Skip to main content

Marriage - (re)Defined?


Here's the definition of "marriage" from m-w.com:

Definition of MARRIAGE

1
a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage marriage
>
b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock
c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2
: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3
: an intimate or close union marriage
 of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross


I have struggled with this. As members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, we are encouraged to support marriage as being exclusive to definition 1.a.(1) above. The concerns regarding same-sex marriage revolve around a couple of different things:

1. The idea that we are promoting, encouraging, or at least tacitly endorsing a lifestyle that is in opposition to historical, social, and religious tradition.

2. That such actions reduce the level or quality of our society.

3. That family is best when it involves a mother and a father.

4. That somehow if we allow this kind of thing, we are sowing the seeds of our ultimate demise as a nation, culture, and society.

I find this line of reasoning troubling. I don't see how allowing another couple to marry affects me and my marriage in any way. Maybe I am just not getting it. But I really don't understand.

To the first point, what is currently considered tradition is a nebulous, fluctuating thing. That traditional marriage is the only acceptable form of relationship seems to disregard all of the other forms of relationship. Allowing legal unions for anyone who is of age and consents to the arrangement provides opportunities for tax breaks, visitation rights, survivor benefits, etc, that are currently reserved only for those who are legally married. I've heard people say that marriage - the word itself - is what is at issue. That by changing what "marriage" means, we weaken the institution itself. I don't find that to be the case. My marriage is not affected by what others do. Someone divorcing does not affect my marriage. Two people cohabitating does not affect my marriage. My marriage belongs to me and my spouse alone, and to God, who blesses our union. The end. The withholding of certain legal benefits to another because one is afraid of the erosion of marriage is weak and spurious.

The second point - regarding the quality of our society - seems very much the same as the first. How does what anyone else does affect the quality of our society? And as we look to potential outcomes of same-sex marriage, it is also unclear how it would be detrimental in any way to have people who are committed to each other not enjoy the same benefits as anyone else.

The next point is interesting. The American Association of Pediatrics recently put out a statement saying that they are supporting gay marriage because it is helpful for children to be raised in an environment with a stable, committed, and loving people as parents. The gender of the parent is not significant, they pointed out. While it may be true that a child gains different things from a mother and a father, it is also true that children can and do turn out very well in families without a parent of a particular gender. And it is also true that children turn out poorly when they have parents of opposite genders. Children also turn out very well in single parent households. What seems to matter is the love and stability provided by the parent, not the parent's gender or sexual orientation.

Finally, the point about our nation. I would like to think that what a very small percentage of our nation's population is doing would not have a negative effect on our society. Those who identify themselves as gay/lesbian amount to about 3-4% of the population. This means that we are talking about 12 million people - out of 300 million. It's just not that big of an issue for most of us, while for those affected by the harsh and unfair laws, it is very, very important. What makes it such a big issue are things regarding laws and politics. It becomes divisive because it is a hot button issue. If we were somehow able to demystify the issue, I think that it's relevance would disappear as well. Why not? Why not allow people who are loving and committed enjoy the same benefits as everyone?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Christ by highest heaven adored, Christ the everlasting Lord!

The purpose of the Book of Mormon is to testify of Christ and bring souls to Him. Who can deny this who have read the book and pondered it's sacred import? My life has been blessed and I have come to know Christ through reading this holy book. I know that Christ lives and loves us. I know He is our Savior and Redeemer. I know that through His merits alone we are saved from an eternity of misery and woe. I know that He died for us. I know He lives for us, advocating our cause before the throne of the Almighty. He is the author and finisher of our faith. He is the Master, the Son of God, the great Jehovah. Blessed and praised be His Holy Name forever and ever! To Him be all glory, honor, and majesty to an eternal day! It is the atonement of Christ - His suffering and subsequent victory - that makes all of this possible. His grace is sufficient for all after all we can do. And make no mistake - we must do all in our power. But through Him and by Him we can and will overcome. I love H
2 comments
Read more

2020 - A retrospective

 There will no doubt be many retrospectives written about the year that was 2020. It was a tough year for most, a good year for many, and generally speaking a very interesting year. Which reminds me of the the old curse - may you live in interesting times. Because, you see - interesting does not always mean good. It does not mean better. It does not mean happy. It just means interesting. So to highlight just how interesting things were, I offer the following post about things that went on. Or didn’t went on. It’s not intended to be chronological, necessarily, or even accurate. It’s just some of my observations.... Let’s start with the pandemic. Pandemic is a word that was previously the realm of science fiction and/or horror writers (The Stand comes to mind). Late 2019 a disease was identified in Wuhan, China, which is a place I’d never heard of before. Apparently coming from some kind of exotic meat market, this strain of Coronavirus was something that the world hadn’t seen before. Ma
Post a Comment
Read more

Is this thing still on?

 Does anyone even blog anymore? I remember when it first got started and everyone was having a blog. I like writing, and I do a lot of it in my professional life, but not everything makes it onto this blog, which is where a lot of my personal thoughts come out. I put more into Facebook lately, too, because it's a little easier. But there's something to be said for this long-form writing exercise, and I think I will continue here periodically. You don't mind, do you? Well, in my last post I wrote about how difficult things were for me at the time. That changed in July when I finally got a job working for the State of Utah. I was the program manager for the moderate income housing database program, and that meant I worked from home a lot but also went in to Salt Lake when needed, mostly on the train. It was a good experience, for the most part, and I'm grateful for the things I learned even in the short time I was there.  In October I started working for Weber County in t
Post a Comment
Read more