Wednesday, March 27, 2013

Another Inconvenient Truth

File Under:  Life Is Not Burger King

Good news: This has nothing to do with Al Gore, global warming, or the invention of the Internet.  Nor does it involve a trip to Mordor if the above picture misled you.  Bad news:  I am going to tell you something you do not want to hear.  Are you ready for it?  Here it comes:
All marriages performed by or sanctioned through the state are illegal, and all the rights and responsibilities afforded by such marriages are baseless rendering them null and void.

Whoa ...that was a load off.  Are you still there?  You are?  Good.  Why would I spout such crazy talk, I mean that is crazy talk ...right?  Unfortunately, no it is not.  Marriage has three main problems in modern America.  The first problem is that marriage is, has, and always will be a ritualized religious ceremony between two or more individuals of like beliefs formalizing the permanent bonding of one or more males to one or more females in recognition of a covenant between the marrying parties, their church, and their deity(ies).  The second problem for marriage is that in America we have deemed it prudent in order to ensure the life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and freedom of religion of ALL citizens that the church remain separate from the state.  Finally, churches are private, faith-based religious organizations incorporated under a codified set of rules and doctrine determined by the members of that organization, wherein membership of the organization is determined by acceptance of and compliance with the codified set of rules and doctrine.  What does that mean?

The state (government) should never have performed, endorsed, or sanctioned a religious ceremony, nor should the state ever have afforded rights and responsibilities to individuals who have participated in said religious ceremony based simply upon the fact that they have completed the rituals of said ceremony.  Moreover, marriage being by definition a religious ceremony is under the purview of the church; no state or federal body can redefine what an individual private organization determines to be a valid marriage according to its organizational bylaws.  If the government were to co-opt the institution of marriage for political purposes it would make Unconstitutional the bylaws of all faith-based private organizations that define marriage contrarily and end the long-upheld legal ideology that private organizations (i.e. clubs, churches  orders, leagues, associations, fraternities, etc.) had the right to be discriminatory in their membership practices.  In plain English:  the government cannot marry people, the government cannot confer upon married people rights and responsibilities, and the government cannot define or redefine what marriage is or is not.

The rights and responsibilities that married individuals enjoy should never have been afforded to them by virtue of being married.  Furthermore, legally binding services such as health and life insurance beneficiary status should never have been linked to marital status.  In reality, any two or more consenting individuals (regardless of gender or orientation) who have achieved a suitable state of mental and emotional maturity, as well as social responsibility should be allowed to enter into either a domestic partnership (separate legal entities enjoying shared legal benefits and limited legal liability) or a civil union (a single legal entity created via permanent partnership with shared benefits and full legal liability) bestowing upon them the majority of the rights/responsibilities currently given to married couples.  This is a real legal contract.  A contract that is more relevant to the rights and responsibilities it delegates, and more permanently binding in a court of law than any promise between two parties and their deity.

Proponents of same-sex marriage now would ask the government to give them immediately by law, what they will not strive to achieve by natural order: social validity.  However, de jure acceptance is no more real for LGBT couples now than de jure tolerance was for minorities decades ago.  Why?  Because you cannot regulate the minds and hearts of people, nor can you legislate the human condition.  The government is not here to force people upon society or society upon people; rather, its purpose is merely to preserve a place within society for law-abiding people.  The rest is up to us.  That is simply another inconvenient truth.

"Viðrar Vel Til Loftárása" by Sigur Rós from Ágætis byrjun released 1999 on Fat Cat/Smekkleysa

No comments:

Facebook Blogger Plugin: Bloggerized by Enhanced by

Post a Comment