Protecting Marriage --- From What?
By:
In recent weeks we have heard a lot about
gay marriage. We are now being told that we need a constitutional amendment to
prevent gays from getting married to protect the sanctity of marriage. One has
to wonder about the hypocrisy of such statement. And, the deeper question becomes do we really
want the government regulating people’s love life?
To begin this discussion let us ask what
the state of marriage is today?
Over the course of human history marriage
has meant different things. In the past
it was a religious/social contract, often arranged and having nothing to do
with love, where women became property thus protecting the blood/property line
for the aristocracy. As we Americanized
it and moved into the 20th century it became supposedly more
romanticized with love entering the picture.
Out of this love men and women married for life and out of this bond
families were formed.
But the state of marriage today in its
reality, is no longer sacred; nor, has little to do with love or family as is
claimed. Such may be the ideal, and there are those who are out there; but it
is not the societal reality. Marriage
has been reduced to a contract that protects the property rights of the parties
involved and offers certain legal and social benefits.
While it is claimed that marriage is a sacred
institution and the hub of family, with the divorce rate at 50% and children
being passed back and forth between parents, the reality of this claim becomes
hypocrisy at best. This is without
mentioning the portrayal of marriage in entertainment where cheating spouses
are often the central theme, or women compete to marry the rich guy. And recent surveys show that cheating spouses
are epidemic in our society; is such art imitating life or the reverse? While there are many in our society who may
see and adhere to the sacredness of marriage, for the state to involve itself
anymore than it already has is completely absurd.
It would seem that if the government were
truly worried about the state of holy matrimony in our society it would be much
more concerned with the divorce rate and the spousal cheating as being the
major threat to marriage, rather than the idea of two same sex people
committing to each other in a union of love.
Divorce divides children, often putting them in a terrible psychological
dilemma. Divorce often leaves a single parent household creating hardship for
one particular spouse.
And,
if one wants to talk about threats to the institution of marriage
and family ideals, one only needs watch the show “Who Wants to Marry a
Millionaire”. Or, watch any soap opera where cheating, lying, and dysfunction
are the norm. The sit-coms also poke fun
at marriage reflecting bickering couples with dysfunctional families as the
normal state. Entertainment such as this is not only in poor taste, but plays
on the greed and shallowness of our society incorporating such into this so
called sacred institution. Our cultural institution of media degrades marriage
by cheapening its value. And, the blame
does not rest totally with the media, for television and movies only reflect what
viewers choose to watch. Do we need a
constitutional amendment banning such entertainment? Would there be much support for a
constitutional amendment banning divorce.
The idea that gay marriage would somehow
threaten marriage is ridiculous. Exactly
what is the threat? Are we somehow
afraid if we allow gays to marry that everyone is going to turn
homosexual? That does not seem
likely! Is the idea of two people of the
same sex committing to each other in a monogamous relationship less appealing
to society than the stereotypical image of the promiscuous gay lifestyle? Are heterosexual marriages in any way
threatened by the fact that two people of a minority orientation choose to
commit to each other?
Mounting a podium and shouting we need to
protect the institution of marriage from gay unions is ridiculous with the
other social economic problems that often turn marriage from a joyous state
into a nightmare. Loss of employment, lack of family medical coverage, the lack
of time for parents to spend with their children: are all far more of a social
threat to the sacred institution than homosexual marriage. It is
a case of projection of reality, instead of dealing with the social and personal
problems that truly threaten marriage, let’s blame someone else’s life style
for the mess. It’s analogous to the
stupidity of blaming immigrants for job loss, or lack of prayer in the schools
for juvenile crime.
Here again, when we examine the situation,
this whole issue is really about people telling someone else how to live, when
the reality is that it does not effect them in the least. It is about amending the constitution to
adhere to religious beliefs. Even if one
finds homosexuality sinful because of religious beliefs, that choice is really
between the individual and God --- maybe
we just should let God deal with gay couples who decide to commit to each other
in love. Again, in reality, there is no
personal threat to an individual’s religious concepts. When any society begins regulating the
freedoms of their citizens because of religious beliefs there is grave danger,
and marriage as it is being defined by the right is a religious concept. Like abortion protestors, the issue is used
to obscure the real problems; while they fight this issue, children starve, are
beaten, and brought up in homes without love.
We have a right to pass laws to protect our
individual rights for the common good such as against murder or theft. But such a law to define marriage goes right
to the heart of civil liberties, and discriminates against a great many
people. Historically speaking we have
had all kinds of laws about marriage in the past, for example at one time in
our history a black could not marry a white.
Over the years the idea of marriage has evolved, lest we forget that at
one time women who married became subject to their husband’s rule and had very
few rights for themselves. The
patriarchal society of that time fought hard to resist any changes on women’s rights
in a marriage using biblical based arguments to support their claims. Do we really want to base our social order on
the ideas spouted in the Old Testament?
Women in particular would have a lot to fear from that.
And, the idea that marriage is only about
family and having children begs the question: what about barren couples? Should we also deprive them of getting
married?
And, what of this idea of
a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage? The Constitution of the
In recent days this whole issue has
become a political hot potato. It is hoped with so many real issues in the
world that effect the lives of people directly, such as war, economic strife
and health care; we do not use such a personal value oriented issue to overshadow
the bigger problems. The president
stated recently that he was very “concerned about this gay marriage issue”;
perhaps, he should be more concerned with the loss of American lives due to the
misinformation that sent us into an unnecessary war --- or maybe more concern about the Americans
without employment or healthcare. The reality is this issue is trivial compared
to the problems facing
People may not be supportive of a
homosexual lifestyle, but there are many things we are not supportive of that
flourish in a free society. People often
do not like other people’s religions, or lack of religion, but we would not
think of laws or amendments to ban them.
Our appetites differ, our politics differ, our appeal of entertainment
differs --- but only a very small minority of people would think of regulating
such freedoms. What we fail to see here
is that our sexual preferences and behavior is one of the most personal aspects
of our nature, more personal than even our religious beliefs --- why would we
open a Pandora’s Box of regulation on such a personal freedom. Of what real concern to a society is there
about what two people do in their beds --- so long as it is adult, consenting,
and causes no infringement on the right of the other? While it may be natural to fear what is
different, laws should never be written based upon fear alone --- and, what
other logical, non-religious, reason might one have for banning gay marriage?
The real problems marriages face today are
in our not being able to see the forest through the trees. Marriage, first and
foremost should be about love. Love is
forever, not until we get tired of one another.
Love is about people working out their problems, sticking by each other
in difficult times, and has little to do with contracts, constitutional
amendments, or law. These are really cop
outs for the individual’s ability to commit true love to one another. Marriage is threatened today from the
cultural acceptability of divorce and the ease with which individuals are
willing to throw in the towel. Marriage
is threatened today by the cavalier way in which people take their vows, seldom
taking the time to contemplate the seriousness of the commitment they
take. There is often more thought given
to the wedding day festivities than the reality of a so-called life long
commitment.
The threats facing marriage today are not
really from without --- they are within, in the individual’s inability to stick
to the commitments they make. Marriage is not about what the law says it is, it is about the individual commitment two people make to
one another. In reality, marriage is not
about a contract despite what our social criteria states; marriage is about
personal commitment --- and that has everything to do with personal
freedom. In many ways it is an absurdity
that people need a license to commit their love to one another!
|
|
Please email us with your thoughts