This has been a hot topic of conversation even before California's Proposition 8 received so much attention. My husband and I have wondered out loud at what is to be done and how, while remaining true to the Constitution, our government would respond to this issue.
My father-in-law is a Californian who read the document and said the reason it needed to be put down was not the issue of homosexual marriages, but some anti-discrimination wording that would force churches to perform gay marriages even if they felt it was immoral or against their religious beliefs. I haven't read it, but this post isn't exactly about that.
For me, I've wondered if the government would have to remove itself from the definition of "marriage" and only recognize "civil unions" whether they were of a hetero-, homo-, bi-, poly- or best friend sort of nature for tax, insurance and census purposes. This would leave the definition of "marriage" up to religious groups who believe there are moral or eternal purposes and consequences to who we bind ourselves to (and how) in this life while equalizing the pursuit of life and liberty for all of America's citizens.
It really is a messy business and it is far from over. But, I came across something I'd like to share with those willing to take the time to read it. There is a gentlemen who is not only passionate about this topic, but he has some depth and logic in his viewpoint that may include some things you have not considered. For me, the most interesting portion was his presentation of the history of same sex relationships and how they were not necessarily normal in that everyone was doing it, but accepted as a natural, loving bond instead of something, well, queer. He goes on to give some analogies about marriage that I hadn't thought of -- perhaps because my family has a long history of NOT getting and/or staying married. Please read with an open mind and share with me what you learn. It is the Mormon Midrashim's four part series on gay marriage.
My father-in-law is a Californian who read the document and said the reason it needed to be put down was not the issue of homosexual marriages, but some anti-discrimination wording that would force churches to perform gay marriages even if they felt it was immoral or against their religious beliefs. I haven't read it, but this post isn't exactly about that.
For me, I've wondered if the government would have to remove itself from the definition of "marriage" and only recognize "civil unions" whether they were of a hetero-, homo-, bi-, poly- or best friend sort of nature for tax, insurance and census purposes. This would leave the definition of "marriage" up to religious groups who believe there are moral or eternal purposes and consequences to who we bind ourselves to (and how) in this life while equalizing the pursuit of life and liberty for all of America's citizens.
It really is a messy business and it is far from over. But, I came across something I'd like to share with those willing to take the time to read it. There is a gentlemen who is not only passionate about this topic, but he has some depth and logic in his viewpoint that may include some things you have not considered. For me, the most interesting portion was his presentation of the history of same sex relationships and how they were not necessarily normal in that everyone was doing it, but accepted as a natural, loving bond instead of something, well, queer. He goes on to give some analogies about marriage that I hadn't thought of -- perhaps because my family has a long history of NOT getting and/or staying married. Please read with an open mind and share with me what you learn. It is the Mormon Midrashim's four part series on gay marriage.
I learned that real life is not made up of clear-cut dichotomies. There may be a third option that no one's thought of, rather than same sex marriage being legal or illegal. I also love what he has to say about the lateral vs. the vertical relationships. I think he had some good points when he talked about the pressure that lateral (sometimes same sex relationships) will experience from being categorized as marriages the same as vertical relationships. That's something I never thought of.
ReplyDelete