CUViper

Hi again Josh:
here are some thoughts on marriage vs partnerships — mostly on homosexual partnership, which doesn’t apply to you guys.

MARRIAGE VS.
PARTNERSHIP
10-03-04

The question of whether or not to allow the marriage of two individuals of the same sex is being bounced back and forth between those who, for whatever reason—religion or tradition—find it repulsive, and those who, for whatever reason, favor it. Instead of politically correct rhetoric from both the right and the left that shoots wildly from the hip, there should be a more reasonable debate on the subject. Here, I hope, is a start toward that end.

Idrees Shaw, writer of the book “The Caravan Of Dreams”, has written: “The individual has to learn that he cannot reform society in reality, nor deal with others as reasonable people, unless he has learned to locate and allow for the various patterns of coercive institutions and ideologies, formal and informal, which rule (that) society. No matter what reason says, people will always tend to relapse into obedience to the pattern of the coercive agency and ideologies that have ruled them in the past.”

Ms. Shaw makes a powerful statement for adhering to the well established religious and secular beliefs of the society in which we live, and the fact is that the common belief in this country is that marriage is a unique lifetime commitment between a man and a woman; a unique, binding, God given contract that should not be violated. This is an idea that is reinforced in almost all religious communities today, and is so universal and deeply ingrained in the values of most of the people in this country, and the world, that it is at the least a serious error of understanding and judgment for homosexuals and lesbians to insist that a traditional legal “marriage” between two people of the same sex is acceptable to society at this time.

The reality in this country today is that there are a significant percent of marriages that end in divorce, and that there is a high rate of out of wedlock childbirths. It’s apparent that the idea of a sacrosanct committed marriage between a man and a woman, while loudly proclaimed by the general public, is not held in very high regard by a large segment of society, and instead is more in the nature of rhetoric designed to make us feel holy and sacrosanct rather than to establish a critical value for all to live by. While this insistance on the sancticy of the marriage commitment between a man and a woman is self satisfying, it doesn’t recognize the heart ache that results from the too frequent betrayal of trusting wives and husbands by their mate, it does illustrate that there is a common cultural self-delusion concerning the sanctity of marriage. In the grand scheme of things, this cavalier way that our society has treated the sanctity of marriage has done more damage to marriage than any lifetime commitment of two individuals of the same sex to love honor and obey could ever do.

We need to ask ourselves: How would allowing a non-church sanctioned, legal, lifetime civil partnership between two people of the same or opposite sex — instead of the traditional legal/religious marriage — who are committed by civil contract to be responsible for each other in all the legal and ethical benefits and responsibilities now given to married couples (Matters of everyday living, maintenance of a home and family, companionship, sharing of finances, health care and survivor benefits, etc) injure society or somehow diminish the value of traditional marriage? It’s difficult to see how there would be any damage to the concept of traditional marriage if the right of privacy of the partners is respected and if the partners are acceptably discreet in their private lives. How would society be in any way wronged by this kind of partnership, which might even be innocent agreement between two sisters or two brothers, or between two people who want only the companionship, emotional and financial support of each other. Of course the dissolution of such a legal partnership must also have the same requirements as the dissolution of traditional marriages.

If, then, the concept of a traditional marriage between a committed and devoted man and women is not threatened what harm is done? Those who fear that their children will somehow be harmed, need to remember the admonition to train the child in the way it should go and he (or she) will follow that example throughout life. Alternately, those who object to these partnerships because of religious beliefs should understand that it is God, not they, who establishes the final judgment and justice of all people. God’s judgment, according to the bible, also includes those who have divorced, those who have committed adultery with another person, or those who have committed adultery in the privacy of their minds.

Another view should be considered: First, the promise of our Declaration of Independence, our Constitution and Bill of Rights is that each person has a right to “. . . life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. . . .” without prejudice against race, religion, creed (ideology) or sex, and Thomas Jefferson, the drafter of the Declaration of Independence, wrote that “The legitimate powers of government extend only to [curb] such acts that are injurious to others . . .”; Second, the traditional American view of the individual’s right to privacy is that, “A man’s home is his castle.” The crux of this value is that what happens behind the walls of the home between two consenting adults is of no concern of any other person or legal authority unless it is proven that there is activity taking place there that harms others.

Those who object because tradition says that marriage should only be between a church sanctioned union between one man and one woman can be satisfied that these legal partnerships need not be sanctioned by any religious organization, but are simply legal civil compacts between two people who are committed to share love, companionship, family, and life-time responsibility for each other.

Actually, Josh and Millie, I prefer mariage, even civil ceramony, to none. Your move.