Marriage has varied across cultures throughout history. People have married for love, to increase family or tribal ties, politics, power and even money.The Catholic Church began to assert control over marriage as a means of gaining power and controlling the people. Ironically, government began licensing marriage for similar reasons. Prior to the interference of religions and government, a marriage was simply declared and celebrated. Often it was ritualized, but not always. The chaperoning of marriage by religion is not universal now nor has it ever been.
Many argue that homosexual unions are degrading the sanctity of marriage; but I believe heterosexuals are doing it just fine on their own. Divorce rates, adultery, multiple marriages before 30. Where exactly is the sanctity? I have witnessed a friend who could not make funeral arrangements for his deceased partner because he did not have the legal right. Estranged family members were called in, who didn't know the wishes of the deceased, to supervise the proceedings. In what world is it just for heterosexuals to marry and divorce like teenage couples and have the recognition of government, but two committed people, who just happen to be the same sex, can not receive that same recognition? This is not about the homosexuals wanting to redefine your religious ideals; it is about equal rights.
When our government decided to take control of marriage, religion was removed from the process. Some of our forefathers came to this country to escape religious persecution by their governments. As a people, by trying to dictate the definition of marriage within our government using religious ideals we are just as guilty as the English Anglican government that our forefathers left.ﾊWe are trying to turn America into the very semblance of what we wanted to escape.
Mandy Green
Graduate student
Disclaimer
No responsibility or liability shall attach itself to either myself or to the blogspot ‘Clerical Whispers’ for any or all of the articles placed here.
The placing of an article hereupon does not necessarily imply that I agree or accept the contents of the article as being necessarily factual in theology, dogma or otherwise.
Sotto Voce
No responsibility or liability shall attach itself to either myself or to the blogspot ‘Clerical Whispers’ for any or all of the articles placed here.
The placing of an article hereupon does not necessarily imply that I agree or accept the contents of the article as being necessarily factual in theology, dogma or otherwise.
Sotto Voce