The Sanctity of Marriage

A word from our sponsor:

1200-320-max.jpg
Printer-friendly version

Author: 

Taxonomy upgrade extras: 

I'm feeling a little philosophical tonight, so I thought I might try blogging some of it out. Forgive me if I ramble.

First and foremost, let me say that I applaud the ruling by the California Supreme Court on same-sex marriage. I am also pleasantly surprised by Guvnor Ahnold's statement that he will respect the court's ruling, and will not support any attempt to pass a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage.

There was a time I would have thought differently, a time when I would have been outraged by what some call a reactionary court. I believed marriage was a sacred pact between a man and a woman, and any attempt to grant marital status to same-sex couples a direct attack on a Holy bond.

You see, I met a girl and I fell in love with her. She came from a very religious family, as in hand-raising, amen shouting Pentecostal religious. When I fell in love with her, I fell so hard that I changed who I was and embraced her family's beliefs. At first it was to please her, but as time went on it became very personal to me. I got heavily involved in the church. I am blessed, and yes I mean blessed, to have a considerable amount of musical talent. I'm not an instrumental virtuoso, but I have what many, many people have told me is a beautiful tenor voice. It wasn't long before the pastor of our church, who himself was, by his own admission, musically inept, asked me to help with the worship service. At first it was just old, standard hymns, but gradually I began to try and introduce the church to more contemporary music. The congregation was largely senior citizens and they weren't really receptive to that, but I did what I could.

That pastor eventually moved on, and a new one was brought in. At that time, I was a Deacon and was intimately involved in the process of interviewing and selecting the new pastor. The man who was finally chosen was in line with the age group of the congregation, but after he was hired problems started. I won't go into details, it dredges up too many bad memories, but suffice it to say that some who actively campaigned and were instrumental in his getting hired were unhappy when he didn't, acquiesce, to their every whim. He eventually resigned to avoid an ugly church split, and I told my wife that I didn't believe I could continue with that church. She agreed, and after resigning my position, we moved to another church of the same denomination that was actually much closer to where we lived.

The pastor at this church was named Phil, and he and his wife Tina very quickly became dear friends of myself and my wife. He too quickly saw that my vocal abilities were valuable, and he asked me to begin leading worship. More than that, he wanted to 'spice things up'. He was interested in not only appealing to the older members of the congregation, but reaching out to the young as well. As he told me once, "The church is getting old; if we don't do something to appeal to the younger generation, it's going to whither away and die." (That's a paraphrase but it conveys the gist of his sentiment.)

There were still some hurdles. We had a very sweet, elderly lady that played the piano for us and she just wasn't one for those new songs. She also wasn't one for rehearsals -- you didn't need them if you had the Spirit to move you. Don't get me wrong, I loved and respected her, but I firmly believed you had to practice to be spontaneous. I have never been one to believe that God just hijacks us when he wants to make his presence known -- He expects us to do the work, to be prepared, so that when he's ready to move, we're ready to be moved.

We started building a contemporary worship band. We added a keyboardist, a drummer, a lead and bass guitar player and a few others, with me generally leading and strumming my twelve string. We started playing more contemporary worship music, not rock-and-roll or anything remotely like that, but stuff with a flow that moved people. It was really great, but in all honesty some of the best worship services we had were when no one else could be there, and it was just me and my 12-string. One more than one occasion when that happened, the pastor never even delivered a sermon, he just went with the flow and we sang for the entire service. I tell you know, with no reservation, that I FELT the presence of God in those services. I could feel the ... oneness of the congregation. Everything was in sync, and as I lead them in song even my less than stellar instrumental ability didn't matter because we were flowing in a river of love.

I say all this to emphasize that I still believe, because I have experienced something that transcends all logic. You see, I'm really a very, very, very shy and introverted person. I'm the proverbial wall flower at a party. Warming up to strangers for me is like trying to create a beautiful statue from a raw hunk of marble with an emery board -- it can be done, but it's a slow and painful process. I've often said that I know God has a sense of humor, because he gave someone like me the talents I have -- talents that can only be expressed properly by placing myself in front of an audience and doing the one thing that is contrary to my very inner core -- exposing myself. But when I stood before those people and lifted them with my talent, we touched the Throne of the Almighty. No one will ever convince me other wise.

