There has been much discussion in the past several years, concerning the sanctity of marriage. Most of this discussion has come about as a result of a push, from some quarters, for the sanction of same gender marriage.
Back in the 1990s, President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act, defining marriage as between one man and one woman only. Now, in the first place, Bill Clinton defending marriage is a little like Sen. Ted Kennedy teaching water rescue and CPR. In the second place, the president, congress and the courts can define legal civil unions, however, they have no authority to define the sanctity of marriage.
Civil union is a contract having to do with legal rights and obligations. The government has every right to legislate with regard to these unions. At the same time, in order to serve justice, truth, and freedom, government has a duty to extend the benefits of civil unions to all competent adults. The individual religious, spiritual or political beliefs of any segment of society must never be used as an excuse to deny equal opportunity, or equal civil rights to any competent adult, or classes of competent adults. This seems so obvious to me, that I feel a bit foolish even stating it here. The most important benefit of civil union is that of ownership and transfer of property. Civil union defines a family unit, for purposes of civil law. When we speak of civil marriage or civil union, were speaking only of a legal relationship, not a spiritual or religious one. It is wise to take religious principles and opinions into account when contemplating civil law, but it is reckless, unjust and unconstitutional to base civil law and the relationships of competent adults on religion.
Pope John Paul II recently released a message tot the civil leaders of the world, urging them not to extend legal recognition to same gender relationships. The Catholic Church teaches that such relationships are seriously disordered against natural law. This means that same gender relationships are, in and of themselves, evil. As it happens, I disagree with that teaching, as I have a great deal of love and respect for the Holy Father; he is the leader of an ancient religious tradition. (Don't get all crazy, Tony. I'm not Catholic, and I have a great deal of love and respect for you, both as a person and as a representative of a religious tradition.) However, I think he-and our president-need to be reminded of something Jesus once said. Jesus told a group o f religious leaders, who laid heavy, unjust burdens on their followers that if they misled the innocent, it would be better for them if heavy stones were tied around their necks, and they were sunk to the bottom of the sea. The Pope has every right, even obligation, to spread the teachings of the Church, using his spiritual authority, but he crosses a dangerous line when he attempts to have the teachings of his church encoded into civil law. This mentality has been a curse upon the Church almost since its inception. From what Ive seen of the words of Jesus, I doubt he would approve of the merging of civil and ecclesiastical power. When the Pope urges civil authorities to deny equal rights to competent adults, based upon the teachings of his church, he leaves the realm of spirituality and casts himself as a power in the manner of this material world. He departs from the teachings of Jesus, who urged us to walk through this world, but not be of this world, who urged us to accumulate spiritual treasures, rather than corruptible material possessions, who urged us to extend mercy, not judgment. It is the Popes right to define marriage for the faithful of his church as the indissoluble union of a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation. I do not agree with that position-to me, for the record, neither the state, a priest or God marry you, you marry each other: marriage is a covenant. Neither, though, do I have a desire, or the state have a right, to outlaw it. I would never dream to tell the Pope his teachings are fundamentally disordered-though I might believe it.
In most western countries, there are two marriage ceremonies. A couple go before a civil magistrate, who is empowered by the state to confirm their civil, legal relationship. Next, the couple may go to a church, and repeat their vows in front of friends, family and a minister. The minister-of any sort-is empowered by the church to witness the religious marriage, and, in some instances, by the state to administer and witness the civil one, but the reality is that they are separate ceremonies. One of the results of the Enlightenment was the separation of civil and religious authority. Before 1700, there was no civil union; only the religious ceremony, and it had the force of law. The Catholic Church doesnt recognize divorce, yet civil law has accommodated the reality of changing social values, through allowing divorce. Divorce is a civil law concept, having to do with ownership and transfer of property, as well as other legal obligations and rights.
The Pope, along with prominent Protestant and Jewish leaders, tell us that same gender unions would threaten the sanctity and stability of the family, but they dont; tell us how that would happen. Couples already marry and divorce with abandon, and children are raised in broken or single-parent homes, or neglected and abused with both parents present. There is no magical formula for raising nurturing homes, save love, and you cant legislate that. As a country, or government, and as a president, no one has any business attempting to stop people from creating supportive relationships.
Religious marriage is sacred, having deep, significant meaning for the adherents of each particular religion. It ought to be respected by all members of society, but not forced upon anyone. The ownership of property ought to be protected for all members of society, even those engaged in ways of living that religion disapproves of. For example, same gender couples ought to be able to enjoy the survivor benefits of Social Security, pensions and a host of other programs; they pay the same taxes as the rest of us, yet they are denied equal rights because of religious objections to the way they live-in America, in 2004! This is unjust, unconstitutional, and it must be changed. All attempts to prevent it-especially, as Mr. Bush has hinted at, a constitutional amendment-will be one step further away from the constitutional principle of freedom of religion, as well as freedom from religion, and one step closer to the sort of tyranny that I, for one, will continue to rant against until it is really and truly-and, I believe, inevitably-here.
edited to add one word.
