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

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...

Engaged

Three Dog Night got it wrong.  One is not the loneliest number. They were more accurate when they said Two can be as bad as one.  I really wonder how people can survive Without being fully engaged. How they live through each day Without the intimacy I so very much crave... Maybe I am unusual in my desire  To have this intimacy, To want to feel that soul So close to my own Sharing light and warmth, Sharing love and passion, Sharing life. Alas! Alas! Alas! For when I do seek to share It is often only to be rebuffed Denied Or used up, Sucked dry, And left an empty husk.  I want SO MUCH to share And all I have is the cold, digital world Of typing out a blog.

The Other Art

I'm not sure we appreciate photography as much as we do other art forms. Part of this comes from the reality that surrounds and permeates a photograph - it's very, very real, and the photographer strives for clarity and crispness in the representations. Perhaps this is why black and white images continue to be relevant - they strip away extraneous information (color) and leave us with something that is at once familiar and also non-existent - for nothing exists in black and white. Nothing. I also think that pictures are becoming too common-place... Everyone has a camera in their pocket, and while that's a very democratic thing (everyone can express themselves in a picture easily and readily, and can find an audience for these images, which are casually taken and casually viewed, and perhaps just as casually forgotten) I think that we embrace that casual attitude, and it spills over to all aspects of the media, making it impotent. So I read this article this morning: h...