Yet all the while, I knew I held a dark secret, something so vile that if the congregation ever learned of it, they'd ostracize me. I wanted to be someone else. I had the awesome temerity to believe that I, a product of a perfect God, was a mistake. I wasn't suppose to be a man, I was supposed to be a woman. It was something I never confided to anyone, not even my wife. Only God heard my pleas when I went to sleep at night, pleas that I would wake up and find that I was who I was suppose to be. Of course those pleas availed nothing; every morning I woke up the same person I had been when I went to sleep. I won't say that my prayers were unanswered, however; as painful as it is to say, I truly believe God answers each and every prayer ... it's just that all too often, the answer is no. Let me add here that I don't see this as cruelty on His part; I believe He understands things we never can in this life. It doesn't make it hurt any less though.

So what's this all about? What has this rambling blog got to do with the sanctity of marriage? Well it's quite simple actually; you see one day my wife, the precious, beautiful woman I loved, who had brought about such a tremendous change in my life ... well, she told me she didn't want to be my wife anymore. I was, of course, devastated. It didn't help any that she told me that it wasn't me, it was her, that she had realized our entire marriage had been a lie, and that she had only been pretending to love me. It certainly didn't do my male ego any good when, after I pressed her, she said my sexual performance in the last few years had left her wanting, and that she had realized that one man just wasn't enough for her. And yes, I have a male ego -- if I woke up in the morning female, I would cry tears of pure joy, but that doesn't change the fact that for 45 years I have been male, bombarded by testosterone that has shaped my life, influenced my reactions and, sadly, thinned my hair.

It took some time, but I finally realized something I believe is quite profound. Marriage is just a word.

That's right, it's just a word. There's no sacred bond in it, there's no divine joining. Marriage is just a word, like bankruptcy or pizza or chocolate. It has absolutely no meaning other than that which we attach to it. It only means what we make it mean. You see, I don't believe what Mary told me; I don't believe that our entire sixteen years together was a lie. I know that my love for her was real, because I know that if she told me today that she wanted to try again, I'd say yes. Damn logic to hell, I'd wrap my arms around her and ball like a baby because I love her so much it still hurts, even after almost five years.

I don't believe that she never really loved me either, but I believe that there was maybe some shadow of doubt within her. We went through some hard times in the year before we separated and eventually divorced. Her grandmother, who we all loved dearly, was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. She was given about two years to live ... she was gone in less than six months. I think she gave in, that her love for her family was so great that she just let herself die rather than subject us to a lingering illness.

A few months after that, Mary's younger sister took her own life. I was the first to know, and I will carry with me the rest of my life the memory of opening the door to our house and seeing a pretty young woman accompanied by a sheriff's deputy. She told me she was a victim's counselor and asked if they could come in, and as we sat down at the dining room table my mind was awash with dread. I truly believed she was about to tell me my beloved Mary was gone, but in many ways what she said was worse. Our sweet, vibrant, loving Ginger was dead. I'd know her for twenty years, since she was eight, well before I married her sister. At once I was struck with two horrifying thoughts -- how was I going to tell Mary, and why had I never told Ginger how much I loved her, and how special I thought she was?

Okay, I'm not going into that any further. I relate this because I believe these double tragedies drove a wedge into that seed of doubt Mary had harbored since we married. It didn't help that she never really grieved for her sister. Oh she cried, we both did, holding each other as the tears flowed, until there were simply now more tears to shed. But then Mary got clinical about the whole thing. Ginger had been sick; she'd struggled for years with depression and bipolar disorder. She simply couldn't take it anymore -- she snapped and in an act of desperation took her own life. But despite her clinical detachment, I believe she took a look at her life and decided she wasn't happy with it, or more to the point, me, and decided to make a change.

So again, what's the point of this tirade? The point is this; marriage is just a word. As I said, I applaud the decision in CA, but in the final analysis what does it mean? Same-sex couples deserve the same rights under the law that 'traditional' couples enjoy. They deserve the right to adopt, to medical benefits and all those protections guaranteed hetero couples, but in the end, marriage is just a word. If the state is willing to grant a couple those protections under some alternate terminology like a domestic partnership, then I see that as a victory. Don't get hung up on a word, because in the end, if there isn't a real, strong, enduring love between both partners, words don't mean a damn thing.

One more point, Like I said earlier, at one time I would have seen this ruling by the California Court a travesty. I don't believe that anymore -- people can, and do, change.

I'm done now.

Comments

Congratulations On Your Growth

...and condolences on the dissolution of your marriage.

Marriage is a contract. Originally, it was a civil contract, having more to do with the laws of inheritance, the upkeep of children and the interests of the State (king, country, government). As I understand it, the Church wedding was a secondary development. In some countries in Europe today, it still is. To be married, you must first appear in the local registrar's office and make your vows and sign the forms and be legally witnessed. This part is absolutely mandatory. The State doesn't delegate to the churches its governmental power to marry. Then, you can have a religious ceremony, usually a subsequent day, knock yourself out, do the thing with white dresses and tuxedos and big dance-feast thing, or paint yourself blue and frolic under the full moon for all anyone cares.

