Give Me A License....I Demand It!
Is marriage, recognized by the state with accompanying privileges, a right or a benefit?
On a strictly private basis, you and I may see marriage as a "personal, private relationship". Romantically, we see love as being the bond. And on a religious basis, I strongly believe God to be the one providing the most important connecting factor. However, a secular state recognizes neither as necessary to a binding contract of marriage. Love for one another may be quite strong, and a religious ritual may be performed, but the government sees neither as vital for a legal marriage. What is necessary is a written contract- a marriage certificate.
I liken the bestowal, by the government, of a marriage contract for a couple to that of a driver's license for a potential driver. And as we learned in High School Driver's Ed, a driver's license is not a right, but a privilege. It is granted by the people (i.e. government) with particular definitions and expectations of behaviour. One cannot arbitrarily define proper driving as driving on the left side of the road, or with the speed of 120 miles per hour. No- there is a specific definition of proper driving to which one agrees to adhere when he/she receives a license.
And if one does not like the agreed-upon standards for driving, then the burden is upon that person to change the understanding of the people, who then will change the laws of the state.
Dr. Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Religious Liberty and Ethics Commission, shares the following views in a recent article entitled Marriage: The Courts Vs. The People:
"Following a lecture I gave at Harvard in the spring of 2005, I was asked by a coed: 'Dr. Land, you seem like a nice guy. Why would you want to interfere in the personal, private relationship of two people?'
"I responded by asking how she ever got the idea that marriage is a "personal, private relationship." Marriage is a social and civic institution with profound public and societal responsibilities, obligations, and consequences. That is why every society in human history has regulated severely who can get married to whom and under what circumstances. Societies give "benefits" to marriage that they do not give to other relationships precisely because of its profound impact on society, particularly when it comes to the rearing of children. Such "benefits" are not rights, but benefits conferred upon marriage because of its importance to society.
"When the courts try to force same-sex "marriage" on Americans, their judicial overreach threatens the nation’s social fabric."
If marriage is a "benefit" instead of a "right", then it is proper for the people of the state to give specific definition. Then, cannot the people choose to define marriage as specifically being a union between a man and a woman?
01.02.07 (9:16 pm) [
edit]
posted by:
surrogate (
reply)
post date:
01.02.07 (6:25 pm)
Sure. We can define anything we wan to any way we want to. Doesn't make it right, mind you, but we can do it. We can determine that one group of people are more entitled by God to be granted the benefit... One man - perhaps an asshole - one woman, perhaps a complete jerk, but they fit the definition far more to some people because they of their sex than even the most loving and compassionate couple of the same sex. Isn't that right? No, but that doesn't really matter does it? What a shame that this is an issue. God weeps. Of that much I'm sure, and if anyone thinks God had anything to do with making sure those "rules" stayed in the Bible, they've missed the point. Again, does that matter? Not to them. They're so very SURE. Sad.
posted by:
seochris (
reply)
post date:
01.02.07 (8:01 pm)
Well we r reaching at a point of time when there is lot of mess being played. So I hope there comes some sort of system to curb in marriage failures.
posted by:
KatiesPinkShoes (
reply)
post date:
01.02.07 (8:37 pm)
This is such a tough issue. I hesitate to write my opinion here for fear of being blasted. So, here I go.
I look at this issue from two standpoints, one secular and one religious. I live my life from the religious viewpoint, having God lead my life. This means I believe the bible to be the word of God and it is where I get the guidelines by which to live my life.
I realize that not everyone chooses to live their lives by these standards and I don't judge anyone for their choice.
So, from the secular viewpoint: What is the current success rate of marriages in this country? I could google it, but I'm guessing it's less than 50%.
The failed marriages cost $ in court fees. That causes people to go into debt or fold financially. There is an emotional cost to both parties in the marriage and the innocent children involved. There is a cost to our society, which does indeed suffer from the breakdown of families.
So, with all these failures and their costs, maybe there should be some sort of requirement to prove you're able to be married and withstand all the responsiblity that comes along with it?
I would never want to be the one that decides what that requirement is. I don't believe that there will ever be one put in place.
I do, however, believe that marriage is something that most people do not take very seriously and that needs to change.
People seem to view unfaithfulness as no big deal. Having two or three marriages with multiple families is par for the course.
I think we should be teaching our children to value marriage so we create a future generation that is stronger than ours. Teaching our children is the only way the success rates of marriages will go up and that families will stay intact more often.
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
01.03.07 (6:40 am)
Reply to: surrogate
But, do the courts know better than the people how best to define marriage? Democracy is a scary thing. Sometimes we think the majority is foolish, unwise. But it's not the job of the judiciary to protect the American people from themselves. I'm pretty sure the vast majority of the American people want to exclusively define state-recognized marriage as being between a man and a woman. If the left disagrees, then convince the majority, but do not use the judiciary as a gun to force your wishes upon everyone else.
