Marriage Opinions

                Sometimes I feel like I'm repeating myself too frequently (and really, I'm not fond of repetition), but people keep asking the same questions. Generally, I write down an answer I've been asked to give over and over, in the hopes that having it "down on paper" will mean that I don't have to say it as often.

                Part of the problem is differing views on the act of communication itself. I have always believed, and continued to function on, the idea that asking for someone's opinion is a way to understand what they're thinking. The point, it has always seemed to me, is for people with differing ideas to say, "OK, now I know why you act the way that you do. It's because you believe X." Then everyone goes on their way having been heard and with their views recognized. The world is a better place when we understand each other.

                I am completely uncomfortable, and in fact, flabbergasted, at a very common occurrence in modern "communication," the idea that everyone will, or should, walk away from a conversation agreeing with one another. I cannot imagine how this is supposed to take place. Get a small number of people together – say, 4 to 6 – and ask them to come to a consensus about what to have for lunch. It is not a quick, easy, painless or bonding kind of process. Yet otherwise rational people continue to believe that if they simply tell you why they don't agree with you on any topic, that you will see the error of your ways and change your opinion. The larger or more important the issue, the more they are convinced that this will happen. When it doesn't occur, instead of realizing that they have faulty expectations, they will get more and more upset, accusing those who continue (the nerve of them!) to believe something contrary to their own opinions of being stubborn, ignorant or the current favorite, hateful.

                It is not, nor has it ever been, hateful to disagree with anyone. It IS hateful to say things like, "You shouldn't even be allowed to say that!" and I have ironically heard that sentiment come out of the mouths of people who are claiming that they represent open mindedness and tolerance.

                So let me be clear – I express my opinion in order to ensure that others understand me, not so that everyone will say, "My goodness, she's right!" Understanding and agreement are not the same thing.

                I recently read a list of reasons that the author gives on why no one should ever oppose gay marriage. One of the reasons was, "Marriage is a civil ceremony. Therefore, marriage is a civil right." Here is why some of us will never agree on this issue.

                Some people believe what my religion teaches, which is that marriage is a religious rite, like baptism. We believe it was instituted before the world was created, by a Supreme Being, and is unaffected by the rules or whims or desires of men. Just as we do not believe that someone can choose or alter the correct form, or the necessity of, baptism, we do not believe that legal, man made rules have any effect at all on marriage. If you believe that marriage was instituted by humans, and especially if you believe that marriage was instituted by men in order to subjugate and oppress women, we will never agree on this subject. We will never have the same definition of marriage. We can understand each other, and we should, but we will not agree.

                The fact that civil marriage exists at all is a concession, we believe. Civil marriage came about because people wanted, but did not qualify for, marriage in its original form. Or, they wanted the benefits of marriage, but did not want or agree with the religion that provided it. People came up with a compromise – folks who did not want or did not qualify for a religious marriage could have a civil service, a union recognized by governments but not necessarily by churches. It is the religious equivalent of a GED, saying, "You can have the same legal standing and rights as couples married in the church, but you didn't fulfill the same requirements that others did." We believe that one of the biggest differences is that marriages performed only civilly last only until one spouse dies, whereas marriages performed by proper religious authority last forever.

                Even in my church, not everyone is married by such religious authority. It is not seen as a guaranteed right, but as something very precious and therefore obtained with a degree of difficulty.

                We're not alone. Many churches will have new converts rebaptized or remarried, even if they had already done these things years ago, because their church authorities do not recognize ceremonies performed outside of their church. Even if you are legally married for decades, in order for their church to consider your union (or your divorce) valid, you must fulfill their religious requirements.

                It goes without saying that the vast majority of folks on the planet will disagree on this subject. Not agreeing is OK.

                One of the other statements on the list was, "It is no longer your personal religious view if you are bothering someone else." Um, I'm sorry, but that's just silly. That's like saying that your opinion doesn't really exist if it bothers or offends me. You have a legal and God-given right to do things that bother and offend me. I have a legal and God-given right to do things that bother and offend you.

                I wish I remember which elected official said it, so I could properly attribute one of my favorite things ever said on the floor of the U. S. Congress. It was in the mid to late 1980s, when burning the U. S. flag was a hot button issue. One man stood up and said, "What makes this country great is not that it protects the rights of those that are right; it's that it also protects the rights of those that are wrong." If this man were from my state, he would have had my vote for life.

                I realize that it offends people when I say that I don't think that marriage laws should be changed. Pointing that out to me wastes both of our time. You are not changing what you think and do if I'm offended; I should not be expected to change myself because you are offended.

