My thoughts on marriage (and homosexual “marriage” in particular) have
changed a little bit over the time since it became “legalized”, so I
figured I’d share a bit about my current thinking. If you aren’t
interested in my thoughts on the topic, feel free to stop reading. I’m
likely to ramble some a bit, anyway.
Marriage is defined by God. I really don’t know what it means for two
people to be in a marriage-like relationship without God at the center
of it. It’s a strange concept. And as I study the Bible, there isn’t
an asking of governmental permission before a marriage, and often
there isn’t even really a ceremony. It’s primarily just “So-and-so
took her home to be his wife.”
If I were to get married all over again, I’m pretty sure that we
wouldn’t use the state “Party A” and “Party B”
forms
to request permission from the government. We’d write up our own form
or something and maybe file a copy with the Town Clerk to inform the
government of our decision.
It’s also rather interesting that if I were to run a business, for
instance, I doubt I could use my own definition of “married” when
determining benefits. I’d probably need to use the state’s definition
or I’d be “discriminating”. And while having anti-discrimination laws
makes some sense, aren’t I supposed to have freedom of religion as
well?
All that being said, I asked my legislator to vote for the proposed
constitutional amendment yesterday. I don’t really think that amending
the constitution is really the solution, because I don’t think that
the constitution is the problem. I think that the judges are the
problem, and removing them is really the answer. But the amendment
seems the most likely way to at least make some impact. And having
said not too long ago that I don’t really care anymore about the
government’s definition of marriage, it feels a little weird to
somehow still care about it. Maybe I’m just hoping that it’ll make the
state government a little more moral. Or something.
And while having anti-discrimination laws makes some sense, aren’t I supposed to have freedom of religion as well?
Of course you have religious freedom, one of the reasons you are allowed to get married in a church of choice. But if your boss was an orthodox Jew, should you, Pete, still be allowed to eat whatever you want during your lunch hour? Or even better, for dinner after you’ve gone home from work? If you want relious freedom you need to allow other people to practice their beliefs. I’m not telling you what my ideas are on gay-marriage here, perse, but I am asking you to think about people who don’t believe the same that you do. And no matter what your religion, it’s the minority in the world.
My thinking has always been that freedom of religion is just one example of freedom of thought. Your freedom of religion is absolute as long as it keeps one foot in the realm of thought. Once it becomes pure action (allowing for some hybrid thought-action), you are bound by what civil society deems appropriate, neutral, universal restrictions. Just like freedom of religion doesn’t mean you can refuse to treat a gravely ill child with modern medicine, or force a child to handle a dangerous animal as a test of faith, it isn’t a carte blanche right to do anything you claim God wants you to do.