Wednesday, November 25, 2009

The Sanctity of Marriage

From the passing of Prop 8 in California to the strikingly similar ordeal in Maine, voters everywhere are helping to pass the law that denies same-sex couples the right to a marriage union, and all the legal perks that come along with it.

Excuses everywhere are the same:

They still get civil unions.

So 'separate but equal.' Where have I heard that before?
It will corrupt the minds of children when we have to teach them that men can marry men and women to women.
Even if you tell them they're doing it out of love?

And by far the most ludicrous of them all,
"We must protect the sanctity of marriage."

Let's define "sanctity:"
sanctity
-noun, plural -ties
  1. holiness, saintliness or godliness.
  2. sacred or hallowed in character: the violable sanctity of the temple.
  3. a sacred thing.
From this we can agree that that means we must protect the inherently holy qualities of marriage by not allowing couples of the same sex to wed. For in the Christian Bible and other religious texts, marriage is reserved as a union between a man and woman alone. It says nothing about homosexuals and marriage.

But marriage is also about love, don't you agree?
If we roll with Christianity, let's see what the Bible has to say about love:

"Many waters cannot quench love, neither can floods drown it."
—Song of Solomon 8:7

"Love is patient. Love is kind. It does not envy. It does not boast. It is not proud. It is not rude. It is not self-seeking. It is not easily angered. It keeps no record of wrong doing. It does not delight in evil, but rejoices in the truth. It always protects, trusts, hopes, perseveres."
—1 Corinthians 13

"He that loveth not, knoweth not God; for God is love."
—John 4:8

"Love never fails....And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love."
1 Corinthians 13:13
Love sounds pretty sacred, doesn't it?

Well, my interpretation is that the "sanctity of marriage" lies in its traits of pure love and committment. It is a promise to stay by your partner for the rest of your life, no matter what happens, a promise to keep loving them as you did the day you married him or her. This is a romantic view of marriage, and one that many people in America take when it comes to that.

If that's what the sanctity of marriage is, then I've got news for you:
the sanctity of marriage is already gone,
and it didn't have the help of same-sex couples to blame.

Look around you: people aren't always getting hitched out of love. They do it out of obligation, like a shotgun wedding; they do it out of foolishness like a forgotten night in Las Vegas; they do it to get into countries and jobs, for money and for everything else but love. Divorce exists, and that destroys marriages. Shouldn't we make that illegal, too?

To say that same-sex marriage alone would defile the "sanctity of marriage" is to turn a blind eye to all the instances heterosexual couples used marriage to their advantage and not for their love. It's turning a blind eye to the increasing rate of divorce in America. With half of the married population dissatisfied enough with their marriage to actually end it, should we really consider ourselves such an authority on love and marriage?

The people who fight for same-sex marriage and equal rights do it out of love. They recognize the importance of marriage, and want to take their relationships to the next level. Who are we, who have already slandered marriage, to stop them?

Make it legal.
If there are religious concerns, then let each church and temple reserve its right to refuse hosting such a union. Let the couples find a place where they're accepted, and let the churches who don't alone. Just make it legal already. What harm could it do to marriage that hasn't already been done?

2 comments:

Justin said...

I LOVE this entry, Jordan. I completely agree with all of it, and have been saying so much of this for so long. Matter of fact, my very first Random Ramblings was on this same topic.

My opinion has always been that I have no right telling people who they can love, and how they can love them. :)

Great entry, Jordan!

livunderthestars said...

I completely agree with you.
However, I do feel that maybe gay activists should learn to change their way of promoting passing marriage (because clearly their method isn't working). I feel the people who believe the lies (i.e. gay marriage will be shown in educational institutions was a lie [and when did they teach us marriage in school anyhow?] along with other points) need someone to show them step by step the importance of marriage. It allows legalities that are not offered to those unmarried.

I feel right now people are not ready to accept marriage in their churches. I think we need to start with the basic step of, oh, this is a civil union where two people can go to city hall and register to be married (hey and CA could use more marriage taxes; rake in some cash to aide our debt [slightly]). There are churches that would marry same sexes, and let them (why would you try to get married in a place that doesn't want you?).

It's nice to hear people who share this point of view.