In Christianity the bond of marriage is between one man and one woman. For other faiths, there may be an allowance for multiple wives. Yet, that bond is still between male and female. So, where does an Orthodox (and thus, conservative) Christian fall in this debate on the idea of gay marriage? On the side of religion of course. But, what does that mean?Many are up in arms about Proposition 8 in California. This ballot item was dubbed as an effort to “protect marriage.” The so-called “defense of marriage” has been a heated debate. Here’s a clip of the protests:
There is no reason for this argument. Marriage is a Sacrament of Religion…not of the State. If we truly want to “protect” marriage we would keep it out of the State and leave it in religion where it belongs. It is not homosexuality that is destroying marriage. It is the State, and the fact that we have abdicated that right to the State, that destroys marriage.
What is the solution in the debate on gay marriage? Abolish all marriage in the eyes of the State. Change everything to Civil Unions. There is the equality: heterosexuals would have Civil Unions and homosexuals would have Civil Unions. Transgenders would be entitled to Civil Unions.
Then leave marriage to the respective faiths. Let the individual religious sects and/or denominations decide who will and will not be granted a marriage. This way, everyone can enjoy Liberty – which is the promise of America, without violating any religious doctrine.
We do not need to be divided by this issue – regardless of our religious (or a religious) beliefs. We must allow people to respect religion, but we must also allow people to have no religion. If we disagree with their stance, we should pray for their hearts to be changed – not force them. But, that’s my opinion…what’s yours?
[fbcomments]
[JahBread-optin]
Comments are closed.
>That would work for me. In fact, all my wife and I needed was to sign a document, and have it notarized. No church involved. The state still calls it a marriage certificate.
But I don’t care what it’s called, and it’s already separate from church for whoever wants it to be. So it really doesn’t (legally) matter what we call it.
New law has to be drawn up and passed, no matter what the more inclusive union’s called. The next hurdle would be to make it recognized by other states. And then remains the issue of it being recognized at the federal level, depending on the current mood of the congress or president or majority of Americans or whoever. (Well, with respect to the IRS, at least.)
Meanwhile, some people would still say it’s “Marriage” in disguise. So again, it doesn’t really matter what it’s called, except maybe in some reluctant people’s minds.
So it seems to me, the most viable approach will require agreement and cooperation between the states, to eventually be recognized federally.
>Thanks for your comments, Ken. You’re right – regardless of what the union is called, it will rub some wrong. But, to me that’s the best solution. Challenge the religious right on their own turf. In the push for limited government, the State should leave the decisions on marriage to the Faiths. Otherwise, we become what we revolted against.