Land makes an interesting statement that causes me to pause: "When the courts try to force same-sex 'marriage' on Americans, their judicial overreach threatens the nation’s social fabric." So, he says the very basic social makeup of our nation is threatened by gay marriage. I know where he is coming from- he is writing/speaking a religious conviction. But, the United States is not a "Christian" nation. We cannot make laws based upon religious convictions. So, I need those like Richard Land to convince me that America is harmed by allowing gays to have state-recognized marriages. I believe it is a dificult argument to prove, and would be interested in the thoughts of fellow bloggers.
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
01.03.07 (6:47 am)
Reply to: seochris
I don't think the government can provide a significant solution to the rate of failed marriages. A waiting period before divorce, perhaps. Perhaps a tax break for couples who go through premarital counseling? I think this is largely an issue to be dealt with by our religious institutions.
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
01.03.07 (6:54 am)
Reply to: KatiesPinkShoes
I like your approach..."So here I go"!
Like I tried to say with seochris, I don't think the government has an adequate answer to this problem. Families and religious institutions must deal with the issue of divorce. We have too few healthy marriages and families. Children do not have proper models from which to learn and emulate.
I spent a good bit of time yesterday with an elderly couple who have a large, extended family. Their children and grandchildren have healthy marriages and families. I think a big ingredient to this is the example of this couple. They are not exceptional in lots of ways, except that they absolutely love their family. They make a habit of doing many things together, including trips and vacations. They are always there when a rite of passage is being recognized. Healthy families generally produce healthy families.
posted by:
bawdy (
reply)
post date:
01.03.07 (11:37 am)
Out of respect to churches, I object to the use of the term marriage being applied to same sex unions. I'm all for giving them the same benefits, but call it a civic union instead.
posted by:
surrogate (
reply)
post date:
01.03.07 (4:39 pm)
Reply to: PastorDave
We don't tend to let the majority rule when it comes to rights, and if folks insist on the premise that marriage is a privelidge, can we then set other accompanying rules too? For instance, I'll bet there's still a majority of people in this country who have issues with interracial marriage. Since it's a priviledge, should a simple majority vote be able to end them? I'll bet there are states in this country where, if it were reintroduced, even today, that racially separated schools would be voted back in in a heartbeat. Should those damn activist courts be told they have no right to interfere with a state's democratically determined decision to do what the heck it wants? Isn't that their priviledge? Or shouldn't it be?
I say absolutely not.
Just because we are made up of a lot of ignoramouses, or to say it better, BECAUSE we are made up of far too many ignoramouses, there are certain things on which we simply can't allow decisions to be made by a simple yea or nay of the masses.
What it comes down to is whether YOU (the big YOU, not you Dave, per sey) should be able to tell ME how to live. If you have the right to tell any two adults that they can't marry, they should have exactly the same power over you. Short of that? -It's every couple for themselves.
posted by:
Deviant 1 (
reply)
post date:
01.03.07 (11:20 pm)
Dave, Dave, Dave,
Where do you get off even sayin that "majority rules" should regulate anyone, much less everyone.
While you seem barely educated in such things as Anthro and Soc. I am surprised at your preconception here. Marriage is right? As determined by outsiders?
I know that you see past this. This article proves it in its last paragragh. I see that you can conceptualize the following: Gay men to marry in Boston. Families invited. What do you do? Shun someone you love for what you believe in or shun what you believe in for someone you love? Thats a tough question.
I get the problems families go through over this situation. What I don't get is how people (or society, which is what religion at least TRIES to be) gets off on telling people how to be.
Are you a pipeline to Jesus? Do you speak for god? WHERE DO YOU GET OFF? You are a simple person like the rest of us. If you should ever attempt to make that breach of hubris, well, I am going to have to come down there and maybe have a talk with you over wings, nachos, and maybe a couple of beers.
I never agree with you PD. You are a person however that deserves respect as such. All I need you to see is that such decisions are not yours or mine to make.
posted by:
mimi (
reply)
post date:
01.04.07 (4:02 am)
Reply to:
"All I need you to see is that such decisions are not yours or mine to make."
then whose decision is it?
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
01.04.07 (6:49 am)
Reply to: surrogate
"If you have the right to tell any two adults that they can't marry, they should have exactly the same power over you. Short of that? -It's every couple for themselves."
No rules? Then a mother should be able to have a legal marriage to her son. Siblings? Why not! And if a dozen consenting adults want to have a communal marriage, then the government must sanction and give benefits to such. And I suspect about 50,000 Mormons in Utah and Idaho would agree with your views. The way to render an institution impotent is to take away all rules.
What I am doing with this post is actively considering this premise that legally sanctioned marriage is a privilege granted by the government, and not an inalienable right. I'm wanting to find out if it truly makes sense, or is just an smoke screen used by those who really have a religious opposition to gay marriage.
At it's heart, isn't ours a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people"? If so, then we have to ultimately trust the people. Here in the US, we have an ingenious balance of states rights and federal mandate. Usually, the federal government chooses to leave final matters to the decisions of the states, but not always. Integration is an example. So would be polygamy. Such federal governance seems to take place when pockets or regions of the country are out of step with the nation as a whole, and personal rights are limited. Still, we see the will of the majority. I'm convinced a lot of people are uncomfortable with interracial marriage, but still the majority of Americans realize in the end it's nobody's business, including those who personally oppose it.
