Greg weighs in on Gay Marriage
This is in response to a discussion on Jon's Blog. The comment section was getting crowded, so I decided to post my essay of a response here rather than there.
Yeah, I know it's been done to death, but I've recently put some thought into this and clarified my own views on the topic. Read on if you're not too tired of it all to care:
Gay Marriage
I've come to a few conclusions, some relevant to the discussion, and some simply relevant to my train of thought.
1) I believe in a fundamental separation of church and state. I've never cared enough to think about that and actually state it before, but this issue has driven home for me the need for a distinction between sacred rite and civil ceremony. I don't know exactly where in history those two became so unrecognizeably intertwined, but in today's secular society, we need to take a step back and realize which is which.
2) Therefore, the state should be responsible for civil unions, not marriages. A civil union should be defined as the economic and legal binding of one person to another person, with all the legal rights and economic benefits that are now associated with "marriage". Love? Nothing to do with it. Basically, you should get a civil union if, for example, you have a long-term roommate with whom you share expenses, or if you share a bank account with someone. Most married couples would also have a civil union, but the two would be available in isolation as well.
As Brad says, it's the responsibility of the state to be equal, and this way gay couples would have exactly the same rights as straight couples.
3) Pursuant to that, the Church should be able to define "marriage". A marriage should be the spiritual marriage (literally) of one eternal soul to it's partner, probably with emphasis on the potential for procreation.
In other words, yes, marriages, as a religious institution, should probably be restricted to straight couples, unless the church decided to reverse its position on homosexuality. That seems to me to be the decision that maintains the integrity of the institution, as well as promoting equality in the eyes of the law.
4) The State cannot continue to perform "marriages" for only straight couples. That does constitute discrimination, and equality should be the primary goal of The Law (though the church has no such mandate). The problem is that the state shouldn't be performing them at all, and who's the judge that's going to make that ruling?
Conclusion:
I'm a fairly open-minded person, I think. It's easy to convince me based on passionate arguments that I should believe something. I tend to figure that if it matters enough to someone else, I can stand up and support them.
It's much more difficult, however, to convince me that I should actively reject someone else's point of view.
See how those two work together?
That's the disconnect for many rational people out there right now, I'm sure. Many people believe that the church is outdated and hypocritical, but many of those same people are unwilling to stand up and say that the church is NOT ALLOWED to be outdated and hypocritical.
That's really all I have to say about that. I hope that those of you who inevitably will disagree with me on this can at least see the rationality behind my argument.
Yeah, I know it's been done to death, but I've recently put some thought into this and clarified my own views on the topic. Read on if you're not too tired of it all to care:
Gay Marriage
I've come to a few conclusions, some relevant to the discussion, and some simply relevant to my train of thought.
1) I believe in a fundamental separation of church and state. I've never cared enough to think about that and actually state it before, but this issue has driven home for me the need for a distinction between sacred rite and civil ceremony. I don't know exactly where in history those two became so unrecognizeably intertwined, but in today's secular society, we need to take a step back and realize which is which.
2) Therefore, the state should be responsible for civil unions, not marriages. A civil union should be defined as the economic and legal binding of one person to another person, with all the legal rights and economic benefits that are now associated with "marriage". Love? Nothing to do with it. Basically, you should get a civil union if, for example, you have a long-term roommate with whom you share expenses, or if you share a bank account with someone. Most married couples would also have a civil union, but the two would be available in isolation as well.
As Brad says, it's the responsibility of the state to be equal, and this way gay couples would have exactly the same rights as straight couples.
3) Pursuant to that, the Church should be able to define "marriage". A marriage should be the spiritual marriage (literally) of one eternal soul to it's partner, probably with emphasis on the potential for procreation.
In other words, yes, marriages, as a religious institution, should probably be restricted to straight couples, unless the church decided to reverse its position on homosexuality. That seems to me to be the decision that maintains the integrity of the institution, as well as promoting equality in the eyes of the law.
4) The State cannot continue to perform "marriages" for only straight couples. That does constitute discrimination, and equality should be the primary goal of The Law (though the church has no such mandate). The problem is that the state shouldn't be performing them at all, and who's the judge that's going to make that ruling?
Conclusion:
I'm a fairly open-minded person, I think. It's easy to convince me based on passionate arguments that I should believe something. I tend to figure that if it matters enough to someone else, I can stand up and support them.
It's much more difficult, however, to convince me that I should actively reject someone else's point of view.
See how those two work together?
That's the disconnect for many rational people out there right now, I'm sure. Many people believe that the church is outdated and hypocritical, but many of those same people are unwilling to stand up and say that the church is NOT ALLOWED to be outdated and hypocritical.
That's really all I have to say about that. I hope that those of you who inevitably will disagree with me on this can at least see the rationality behind my argument.