Over this week I have been pondering some things. My wife and I travelled to Oklahoma to visit family and visited some friends in Kansas along the way. It was a wonderful time and gave an opportunity to reconnect. Particularly with a couple of friends that live across from where my wife group up. A mother and daughter living together and taking care of one another and it reminded me of my great aunt and uncle when I was a child. My uncle joined the military to get away from the farm at the beginning of WWII to see the world and was captured by the Japanese in 1941. He was a POW for the entire war and survived what is most famously known as the Baton Death March. After he was liberated and returned home to the farm where he lived his life. His sister wanted to get away from the farm also, so she went to New York City to study and was raped. She returned to the farm then also. Brother and sister living together, taking care of each other, until the end of their lives, each the primary care giver of the other.
While pondering this I began to think of this whole gay marriage issue. I never was against the civil union idea, but I felt and still feel that the GLBT activists really shot themselves in the foot when they brought out the idea of "gay marriage". This whole concept does not only disturb most Christians, but also Jews, Muslims, and most other organized religions. This issue has unfortunately been made an "us and them" issue and each side argues and back-bites and it has all been made "Christian". This thought came to me because the whole idea is that of rights, privileges, and protections offered to two people who commit to the care of one another.
It is not uncommon for platonic relationships to form between family members and friends that have no desire to be in a romantic relationship, but care for one another - Primary Care Givers. Well, thinking of this why is it that we don't institute a primary care giver status that allows for two people that commit to the care of one another to receive the same privileges and benefits of married people? It doesn't only cover GLBT people, but also those people like my great aunt and uncle or my wife's friends. That way they have the right to share company health benefits, property protections, and death benefits. It would create a contractual relationship in a civil context and each party to receive these benefits would file with the state and in order to be released from the contract would require judicial action similar to divorce with all the risks, i.e. palimony.
Marriage, within a religious context, is something set apart from the governmental/civil side of things and is up to the churches to decide what is appropriate or not. I could not marry homosexuals just like I could not marry siblings, cousins, or the like. I, also, know that there are heterosexual couples outside of those listed that I may deny to preside of their marriage. This needn't be seen as hateful as long as decisions are made in good conscience and with a loving intent. I really believe that primary care giver status would be a great medium and would not being giving anyone preferential status in the eyes of the government.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Separation of church and state is a big issue with defining "marriage": Who defines marriage, the church or the state? I agree, that I think there should be some civil/state recognized partnership for those who are committing to live and provide for each other, whether siblings or lovers, but I don't want that state recognized partnership to infringe of my concept of what a godly marriage is supposed to be. That's really what this fight is: both sides are saying, "don't you infringe on my rights!" but we don't have an understanding of what rights we have and don't have. Personally, I'm ok with my marriage being recognized by the church but not by the state and instead having the state recognize a civil union with my husband. I wonder how long it will take the political discussion to get out of the "us-verse-them" and "don't-you-infringe-on-my-rights" arguments and reach a point where this is a probable compromise.
April,
I agree with you, this is a church and state issue. Marriage, as you and I see it, is an institution between a man and a woman that is specifically set apart by God. I don't wish that to be changed within the church. My main thought is to make a special contractually binding, governmental designation. This designation would give to two people that enter into this contractual relationship the right to share benefits and give property protections. If the issue is equal rights and protections, which I don't believe is the intent of the GLBT movement, why not set up a governmental designation that offers equal rights and protections for all that do not qualify for marriage.
Post a Comment