If marriage is a "holy covenant," not to be trammelled by the likes of *gasp* homos and lesbos *gasp*, then I would have a few questions, even putting aside the historical preeminence of State interests. The first question is, why isn't there a "three strikes and you're out" rule? I love Liz Taylor, but I've lost count of the number of marriages she's had. I vaguely remember the number eight going by. If you fail at marriage three times, that should be it. Pack it in, give it up. You're clearly unqualified to make decisions like that. Which brings me to my second question...

How come there isn't a test or a trial? You can't just become a priest by filing a form, and that's a lifetime commitment, too. Is marriage so much less "holy" that you can just send in three boxtops and $9.99 and (presto!) you're married forever and ever? Or not. As noted above, the contract can be dissolved pretty much at will. Britney Spears. Do I have to say much more? Did anyone believe when she got married to whasisname that anyone had even put any thought into it, or that it was any sort of lifelong commitment. Which brings me to my third question...

How come there's a civil marriage, still, if it's such a holy institution? Why can you go into City Hall, fill out a form, agree to be married, and receive the full legal endorsement of government without ever waving around a holy book or symbol or having the presence of an ordained minister-type-person?

Okay, let me change subjects entirely. Regardless of whether marriage is a word, a contract, a holy thingamabob, or a governmental convenience, there's still the most important question of all. This is the question I do wish SOMEONE in the news media would grow enough backbone or insight or intestines or whatever to ask whenever they interview a proponent of the Orwellian-named "Defense of Marriage Act":

Let's say you're happily married. How is your marriage negatively affected by anyone else's marriage?

Personally, my anger on the subject would end up in a tirade of questions. Why doesn't it matter to you that Britney Spears was allowed to get married, or that Liz Taylor has been married eight times? If these things can't affect the quality of marriage as an institution, how could allowing two intelligent people of the same sex who love each other and want to make a contractual lifetime commitment to each other, in any way denigrate the institution of marriage to the point where it affects you in any way whatsoever?

Oh, one more thing before I end this demolition of the D.o.M.A.nators... Why is marriage optional? How come people can have babies without being married? If marriage is required to raise children, shouldn't they be forced to abort, or to have their children take away at birth? For that matter, if you're so interested in the care and well-being of children, why don't you push for a law providing free mandatory pre-natal care, nutrition and early childhood education for everyone? Should poor people be able to have children? Why is living with someone and having sex with them without being married, even allowed? Don't you want to go back to stoning "fornicators" to death in the town square?

Oh, heck. I'm having too much fun to stop! Okay, a few more arguments:

If marriage is all about raising children, then should childless couples be forced to divorce? Should fertility testing be mandatory before marriage? Should post-menopausal or sterile women be allowed to marry? What about impotent men? What about women who miscarry? Isn't that immoral, like abortion? Shouldn't they be arrested?

As you can tell, I have a very low opinion of the DoMA-nators, and I think they're really just trying to be the thin edge of a theocratic wedge to break down the "Establishment Clause" of the Constitution and bring this country under some kind of religious rule. I also think their positions are too often hypocritical and contradictory, and I think someone should call "bullshit" on them to their faces where everyone else could see it.

Calling Bullshit to Their face

Hmmmm. Have you protested lately. If a tree falls and no one is around. . . . You're not within miles of the people you're protesting against and the "corporate" press won't cover it. Calling bullshit to their face is no longer a right we enjoy.

Angela Rasch (Jill M I)

Angela Rasch (Jill M I)

painful thoughts

kristina l s's picture

Ah Scott, you need to be careful here; you're stepping into territory that I often inhabit. That strange let the thoughts flow world where you try to understand things that make little sense, where pain and fear mix pretty freely and more often than not you give away more of yourself than you probably should or would if you thought about it. I'm not you, but I can see and feel a lot of what you say. So I'll slip into ramble mode and try to follow…

I'm not especially religious for all sorts of reasons, mostly narrow minded prejudice and general intolerance. Still I hold no atheist philosophy, there may well be a God, I'm just not convinced it's what most people who profess to seem to want to believe think it is. The basic belief system that predates most religions is as good a model as any to live by, but people politics tends to mess it up. I can't claim perfection there either, I have my own prejudices. So whether I'm sick, an abomination or a pestilence upon the Earth is after all just words. I've never met or visited Sodom or Gommorah though I might have watched it on the news once or twice. Minus the pillars of salt.

