I’m going to assume I’m kicking an ant hill on this one. I should know better, but I would like to share my personal views on gay marriage.
My take on the gay marriage thing is in a fluid state. It has gone from a completely “NO NO NO” to more of a “I don’t agree with them on the issue” and probably somewhere else tomorrow.
I can’t justify my views on gay marriage unless I explain my religious views on homosexuality.
I am a Christian and that tints my view on life and the world. I believe in the teachings of Christ and his disciples. I view them not only as solid “advice”, but as truths. Right vs Wrong. Good vs Evil. So, I cannot begin discussing the issue of gay marriage without stating that fact.
Secondly, I don’t believe nature intended for homosexuality to be the norm. In a clearly scientific viewpoint, it is not the natural sexual state or tendency of most, if any creature on earth. The main purpose of sex is for reproduction and homosexuality does not accomplish that. (A friend mentioned that it may be an evolutionary caused population control method. It is an interesting theory.)
Back to my Christian approach on things for a moment. As mentioned before, I believe there are rights and wrongs in this world. And the wrongs can mostly be labeled as “sins”. Sins ranges from lying to murder. I think the thing that people misunderstand about what a Christian’s view (SHOULD BE) on sin is that sins are equal in the eyes of God. We humans place various penalties and judgments on “evil” or “wrong” actions. God does not. Any sin brings the same ultimate consequence of living eternally away from God’s presence. Since I believe that is God’s view on sin based on the Bible, I try to keep it mine as well. In the realm of laws and legal issues around the world, I recognize the various degrees of punishment placed on criminal actions by societies. In most cases they are just. Thankfully, acts of homosexuality do not (and should not) be labeled as criminal acts in our criminal justice system.
You may have heard the term “Hate the sin, not the sinner.” It is an overused phrase in some religious areas, but I feel it holds water here. If someone lies, do I hate them? No. If someone kills, do I hate them? It becomes more difficult (especially when it directly effects me), but no. If two people of the same sex are intimate in the privacy of their own home, do I hate them? Nope. I just think the above actions go against my personal beliefs and values. I disagree with the action but love the person. As my mom always said, “the church is full of sinners.”
And now my views on gay marriage.
Traditionally, marriage is a religious institution. Though history teaches us that in many societies cohabitation occurred, the monogamous form of marriage that is practiced today was founded in religious teachings and traditions. This is where the current conflict begins.
Everywhere you go today, you hear people screaming “Separation of Church and State!” But those screams are only heard when that statement is convenient to the person declaring it. (And we won’t discuss the fact that the statement or declaration cannot be found in any of our founding documents.) But tolerance is a two way street. Since idea of marriage in the U.S. is a religious based institution, perhaps it is time to make a move on that separation thing. Because that is really where the major issue lies; the fact that the religious crowd does not want to redefine the meaning and term “marriage” and the other side wants the benefits and recognition that comes with marriage. In those states where civil unions do give couples the same rights given to married couples, this has still not settled this debate. For the gay community, it is about equality. I also believe it is about getting a governmental institution to justify and accept of their lifestyle.
And I can understand their point of view.
So my opinion is that the State and Federal Governments need to get out of the business of overseeing, instituting and regulating “marriage”. If they want to continue to use some kind of classification to create laws, divide property and implement tax codes, perhaps they should turn more toward “civil unions” (or whatever you choose to call it) for all; including those who are “religious”. This would eliminate the need for state issued marriage certificates while giving people the ability to have the same benefits as those who were previously considered “married”.
Allow people who want to be “married” to do so in their own churches or religious events. Allow those religious organizations decide what marriage should be. This gives people the option as to how they define marriage and, as with most religions, allows people to worship in places that share their beliefs. I may not agree on how religious institutions define marriage, but it at least allows me to decide what and how I worship. This also allows the “religious” to hold on to something they hold dear, while allowing others to have the same benefits and rights as what was previously known as marriage.
To me, this is a sensible resolution to the current debate within the State and Federal governments. There are kinks that will need to be addressed, but this hopefully would end this extremely divisive issue and allow Americans to argue over something else; because they will.
Each side can and must be willing to compromise. It is my hope that my home state of Alabama will pick up this idea up and run with it. I think it would be great if a Southern state championed and implemented this type of Libertarian idea.
Travis Clay