Same-Sex Marriage and Civil Unions: The Culture War
I believe that the core of the issue with same-sex marriage is that marriage as a concept is fundamentally a religious one. While there are those who believe that a government has the right and the responsibility to appropriate the property of some for the benefit of the whole, I feel that this is unconstitutional. Ultimately, I am just as strongly opposed to a government ban on same-sex marriage as I am to a government provision allowing it. As a religious rite, it is none of the government's damned business who engages in it.
Unfortunately this puts the government in a double bind. If the government passes any law, either positive or negative, defining the marriage rights of Americans (including the laws that already exist) then they are appropriating a religious concept for themselves, and infringing upon the rights of Americans to engage freely in religious expression. If they do not, then they are denying equality to a subset of Americans, and infringing upon their civil rights. While there are those who would argue that civil rights supersede religious freedoms, I feel that it is a fundamental function of democracy to prevent one person from dictating to another what is or is not important. An irreligious person may not tell a religious one that her beliefs and values are worthless and expect the government to back him up and vice versa.
Unfortunately, the best option to my mind--to eliminate all references to 'marriage' in federal law, and replace them with 'civil union', to proclaim all current legal marriages 'civil unions', and to freely allow any two persons of any gender to enter into a legally binding civil union--requires a restructuring so radical it would be a virtually impossible undertaking.
C. S. Lewis said, “Progress means getting nearer to the place you want to be. And if you have taken a wrong turning, then to go forward does not get you any nearer.
If you are on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road."
Despite the difficulty, I think that this is the only way out of the pickle the government finds itself in. The term "culture war" has been bandied about a good deal, but I earnestly believe that if the government can find a way to provide equal civil liberties for all, while protecting the freedom of religion, then much of the "culture war" hoopla will end. Of course, there will be plenty of religious people who insist that same-sex couples never be allowed to engage in civil unions on principle, just like there will be plenty of people who insist that the government should appropriate this rite wholesale from the religions that respect and observe it, and define it for their own purposes. But on a grander scale, I think many of the warriors on both sides of the "culture war" will stand down when their freedoms and equality are no longer being threatened. At least that's what I'd like to think.
There are many Christians who I know that have said that the object of a Christian's life should be to demonstrate the compassion and love of Jesus, and not to worry about what someone else does in their own life. I agree. But I also believe that the object of every American's life is to do what they can to ensure that their nation remains a place of freedom for everyone, even those who have views and beliefs they do not share.
There are plenty of people who point to divorce rates and celebrity gimmick weddings to demonstrate their belief that the institution of marriage has no meaning, and thereby justify the federal government's appropriation of it. I would counter that there are millions of people worldwide for whom marriage is an integral and vital component of their religious expression. While these people do not have the right to dictate what others can legally do based on their own beliefs, neither can others dictate the definition and identity of their engagement in religious expression. This is why the government surrendering the concept of marriage back to the religious institutions that invented it is so important. The government must recognize any and all 'civil unions' that the populace deems by majority to be acceptable, and religions must only acknowledge the marriages that adhere to their beliefs. The two should never have become intertwined in the first place, and the first nation to go back and fix this problem, to my mind, will be the most progressive.
Unfortunately this puts the government in a double bind. If the government passes any law, either positive or negative, defining the marriage rights of Americans (including the laws that already exist) then they are appropriating a religious concept for themselves, and infringing upon the rights of Americans to engage freely in religious expression. If they do not, then they are denying equality to a subset of Americans, and infringing upon their civil rights. While there are those who would argue that civil rights supersede religious freedoms, I feel that it is a fundamental function of democracy to prevent one person from dictating to another what is or is not important. An irreligious person may not tell a religious one that her beliefs and values are worthless and expect the government to back him up and vice versa.
Unfortunately, the best option to my mind--to eliminate all references to 'marriage' in federal law, and replace them with 'civil union', to proclaim all current legal marriages 'civil unions', and to freely allow any two persons of any gender to enter into a legally binding civil union--requires a restructuring so radical it would be a virtually impossible undertaking.
C. S. Lewis said, “Progress means getting nearer to the place you want to be. And if you have taken a wrong turning, then to go forward does not get you any nearer.
If you are on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road."
Despite the difficulty, I think that this is the only way out of the pickle the government finds itself in. The term "culture war" has been bandied about a good deal, but I earnestly believe that if the government can find a way to provide equal civil liberties for all, while protecting the freedom of religion, then much of the "culture war" hoopla will end. Of course, there will be plenty of religious people who insist that same-sex couples never be allowed to engage in civil unions on principle, just like there will be plenty of people who insist that the government should appropriate this rite wholesale from the religions that respect and observe it, and define it for their own purposes. But on a grander scale, I think many of the warriors on both sides of the "culture war" will stand down when their freedoms and equality are no longer being threatened. At least that's what I'd like to think.
There are many Christians who I know that have said that the object of a Christian's life should be to demonstrate the compassion and love of Jesus, and not to worry about what someone else does in their own life. I agree. But I also believe that the object of every American's life is to do what they can to ensure that their nation remains a place of freedom for everyone, even those who have views and beliefs they do not share.
There are plenty of people who point to divorce rates and celebrity gimmick weddings to demonstrate their belief that the institution of marriage has no meaning, and thereby justify the federal government's appropriation of it. I would counter that there are millions of people worldwide for whom marriage is an integral and vital component of their religious expression. While these people do not have the right to dictate what others can legally do based on their own beliefs, neither can others dictate the definition and identity of their engagement in religious expression. This is why the government surrendering the concept of marriage back to the religious institutions that invented it is so important. The government must recognize any and all 'civil unions' that the populace deems by majority to be acceptable, and religions must only acknowledge the marriages that adhere to their beliefs. The two should never have become intertwined in the first place, and the first nation to go back and fix this problem, to my mind, will be the most progressive.
posted by Zack at 5:38 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home