Back in the 1990s, President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act, defining marriage as between one man and one woman only. Now, in the first place, Bill Clinton defending marriage is a little like Sen. Ted Kennedy teaching water rescue and CPR. In the second place, the president, congress and the courts can define legal civil unions, however, they have no authority to define the sanctity of marriage.
Civil union is a contract having to do with legal rights and obligations. The government has every right to legislate with regard to these unions. At the same time, in order to serve justice, truth, and freedom, government has a duty to extend the benefits of civil unions to all competent adults. The individual religious, spiritual or political beliefs of any segment of society must never be used as an excuse to deny equal opportunity, or equal civil rights to any competent adult, or classes of competent adults. This seems so obvious to me, that I feel a bit foolish even stating it here. The most important benefit of civil union is that of ownership and transfer of property. Civil union defines a family unit, for purposes of civil law. When we speak of civil marriage or civil union, were speaking only of a legal relationship, not a spiritual or religious one. It is wise to take religious principles and opinions into account when contemplating civil law, but it is reckless, unjust and unconstitutional to base civil law and the relationships of competent adults on religion.
Pope John Paul II recently released a message tot the civil leaders of the world, urging them not to extend legal recognition to same gender relationships. The Catholic Church teaches that such relationships are seriously disordered against natural law. This means that same gender relationships are, in and of themselves, evil. As it happens, I disagree with that teaching, as I have a great deal of love and respect for the Holy Father; he is the leader of an ancient religious tradition. (Don't get all crazy, Tony. I'm not Catholic, and I have a great deal of love and respect for you, both as a person and as a representative of a religious tradition.) However, I think he-and our president-need to be reminded of something Jesus once said. Jesus told a group o f religious leaders, who laid heavy, unjust burdens on their followers that if they misled the innocent, it would be better for them if heavy stones were tied around their necks, and they were sunk to the bottom of the sea. The Pope has every right, even obligation, to spread the teachings of the Church, using his spiritual authority, but he crosses a dangerous line when he attempts to have the teachings of his church encoded into civil law. This mentality has been a curse upon the Church almost since its inception. From what Ive seen of the words of Jesus, I doubt he would approve of the merging of civil and ecclesiastical power. When the Pope urges civil authorities to deny equal rights to competent adults, based upon the teachings of his church, he leaves the realm of spirituality and casts himself as a power in the manner of this material world. He departs from the teachings of Jesus, who urged us to walk through this world, but not be of this world, who urged us to accumulate spiritual treasures, rather than corruptible material possessions, who urged us to extend mercy, not judgment. It is the Popes right to define marriage for the faithful of his church as the indissoluble union of a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation. I do not agree with that position-to me, for the record, neither the state, a priest or God marry you, you marry each other: marriage is a covenant. Neither, though, do I have a desire, or the state have a right, to outlaw it. I would never dream to tell the Pope his teachings are fundamentally disordered-though I might believe it.
In most western countries, there are two marriage ceremonies. A couple go before a civil magistrate, who is empowered by the state to confirm their civil, legal relationship. Next, the couple may go to a church, and repeat their vows in front of friends, family and a minister. The minister-of any sort-is empowered by the church to witness the religious marriage, and, in some instances, by the state to administer and witness the civil one, but the reality is that they are separate ceremonies. One of the results of the Enlightenment was the separation of civil and religious authority. Before 1700, there was no civil union; only the religious ceremony, and it had the force of law. The Catholic Church doesnt recognize divorce, yet civil law has accommodated the reality of changing social values, through allowing divorce. Divorce is a civil law concept, having to do with ownership and transfer of property, as well as other legal obligations and rights.
The Pope, along with prominent Protestant and Jewish leaders, tell us that same gender unions would threaten the sanctity and stability of the family, but they dont; tell us how that would happen. Couples already marry and divorce with abandon, and children are raised in broken or single-parent homes, or neglected and abused with both parents present. There is no magical formula for raising nurturing homes, save love, and you cant legislate that. As a country, or government, and as a president, no one has any business attempting to stop people from creating supportive relationships.
Religious marriage is sacred, having deep, significant meaning for the adherents of each particular religion. It ought to be respected by all members of society, but not forced upon anyone. The ownership of property ought to be protected for all members of society, even those engaged in ways of living that religion disapproves of. For example, same gender couples ought to be able to enjoy the survivor benefits of Social Security, pensions and a host of other programs; they pay the same taxes as the rest of us, yet they are denied equal rights because of religious objections to the way they live-in America, in 2004! This is unjust, unconstitutional, and it must be changed. All attempts to prevent it-especially, as Mr. Bush has hinted at, a constitutional amendment-will be one step further away from the constitutional principle of freedom of religion, as well as freedom from religion, and one step closer to the sort of tyranny that I, for one, will continue to rant against until it is really and truly-and, I believe, inevitably-here.
edited to add one word.