                Here's the thing: because civil marriage exists completely outside the framework of religion, there's some wiggle room. (I don't understand people who think that their religious leaders should change. If you believe that God is the author of your religion – and if you don't, why do you belong to it? - it doesn't make sense that you would say to God, "Gee, good job creating the universe and all, but I think you're wrong about this, and I think that I can do better.") This is why I think there's room for the creation of new laws, by humans and for humans. What any nation or group of people decides is not binding upon God.

                In order for gay couples to have all the legal rights and obligations of married couples, I believe that what needs to change are the domestic partnership laws, not marriage laws. Domestic partnerships should have, aside from gender, the same requirements as a marriage license. They should cost the same, be as readily available, have the same documentation, waiting periods, paperwork, officiants, whatever. Aside from gender, they should be the same as a marriage. Adoption of children, alimony, insurance, everything should be identical. Commonlaw marriage laws already recognize that people can be granted the rewards and obligation of marriage without going through the usual avenues. I think that domestic partnerships should be another reflection that you can take different roads to the same legal  destination. Governments should recognize domestic partnerships as being equal to a marriage, the same way a GED is the legal equivalent of a high school diploma.

                I read an opinion that said that civil partnerships were not equality because "they deny me the right to call my chosen partner my husband." I don't think so. First, "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet." Second, I know heterosexual unmarried people who refer to their partners as "my husband" and "my wife."  In my life, we have aunts, uncles, siblings, nieces, nephews and a grandchild who are not related to us by birth, marriage or adoption; we still refer to them by those familial titles. I know both heterosexual and gay families that practice plural marriage – not legally, of course, but that's the point. They consider more than one person a spouse, regardless of the law. When someone introduces me to someone else, I will refer to that person by that title, whether legal or not. Call someone "my husband," and I will always introduce and refer to them as "X's husband." I know men who used to be women and women who used to be men – I refer to them by their chosen gender and new names (despite the fact that I think their spirits will be returned to their original gender after death). It's just common courtesy.

                I've also heard, repeatedly, that it's discriminatory and offensive to call gay unions by a different title than heterosexual unions. I just can't get behind that. Here is a group expecting others to change, bend or give up their religious beliefs, the teachings of their parents and/or their moral convictions, (opinions that, by the way, have been accepted for many years) because that group believes that those beliefs are wrong. (I'm not concerned with which side is a majority; I think that majority votes are a very unreliable way of determining moral considerations.) They expect this to happen immediately and quietly and painlessly. They further expect that their ideals should be made law, the sooner the better. Yet, they are unwilling to bend themselves on the matter of a single word. "It must be called a marriage, or it's inferior," even if it is legally identical. That equation is extremely lopsided. When I was a kid, people said, "All we want is the legal rights that others have." Now, they say, "It's not equal unless it has the same label."

            I would not mind if all partnerships formed legally instead of religiously were called "partnerships," leaving "marriage" as a strictly religious term. I don't think that's "discriminatory" at all. I do mind when someone tells me that that opinion means that I'm "hateful" and that I view some people as less than human. I don't call you "hateful" because you disagree with me, I tell these people, but they tell me, "It's different." No, it isn't.

Churches should always be free from government interference, and free to choose what they will or won't recognize. Freedom of religion does not mean that choosing to practice a religion is unpatriotic. Read any founding document of the United States, or speech given by someone revered as a Founding Father, and you will find phrases like "Almighty God" and "the Hand of Providence." They intended that there be no state religion and no government interference in religious matters, not the absence of religious thought or influence. Every person is legally (and morally) allowed to choose for THEMSELVES, not for everyone else.

I really cannot stand hearing someone say, "You can't legislate morality." OK, I'll say – let's take, "Thou shalt not kill." Coming from the Bible as it does, we obviously have to weed that out of our laws, so let's eliminate all laws regarding murder, manslaughter, wrongful death, child abuse that causes death, medical malpractice or neglect of any kind resulting in death… out they go. "Thou shalt not steal" – out go the laws on theft, burglary, embezzlement, fraud, robbery, tax evasion. "Thou shalt not bear false witness:" perjury, libel, defamation of character, fraudulent claims, misleading advertising, plagiarism, intellectual property right, copyright – gone.

Please. You can try to tell me that it's just a coincidence that those laws have a counterpart in ancient religious law, but I won't buy it. I don't believe in coincidence.

Disagreeing with anyone – let me make that clear, ANYONE – does not mean that you should ever view them as less of a person, less valuable, less intelligent, less deserving of your consideration or friendship or love or courtesy. That includes people who hold opinions that you find wrong or offensive or immoral. If you are going to call me, or anyone else, choice names because of their beliefs, if you are going to believe that you don't need to be polite to me because I'm wrong, if you feel that it's OK to make fun of me because I'm wrong (or misguided or uninformed or brainwashed - I've heard them all), then you have no leg to stand on, and in fact look rather ridiculous, when you tell me that your view is the one that celebrates and breeds tolerance.