Wednesday, May 9, 2012

Gay Marriage: Giving to Caesar


So, the big news here is the State of North Carolina passing an amendment to their state constitution declaring that marriage is between a man and a woman.  The amendment is stated in affirmative language, a technicality, which to some means it’s not discriminating, but rather affirming of what already is the law.  However, by stating that marriage is between a man and woman, of course, that precludes gay marriage from being possible.

Gay marriage.  The subject kind of pisses me off.  I mean no offense to those who are deeply effected by this issue, it’s just that it doesn’t effect the majority of us—and yet so many people get their panties in a bunch over it.  The idea of preserving the sanctity of marriage is a joke—we had a married President of the United States get a blowjob from a lusty wench in a blue dress after he flavored up his cigar by dipping it in her honey pot.  The divorce rates are through the roof.  Marriage is a joke.  It really fucking is.  It seems to me that if we want to protect the sanctity of it, we might spend some time working on making the houses we live in from something stronger than glass.

It’s an issue that politicians love to fight about though.  It raises passions.  Gay people just want equal rights.  You know—the very spirit of the founding of our country?  The people against gay marriage play to a largely religious base and make them feel like it’s something of which they should be afraid.  And it’s a grand issue for election season.  I think that’s the part people don’t get.  We’re rolling around to a presidential election and if you think this is about the issue itself, you’re a fool.  Even though this is state issue, not a national one, it is an issue that is a hot button and serves to galvanize groups of people. 

A Republican Party with a candidate who doesn’t have a shot in hell of winning the presidency tries to stir the pot to make people afraid of what they don’t know or understand and in doing so, put heat on the incumbent president and try to trip him up and organize a vote against him—rather than FOR their candidate.  Or, a Democrat Party who, after winning the White House and then losing Congress fears the Republican candidate without a chance and wants to make sure they get a second term so they stir a debate that will rally the youth vote that was so important to electing their guy in the first place.

Pawns.  We’re pawns.  The issue is a pawn.  If you really think, at the end of the day, that this is truly about gay marriage, you have the wool pulled over your eyes, or you’re one of the people who is too closely involved in the issue to feel the puppet masters pulling strings.

Please don’t misunderstand.  It’s not that this issue isn’t important.  To those who are fighting for the simple freedom of equality, it means the world—and should.  It’s just that this issue doesn’t impact the lives of most of us.  I appreciate and applaud those who fight for equality and for basic human rights and taken as a general subject, we should all support it.  My point is simply that statistically, the number of people who are impacted by this issue directly is very small.  Whenever that’s the case, and an issue blows up like this one has, it’s time to look beyond the immediate players and understand the people moving the chess pieces around the board.

The other sign that this is one thing masquerading as another is how very simple the solution is for both sides.  The government of our country needs to get out of the marriage business.  Period.  The word marriage should be removed from all governmental files.  As far as the government is concerned there should be no such thing as marriage.  All tax advantages and other perks of being married should be removed.  Our current system discriminates not only against gay people, but single people as well.  Take marriage out of the equation.  There is no need for it to be anything but a religious/sociological function. 

If there is need for some documentation of legal couplings then let’s call all of those pairings Civil Unions.  Let’s let marriage be a kind of civil union—a religious kind.  Let each religion decide who can get married for themselves.  If my religion says no and yours says yes then that’s fine.  If you practice my religion but can’t get married by their rules, start your own sect of the religion with only that one change.  If your spouse is dying in the hospital and you want the rights to make decisions on their behalf and any other legal benefits, get your marriage licensed as a civil union.  When you talk about the sanctity of marriage you’re talking about the sacredness or holiness of it.  Those ideas aren’t a part of government or the rights it bestows. 

Government is about legalities.  Religion is about spirituality.  A civil union is legality.  A marriage is a spiritual concept.  The government that supposedly separates church and state needs to take spiritual unions and couplings out of it’s equation.  Yes.  We all should be equal, but the word marriage, the buzz word, needs to be taken out of this debate.  Our government should not recognize any marriage.  Not gay, not straight, not any.  Our government, for the few small—yet important—spousal rights should see coupling/pairing/legal bonding as a purely legal issue.  And the only rights or privileges a legally bonded couple should get that the rest of us don’t have are the ability to make decisions for one and other.  There should be no legal, economic or other benefit based on the choice to be paired with someone. 

There’s no sanctity to protect in a civil union.  It’s legality.  There is no sanctity in legality.  There is nothing to protect.  Let the various religions protect sanctity.  That is their job.  That is their right.  That is their place.  If a religion feels that marriage is between only a man and woman, that is their right.  If a religion feels that a marriage is between a man and a man or a woman and woman, then that’s their right too.  The state shouldn’t give a flying shit what the religions consider a marriage.  If a couple wants to make their marriage legal in the eyes of the state, they should apply for a civil union license—not a marriage license. All legal marriages should be changed to civil unions.  Marriage should not exist in the eyes of the state, except and unless it’s been registered as a legal civil union. 

One of the Pharisees once tried to trip Jesus up.  He was trying to get Him to say that people shouldn’t pay their taxes and thereby have a reason to lock him up.  Jesus very wisely asked the Pharisee who was depicted on the coins that the tax collectors took.  The answer, of course, was Caesar.  And Jesus said, “’Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and God the things that are God’s.’ And they marveled at Him.”

Let God deal with God’s business.  Let the government deal with what’s their business.  It’s simple.  No one gets hurt.  Everyone gets what they want.  No one forces your religion to accept gay marriage.  You worship as you please.  The government gives people the rights that any human who chooses to couple should have—and no additional rights or benefits that those who remain single are precluded from having.  There’s your equality.  There’s your sanctity.  There’s no reason why Caesar, God and all the rest of us can’t all be happy, and equal.     

5 comments:

Amanda said...

I always love your take on things, Al. Take care, friend.

DanjerusKurves said...

*thunderous standing ovation*!!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

The libertarian point of view, articulated well.

Malachi said...

I disagree about it not affecting everyone. When one person's rights are trampled on, then everyone's rights are trampled on.

If we always take the view, "What has this to do with me?" then we would never have come as far as we have with equal rights for women, blacks, and Asians. Some of the majority NEEDED to care for change to happen.

Yes, in some ways the LGBT community has made great strides, but as long as they are deprived the right to get married, it should be something that bothers everyone.

Marriage should not be a joke. And I think one way to uphold the sanctity of it would be to let the people that love each other get married.

I like your idea of getting rid of the word marriage in government and I never thought about how the perks for being married are unfair to single people.

Thanks for making some really good points.

Lianne Marie Mease said...

My opinion is that it's not gay marriage, its marriage and what right does anyone have to say that 2 people of the same gender can't love each other.
Lee Mee xXx