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

Popular posts from this blog

Baptism

Yesterday Ellie was baptized. She turned eight on January 27, 2020, and she made the decision to be baptized. I want to tell you a little bit about Ellie. I have never met a child that is quite like Ellie. She is full of life and fire and joy and light. She knows no fear and is infectious in her passion for life and for goodness and for FUN!!! Above all things, she seeks the joy and fun in life. She is also wickedly clever and funny, she’s a delight to be around and makes everyone feel so good. Because she is happy, she wants everyone else to be happy. I first met sweet Elizabeth in 2018, and on the day I met her she was not feeling well. We decided that a movie would be a fun thing for a sick little girl, so I brought one of my favorites to share with her - The Neverending Story. When I got to the house, I picked her right up. It had been a very long time since I was able to pick up a girl, and she snuggled right into my arms. Her poor sick body was warm, but I was more impressed ...

Excommunication

My heart is heavy this morning. I read that Kate Kelly and others are being brought up on Church disciplinary action. For those who are unfamiliar with the process/proceedings of LDS Church discipline, it can be a bit mystifying. There are several levels of censure that the Church may impose. These range from a simple removal of some privileges for a short period of time to the most severe action - excommunication. When one is excommunicated, the person's membership in the Church is terminated. It is a very extreme measure, and for the faithful it can be a very difficult thing to consider. What people don't understand - what is nearly impossible for someone outside the proceedings to understand - is the amount of love felt. It's discipline. It's intended to be harsh (at times). And it's intended to be unpleasant. But it is done with love and care for the person. Since excommunication is such an extreme measure, it is really only very rarely applied. There are ...

Ephesus

Paul got around. Ephesus is right on the Aegean Sea, on the coast of present-day Turkey. Yesterday he was in Galatia, which was much more towards the middle of Turkey. And when he actually wrote these letters, he was in Rome... So the man could travel. He probably walked. Today's item of interest comes from chapter one in Ephesians. Verses 18 and 19 are particularly interesting: 18 The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints, 19 And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power This is not the first time Paul talks about an inheritance. In Galatians he talks about the inheritance that comes of being part of the Abrahamic Covenant. He notes that we are joint-heirs through and with Christ. In Ephesians, he uses the word "adoption" - that we are adopted as the Children of Jesus Chris...