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

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...

Lucky!

So Tomorrow is Amie's birthday. The 12 th is Andy's. The 14 th is Alex's. And the 26 th is mom's. Happy birthday everyone. I recently found that a member of our ward has been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. Pancreatic cancer has a survivability rate of less than 5% and you never, ever kick it, even if you live. Once diagnosed, people are expected to live about six months. My wife and I were talking about this wonderful woman. There are very few (too few) people in this world who shine. Literally. This sister shines with a light that is perceptible and discernible . The world will literally be a darker place without her in it. Life is short, folks. Too short for hard feelings, too short for pain and misunderstanding. I love you all so much. Sorry this one is such a downer... I don't mean to be lugubrious on your birthdays... I consider myself lucky to be your brother. You have and continue to bless me and my family in many ways, for which I will be eternally gra...

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 ...