Many people are concerned about the long-term societal effects of altering the definition of marriage, so I thought it would be useful to put my two cents out there with this little discussion.
Marriage has been used for many purposes at various times and places: to get money and land, to consolidate political power, to control behavior, to ensure good breeding. What we are defending as "traditional marriage" is neither very old nor very widely practiced in the world. If it is God's definition, then he either has changed his mind a lot over time or he has just recently started to care about enforcing it.
In any case, the main motivations for same sex couples wanting marriage equality are not religious, but legal, financial, and social. We are willing that homosexual people should put themselves in harm's way defending our country in the military, serving in law enforcement, or protecting people as fire fighters or EMTs. We accept their tax dollars. We require they obey the laws of the land. In other words, we hold gay people to the same legal standards as other citizens and accept the sacrifice of their lives in service to our country and fellow citizens. So we commit a fundamental injustice when we decline to extend all the same tax and legal benefits and privileges to them that are available to other citizens.
I am not aware of any instances where an increase in justice and equal treatment has resulted in an overall adverse outcome in the affected population.
As justification for this injustice, we rely on the definition of a word. And all the arguments against marriage equality seem to boil down, in the end, to insisting that this word has always had the same meaning (it has not) and that to change it will result in disaster. We don't appear to be worried about other words, just this one. Why? And what precisely are the long-term effects that we fear?
Or could it be that we aren't really thinking about the long-term effects, but instead are caught up in a political whirlwind?
And what about God? We're very fond of putting words in his mouth and thundering from the pulpit about what God wants. And yet we're very selective about enforcing God's will. Though the scriptures only mention homosexuality once or twice and very ambiguously, we have chosen to elevate this issue to a fever pitch. Yet adultery, which is repeatedly and unambiguously condemned in the most uncompromising terms, is never ever mentioned in our political discourse. In fact it seems that the politicians who get most exercised about same sex marriage seem to be peculiarly susceptible to adulterous behavior.
Divorce is another interesting facet of this discussion. In the New Testament it says "What God has joined together let no man put asunder". Despite this Biblical injunction, I see no efforts afoot to ban divorce. Yet around half of all marriages are dissolved in clear defiance of God's express command in Matthew 10:19.
One interesting question, then, would be this: how can we cite biblical authority for condemning marriage equality when God's priorities are clearly much more focused on adultery and divorce than on homosexuality? And yet we do nothing, politically, about those things.
This seems like more putting words in God's mouth.
So when we talk about progress, I think that real progress is measured by an increase in justice and equality, a decrease in hypocrisy, and a measured and reasonable debate based on facts, not on religious or political polemic.
Posted with Blogsy
Comments