Religious rhetoric has no place in the question regarding the Civil Right of Gay people to marry. God did not institute marriage. Marriage is secular institution and was primarily established by a Patriarchal society for economic reasons. Men didn’t want to pass on their gathered wealth to blood that wasn’t theirs, and Women wanted to protect both themselves and their children. Religious sanction was a later by-product.
Marriage is, in its most basic guise, is an enforceable legal contract between two adults that binds responsibility for each to the other. As the usual vow goes, in sickness and in health, forsaking all others, etc. is the pledge that seals the agreement between them. There is no logical reason that such a pledge, with all its legal protections be, denied to consenting same-sex couples.
There was, a time during, I believe, the ninth Century, when the Church held ceremonies for two men in extraordinary friendships. It wasn’t a marriage ceremony, but the Church at least realized there could be a special bond between males and sanctified it. Whether or not the same privilege was granted to women, I don’t know. Probably not. Women in those days were granted damn few of those benefits given to men. They were biblically and legally considered less important.
The fact of this blessing surprised even me. I found it in a book, which title I now forget, dealing with the subject while browsing through shelves at the public library. It was not, of historical record, an approval of same sex physical activity, but the Church has never approved of sex in any form. It has merely tolerated some expressions of sexual libido. Even between married men and women, they added so many but, whereas, and therefore clauses they made marriage a chore rather than a joy.
Today, in the Roman Catholic Church it is stated that Marriage is a sacrament that gets its blessings and legitimacy from the two people making the commitment. The church is only there as witness. However, they extend that idea of canon (and civil) legitimacy only to heterosexual unions.
The contract of marriage needs to be understood outside the Judeo-Christian-Whatever, religious context. It needs to be restored, entirely, as a legal contract. This is going to require education.
This should not mean that those who wish to add a religious element to their union should not be able to do so, but that religious element should have no civil standing. In fact, without the agreement of the civil authority, it doesn’t.
|
|