Same Sex Marriage - ‘Let No Man Put Asunder’ May 22
Most religions are based on peace, love, and understanding - at least that’s the theory. Yet, many of the religious ignore that premise, or worse yet, use their chosen holy book to explain why this group or that group doesn’t fall under the Peace, Love, and Understanding Act of 10,000 BC.
In the most virulent parishes, the undeserving are legion. Gays, blacks, other religions, political candidates, and those who don’t wear flag pins or say “Happy Holidays” are persona non grata. Perhaps I’m just an atheist moron, but I don’t see how these groups threaten anyone, even if they don’t share the same beliefs. Same sex marriage is a case in point.
A majority of Americans oppose same sex marriage, but a majority of those (including nearly all politicians) think legal unions are OK. The logic here - what little there is - goes something like this: I’m askeered of homos + I don’t like to be called a bigot + To protect myself from being called a bigot, I’ll say it’s OK for them to get civil unions = Problem solved. But here’s the rub: In what way is a civil union any different than being married?
‘Let No Man Put Asunder…’
Both join two people in love. Both carry legally-binding rights and responsibilities. Both can be recognized by religious institutions and can be ended by divorce, regardless of the participants’ religious affiliation. Both entail struggle and sacrifice, marital trouble, and shared joy. Both can involve children to be cared for and responsibly parented. Both even allow sexual relations - the supposed baseline of the threat itself. But despite these identical characteristics one is a threat to the “tradition” of marriage, and at least to some, a threat that can be mitigated by simply calling it something else.
It’s simple, “I’m scared of clowns, so if I call Ronald McDonald Mr. Crazy Hair my fear will melt away.”
The main argument is that one group believes the other group should be barred from living a life of their choosing, absent any rational explanation of why. The thing that people frequently don’t see is that fear is as equal opportunity as it gets.
Mr. and Mrs. Hagee and all the pious at sea, what would happen if the shoe was on the other foot? What if gays were scared of you and had the power to prevent you from marrying?
Hiding the Issue in Plain Sight
Same sex marriage falls into the same category as most seemingly intractable problems. To solve them requires an 
ability to put yourself in the others’ shoes. It requires real compromise instead of hiding the problem in plain sight and avoiding it. If the only difference between the two actions is semantic, where’s the percentage in making such a fuss? If a lesbian doesn’t tell the Navy she’s gay, how does she become any less so? If a gay couple wants to be married, how does it deter you from practicing your religious beliefs.
My religious upbringing taught me that the totality of a belief is only “right” up to the time when it abridges someone else’s right to their belief. We see parallels of this idea daily. Belligerent intransigence between political parties, ideologies, or neighbors solves bupkis. Wars are made of such stuff and unfortunately, some perpetuate those fears through intentional meanness or an accidental belief that they have begun reading God as a synonym for themselves.
Remember his advice, “Thou shalt hold God above all others.” Claiming you speak for God is the ultimate violation of this supposedly sacrosanct idea.
If God is as wise and omnipotent as you say, you should be quivering with fear because judgment day is going to be decidedly unpleasant when he reads about your stay in the material world.
The Poobah is a featured contributor at Bring It On!
Sphere: Related Content
This work, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.
Capn Dyke May 22
Damned Well Held, Me Godling! Huzzah!
BrooklynQ May 22
I look at it this way, the government should get out of the marriage business altogether. The government should only issue “unions.” Gay, str8, 3 way, whatever.
The government should only be concerned that everyone in the union is there by his/her free choice, everyone’s financial, health and wellbeing interests are protected and any children from the union are protected and cared for.
If you want to get “married” go to the religious institution of your choice. Then you can live by their rules.
BrooklynQ’s last blog post..Brooklyn’s Getting Frisky!
enigma4ever May 22
I think that marriages and unions should not be dicated by people by a govt that allows torture and renditioning…they clearly know nothing about Human Beings…or their care and their relationships…
great post….
( saw McCain on the Ellen show and it really struck me that he and the repugs think they are above most people…)
enigma4ever’s last blog post..PLEASE GO SEE TINA AT FUZZY&BLUE….
Hiromi May 23
To conservative religious types, it isn’t just a matter of semantics. To them, “Marriage” is not merely a relationship between two people, but it’s a state of being ordained by God. I can kind of understand that.
What I have more trouble understanding is exactly why the two people can’t be a different assortment of genders. It’s kind of a chicken-egg thing…did homophobia precede the religious beliefs, or did the religious beliefs cement the bias of the people who wrote the Bible (it could very well be other people during that time couldn’t have cared less about homosexuality)? Or are the interconnections more complex than that? I dunno.
Omnipotent Poobah May 23
Cap’n,
Thankee ma’m.
BQ,
That would be fine. I’m not too hung up about what to call it myself.
E4E,
They don’t know much about anything, I’m afraid.
Hiromi,
I understand your point, but I’m not sure that “Marriage” is not merely a relationship between two people, but a state of being ordained by God” makes much difference.
I feel like you can associate “God” with marriage to your heart’s content and that has zero effect on someone else deciding to associate it with anything else. I think that excuse is also hypocritical. I don’t see them trying to ban marriage between atheists for example and that would have the same consequences from the religious point of view.
In fact, I don’t even really care if it is between 2 people. If you want to marry six people, I figure that has no impact on what I believe. That decision should be made by the six members involved.
freidabee May 24
Alright, I just wrote a big ol’ comment and then realized I probably didn’t know shit about what I was talking about because after living with a guy for ten years and having children and filing taxes together and being on eachother’s insurances, and going through the priveledges of having our sex life dwindle and fighting about who is right and who is wrong in his or her own twisted communication style, I see no reason in hell to go ask the state to sanctify out decision, and feel that however holy or unholy we want our relationship to be is between us and a diety of our choosing (Velveeta in our case). But, we have attained those right by virtue of a common law statute in Texas (which entitles us to go get our piece of paper if we so chose)that I’d love for a gay couple to challenge. I’d go do it myself, but for the fact I’d prefer our own mini-polygamist compound. We need a wife, you know, but other states do not allow even those of the opposite sexes to thumb their noses at the tradition as we have. I would not like being married if I were not making up the rules, and some want a church to do that or bless them, I understand. Gay folks should have that right, clearly, but I say no one should need it.
freidabee’s last blog post..A Day in The Life…