would be in an environment where marriage is encouraged by the rest of the society (village, if you will) and divorce would be almost non-existent. Everybody is working to build up the marriage, instead of the junk we see on television about the greener grass on the other side of the fence. Divorce would be only in this case of the unchaste problem. But we are considered to be united in flesh to the person we marry and have sex with.
State run marriages require divorce. You're not going to have the same amount of commitment, the same type of village, and all the other factors in each case of marriage. Some state marriages are longer lasting than church done (probably), but in a Christian marriage, these commitment values should be higher, though you can't see these of the soon to be wed couple. What I'm trying to say is that Christian marriage is/should be more of a big thing. It's more serious, and the commitment should be higher. After all, we're continuing the human race and filling up the globe.
As for your last question, "If you don't allow homosexual unions, don't you then have to disallow divorce?" There is nothing stopping us from doing so. No law tells us that if we take something from the Bible, we have to take all of it. Now this is a pretty ridiculous, childish remark, so I'll try to enunciate another possibility. I guess I'd have to say that in Christian marriages, where we take care of what God thinks, we shouldn't allow gay marriage. Of course, I can't decide for each church that they can or cannot allow them. As for state run marriages, why call them marriages? I would say they are civil unions. Marriage has never really been defined by civilization--more of a description of what's there. We've had men and women throughout the age of the Earth being together and producing offspring. This is what our bodies were made for--one of each sex. Two of the same is not a natural body function.
So when I (or any other) argue from a stance that's Biblical, I'm called a religious nut, and when I say that it's not natural for any other behavior than for a man to have sex with a woman (I would add here: in the blessing of marriage, but see first clause), I'm called a homophobe or behind the times. Marriages of different races and different religions were accepted in times past, why can't you accept marriages of same sex? It's just not natural--it goes against nature. So I guess that means these are the definitions I would say or the view I would see: marriage is between a man and a wife--generally the best type of environment for a kid to grow up in--and should be done soley by the church. A civil union is between two consenting adults and is done by the state.
But even then, if we cannot distinguish what is natural (ie: those who say it's a trait, not a choice compared to the natural body function), and do not rely on some authority, what can we say about this certain thing? If we cannot figure out if it's natural or not and we don't quote some authority, in this case the Bible, for what marriage should be, how can it be defined at all?
Now for a side note. Cohabitation is practically always a bad thing, at least for heterosexuals. The chance of physical abuse is higher for the woman and also for any kids that might come along, even if the parents get married before their child is born. The chance that any marriage will end in divorce is higher after cohabitation. Many other things can go awry like this. Requiring homosexuals to cohabit is an invitation for disaster, but maybe I'm just tired.