I can relate to your feeling of the divine in music; that moment, song, evening… where everything just worked and it was as close to perfection as we are capable of. I think that can be felt in all sorts of areas, any human endeavour really. You strive and attempt and then suddenly for no obvious reason it all clicks…thank you God.

Yes well I may be a little blasphemous, but I do not deride anothers belief or achievement. I can't truly understand your years of marriage and the despair and loss as that imploded. I have no reference to match it to. No time scale to equate. I have known loss, I've had relationships self destruct, I've seen death both impersonal and self inflicted…who's fault? Ah….

I decided at 22, I would never marry, could not have children could never parent because… I was not him, I was…. me. My choice and thoughts, which may not equate directly to anyone else. We all make our own choices for a great many reasons.

I wonder at this maybe law to allow same sex marriage or however they word it. The discrimination that is endemic to such relationships is unlikely to be resolved by a possible 'wording' . I agree that words in and of themselves mean little. With the weight of law widely disseminated… perhaps. To be honest I am no longer sure whether if I fully complete transition to female whether that means I am then.. female and can thus marry should I choose. I don't even think about it. But discrimination, that I do think about…often.

So Scott, rant and rave and have a good tirade if you feel it. You do a pretty good one and I applaud the feeling and will to do it. I hope you have some peace with it all.

Hey don't mind me, I'm nuts.
Respectfully
Kristina

Marriage is a sacred pact, except when it is inconvienient

Sad to say your ex-wife's arguement rationalization is used by lots of people for al kinds of reasons.

Almost sounds like middleage hit her hard. A man would have got a convertable and mistress, saying to the old wife, you don't satify me any more or I don;t love yu anymore. At least that's how they do it on TV and in movies.

She, because of her strong religous background and that a perfect *God* can not have santioned a flawed marraige had to rationalize that she never loved you and that the marraige was a error, thus not God's or untimately her fault. Whoopie-do. As to one man is to enough to satify me, I love to see how she rationalized that bombshell within her supposed faith. To be fair to her, maybe she had lied to her self so long about her feelings, her desires, that it all came to a head in the abrupt and painful way it did.

I hope you are felling happier and that she has found what she is searching for. If she finds it was you she wanted all along, it would serve her right for wasting five years.

So much for pop psychology/pop religion.

I get the impression Arnold is a praagmatist at heart but sometimes refuses to see it. It is so easy to appeal to the temporarry *will of the people.*

I had a lession in that early in my adult life that served me well. The Fire Fighters Union was pushing for at least four fire fighters per large truck saying any less was undermanning and dangerous. We had had a deadly restarant fire -- Alioto's - where two ex firefighters, then paramedics -- died.

Mind you the then Milwaukee Fire Chief, the head of a far larger departement than Wauwatosa who had come to aid us investigated and said 2000 men could not have saved them. The men made several fundamental errors a firefighter should never make and paid for it with their lives. It was a kind of perfect storm, undermanning was not the issue.

The union pushed for *full* manning in a referenda, never let the truth getin the way of an emotional issue. Reminds me of the Anti-same sex Marriage referenda. It passed overwhelmingly, like 70/30. In the same election there was a referenda to fund the needed firefighters if the other referenda passed. It was rejected overwhelmingly, like 20/80 or worse. IE we wanted the firefighters if they were free. The public wants conflicting things, even stupid things sometimes and for the majority to get their way alone, others get trampled. Look what happened to the west coast Japanese and there American born ofspring in WWII. There's democracy gone gaga.

The Califorina law forbidding same sex marraige was an example of the tirrany of democracy. What happened in anchient Greece was an extreme example were by a mere majority vote people could be exhiled on a whim -- ostrasized. They did that to their greatest miltary hero yet kept in power a tirant in power who built the Parthenon and bankrupted Athens, leading to Greece's collapse as a magor power. We need a buffer between the passions of the day and longterm logic. Voter launched referenda are dangerous. Sometimes, often, the majority is wrong.

And remember, with the changing demographics over time those in the majority will not be in the future. Do they want Islam made the Office State religion, Budisim or Wally World-ism just to name a few possiblities at random?

Sorry it didn't work out, Scott. You still carry the torch.

