IS THIS THE END ... OF MARRIAGE?

Today marks a historic occasion.  The US Supreme Court is hearing arguments for and against upholding the ability of states to ban same-sex marriages based on the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution.  This amendment prohibits states from denying individuals equal protection under law.  I am not going to weigh in on how the justices will act, nor will I offer pointless advice on how they should act.  Whatever their decision, this topic will not go away any time soon.

Religion and politics are very much in a state of matrimony with each other and have been for some time.  A true divorce of the two has never occurred in this country.  As I have pointed out in other posts, human beings are both political and religious animals.  Those of you who have read my post on "Senseless Sex in the Bible" have rightfully ascertained that I am no social conservative.

THE ONE MAN, ONE WOMAN KERFUFFLE

At first I was baffled by the kerfuffle being made by social conservatives who tried to pass a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman in order to prevent two people of the same sex entering into a legal sanctioned relationship, which for all practical purposes seemed to be the socially responsible thing to do.   I considered that attempt and the more recent attempts at state levels completely unnecessary.  Something in the move to define marriage intuitively struck me as threatening religious freedom in this country.  

Religious freedom and the right to think freely is being placed at risk by those who want to define  and protect religious freedom.

I must admit that when the issue of same-sex marriage first became a controversy, I was mildly intrigued by same-sex couples wanting to marry.  I was never against same sex marriage, but I didn't fully appreciate or had given much thought, at the time, to how marriage would be beneficial in their case.

Being in a committed, legal marriage for a number of years I didn't have to think about the  legal ramifications of being married.  I had taken them for granted.  What the same-sex marriage issue brought to the forefront for me is how important being responsible for the wellbeing and happiness of the person one loves truly is. 

The fact is I don't have to think about being responsible for the wellbeing and happiness of my wife nor does my wife have to think about being responsible for my wellbeing and happiness because we're married.  It's a given.  If we weren't married and I wanted her to have any legal say or rights to myself and my property, she and I would have to engage in all sorts of legal undertakings to do so. Marriage automatically confers those rights and responsibilities to both of us and therein is the essence of this controversy.

MARRIAGE

To have responsibilities to and for the person you love and to have that person in return love and be responsible to and for you is the ultimate perk of marriage.

A mutual loving and responsible relationship between two individuals is the definition of marriage, or it should be. 

Marriage is not about sexual orientation.  For an individual to say to two people who deeply love each other and want to care for each other, "You can love each other, but you can't have a legal responsibilities towards each other because of your sexual orientation" is cruel and inhuman and stems from and is a reflection of the potential for the mindless cruelty inherent in all religious belief systems.

THE FEAR OF LOSING CONTROL

I was not surprised by the ardent religious reaction by some to same-sex marriage.  One of the defining roles of religion has always been the regulation of  the masses by regulating their sexual behavior.  At the root of religious opposition to same sex marriage is the pervasive fear of losing control and influence over to its followers. 

If so, the question becomes what are they losing control of?

Protecting religious freedom by social conservatives is nothing more than a ruse to protect the marriage between politics and religion and the power base it affords both of them.  The fear is that if certain religious ideas are rendered impotent, political social conservatives will also lose a power base.  Regardless of what the Supreme Court decides, this controversy will not die quickly. 

THE END OF MARRIAGE

There is a principle that Jesus taught which can apply to situations like this.  There is a sense in some of Jesus' parables that trying to save or protect things that seemingly have their own intrinsic value is a lost cause.  The parable of the servant who hid the coin his master gave him comes to mind. 

Applying that parable to this situation shows that holding tightly to the view that marriage only applies to heterosexual couples is like holding onto and hiding that one coin for dear life when the intent of the master was to invest it and to increase the value of what it represents.  So too, the effort to define marriage narrowly; to keep it pristine by insisting it be defined as one man and one woman  and thereby refusing to extend its value to same sex couples has the potential of undermining the institution of marriage itself.  In the parable, control of the coin was taken from servant, so too, the institution of marriage as the legal form of a civil union could become a thing of the past.

The perception of any social injustice in this country and in the free world has a way of motivating people to avoid situations or institutions that reflect or endorse the injustice.  If the institution of marriage is perceived as or becomes the symbol of social injustice, it could very well become the ultimate the victim in this controversy. 

When it comes to relationships, religions throughout history have stressed marital responsibility.  It's ironic that religious and social conservatives are trying to prohibit same sex couples from forming responsible, legally sanctioned relationships; that by their lack of willingness to extend the blessings and responsibilities of marriage to same sex couples, they are not only undermining the institution of marriage they are seeking to protect, but also are inadvertently endorsing the very "lifestyle" they are purportedly against.

Should the Supreme Court decide in favor of same-sex marriage, social and religious conservatives will undoubtedly continue looking for other ways of depriving these couples the blessings and responsibilities of marriage, but should the court decide against same-sex marriage, the nation's demography regarding married couples will likely shift and the role of marriage may well become relegated to a religious ceremony only as a way to avoid giving it a legal definition, but in so doing marriage may well become a thing of the past.

Until next time, stay faithful