In the end, I think it most wise to trust the majority instead of the supposedly "enlightened" federal courts. When the government tells the majority, "You'll have to trust and obey me, because I know better", then really you do not have a Democracy or even a Representative Republic- you have a King. I do not want the judiciary to be my king. Trust the people.
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
01.04.07 (7:19 am)
Reply to: Deviant 1
I like your challenging reply.
You never agree with me? Good grief. I don't know that there is any person on earth I can say that about. Surely we have some common ground. Nachos, for instance. And even on this highly charged issue about which we meet.
Here's where I'm at, at this time, about civil recognition of gay relationships:
I do not want my church to recognize it as proper. It's a personal and religious matter, and of course other individuals and churches are free to disagree and have a different approach.
In society, gays should be free to pursue personal relationships without fear. The government should leave them alone. There should be no discrimination in the workplace, school, etc.
There should be legal protection for gays in committed, ongoing relationships. I do not think the government should, in any way, support promiscuity. But committed, lasting relationships should have some kind of legal protection. For example, I know of a gay couple who lived together in a monogomous relationship for years. When one of the men died, his mother was adamant that his lifetime partner have no presence or say at the funeral and no right to shared assets. I think that is improper- no, I think it is wrong. And surely our legislatures and courts can come up with a way to recognize and protect legitimate gay relationships, while still protecting a fundamental ingredient of society- marriage.
I need to try to thoughtfully reply to a question of yours: "Gay men to marry in Boston. Families invited. What do you do? Shun someone you love for what you believe in or shun what you believe in for someone you love?" I have a similar, though not exact, struggle in my own personal life. One time my youngest daughter came home and gave me some rapidfire, upsetting news. She was pregnant, intending to move out, and intending to marry a guy she hardly knew and I certainly did not know. I was upset. About a week later, they planned a wedding, and asked me to come. I refused. I knew she was making a big mistake, and stood my ground. Interestingly, the plans for marriage just disappeared. They are still shacking up, and I deeply disapprove of what I consider to be misuse of human sexuality and love. But I'm trying my best to love my daughter. Still I don't like this guy, who has no contact with my wife and I, and I consider to be a big loser- and explaining that would take lots of paragraphs that I'll write at another time.
So, what would I do if my child whom I love invited me to his/her gay wedding? I would maintain an open and hopefully loving relationship. But, I don't think I could attend the wedding.
I'm not a pipeline to Jesus. I don't speak for God. I am a simple and highly imperfect person.
Appreciate your interaction.
posted by:
babe4jesus55 (
reply)
post date:
01.04.07 (12:54 pm)
Reply to: katiespinkshoe
Oh, you hit the nail on the head! The value of marriage is slowly slipping away--whether they be opposite or same sex. In order to marry in my church the couple has to attend sessions with the pastor. Not having married myself, I'm not entirely sure what these consist of, but a couple that has told me that alot of it was practical drills, like money management and deciding who's going to be responsible for taking out the trash, etc. I would think that some sort of counseling--non-religious if so desired-- should be a requirement for couples to marry. My pastor says he has seen several couples put off or cancel their marriage as a result of this counseling.
posted by:
drforbush (
reply)
post date:
01.04.07 (1:05 pm)
Based on this same argument we could also pass laws restricting the marriage between races and even economic classes. After all, it is for the protection of society.
posted by:
surrogate (
reply)
post date:
01.04.07 (6:05 pm)
Reply to: PastorDave
I see you take the rick Santorum approach... I'm surprised you didn't throw in "next we'll have men and women marrying barn animals!" Show me ONE decision involving important individual rights we leave to the states to decide for themselves. Oh, by the way, you can't. Why? Because rights are granted by the federal constitution. Hence the folks trying so hard to suggest, for the first time in our nation's history, an ammendement that curtails rights instead of expanding them... with the exception of prohibition which has gone the way of the dodo. You show me how two gay people getting married will affect YOUR marriage (once again, not you, Dave) and I'll get on board. It's simply fear from insecure people driving this and making it an issue.
Let go! it'll be okay. The world won't collapse. If it's wrong, let God do the judging. Make you a deal. You ask ten people randomly who oppose gay marriage to name the president of Mexico... just for fun. Now that's a huge country and our neighbor. Try it, then read on.
And you want people that unaware of the world they live in making decisions about other citzens' rights? Please.
posted by:
FinalyFree (
reply)
post date:
01.05.07 (10:51 am)
Hmmm well I never have been an advocate of the theory that you automatically had certain 'rights' just because of who you slept with. I have a very good lesbian friend who has been with her partner for over 15 years--I understand her plight concerning her partner receiving insurance benefits and what not, but I've told her honestly I don't recognize what they have as a 'marriage' simply because of my religious convictions--and let's face it, the religious convictions this very country was founded on. Many people don't like that viewpoint but it happens to be a fact. I have a hard time judging moral and religious decisions that concern the government--maybe that's a clear indication that they have no business there to begin with? Who knows. Good post Pastor.