John in Wauwatosa

John in Wauwatosa

There are two sides to every story

I've read your comment several times, and I just have to respond. I'm Scott's ex-wife. I never really considered myself middle-aged, but okay, I'll buy that. Maybe the midlife crisis is just you finally getting enough perspective to understand that you could be wrong. However, I (as you probably expect) don't remember things exactly as Scott remembers them. I'm not saying that my version is correct. I've learned too much about memory over the years to think mine is flawless. That being said, I don't think his is flawless either.
Let's take care of the little things first. By the time he & I separated, I had pretty much given up on God. I hadn't yet gone all the way (I'm a dyed in the wool atheist now), but I certainly didn't think that God was perfect. If I really believed in him at all anymore (and my memory is fuzzy on exactly when I quit believing), I thought he was fairly disinterested and organized religion had him all wrong. So much for your pop psychology. I don't think I told Scott that I never loved him. Before we started dating, we were friends. I loved him dearly as a friend, and, honestly, I never stopped loving him as a friend. To this day, I'll see something in the news, and my first thought is that I have to tell him about it, because only he would get the joke. We should have stayed friends and skipped the marriage altogether. I won't go into reasons that I've worked out in my head for why we got married. I can tell you that my religious background had a lot to do with us staying married. People in my family didn't get divorced, and I was afraid that I would disappoint a lot of people if I did. I was in an "I made my bed, now I have to lie in it" mode.
I did tell him that my life was a lie, and he may have interpreted that to mean that I was saying that our marriage was a lie. I suppose if my whole life was, the marriage was too, but it was bigger than that. I had pretended my whole life that I was this good little Pentecostal girl. Much like Scott says that he prayed every night that he would wake up a woman, I prayed every night that I would wake up as someone who was really that sinless woman who abided by all the church's rules and was acceptable to god. Thanks for commenting on how my idea that one man may not be enough to satisfy me must have been a bombshell in my "supposed" faith. (That was sarcasm, by the way. You have a lot of nerve to make comments on how "supposed" my faith is based on what you read in his blog.) That was the whole problem. Don't any of you get it? Scott & I had, ironically, the same problem. Both of us were pretending to be something we weren't. He was pretending that he was happy being a man, and I was pretending that I was a-ok with being under all of the rules of the Pentecostal church, that I wasn't a really sexual person, that I wasn't more inclined to polyamory than monogamy, that I never had those "dirty" thoughts. What ended our marriage was that I finally told him the truth, that I wasn't happy the way I was, that I needed more sex than I was getting. I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with him. He is who he is, and, in another bit of irony, if he'd only told me the truth, I probably would have been more accepting than most people. By the time I told him that I wanted a divorce, I had also told him so many things about me that clearly indicated that I was not in line with the church's beliefs on sex, that I would have thought that he should have realized that I probably wouldn't have judged him at all. Hell, if he'd told me, we might have been able to work out a deal where I slept with other men, and he did whatever it was he needed to be who he was, and it would have been nobody's business.
And that leads to the biggest point of all. From what I've read here, and what he told me after the divorce was finalized, Scott has known since well before I met him that he was a woman trapped in a man's body. If you feel like you have to keep that a secret to get along in society, that's your business (and, though, I'm not in that position, I can certainly see where you might feel you have to). The problem was that he involved me in it. I wanted to marry a man, not a woman in a man's body. I spent 16 years wondering what was wrong with me, why I was so unacceptable that my own husband didn't seem to want me, why we lived like roommates instead of lovers, why I could parade around in lingerie and he merely told me that I looked nice. Do you have any idea how devastating that is to your self esteem? Then, after I finally got the nerve to get a divorce, he tells me that he wanted to be a woman the whole time. That tiny little bit of information made my ordeal a whole lot more understandable. No wonder he didn't want me.
I have a lot of sympathy for anyone who spends their life having to pretend that they're something that they're not to be acceptable to the world they live in. I've been there. All I ask of anyone in that position is that when you get in a relationship, tell them the truth. If they don't accept you as you are, there isn't a real relationship anyway. Having been on both sides - as the one doing the pretending and the one that was clueless about some essential part of another person - I can tell you that neither one is healhty. Life is too short to live with someone who doesn't even really know you.
Finally, I have found what I'm searching for. The man I'm with now heard all of my secrets in the first few days after we met, over 5 years ago. I figured that, if he couldn't hear all of that and accept me anyway, I wanted to run him off before I got attached to him. His response was that we all have baggage, and we would work it out, and we have. He's well aware of my polyamorous tendencies, and my belief that sex can be just a friendly exercise (nothing more than a good massage is how I put it) as well as a transcendent bonding experience, and he agrees, in theory at least. :) In practicality, he's monogamous, and I love him enough (and our sex life is satisfying enough) that I'm good with that. But he knows the real me, and that's very important to me.
I know you wrote this a long time ago, and I've refrained from answering because I didn't want to interfere in Scott's life, but I just had to reply. Maybe it took all these years to come to grips with it. I don't know.

Three Recommendations

Scott -

Your basic honesty is riviting. You're absolutely right about marriage. The ones I've seen apparently work, break all the Hollywood molds. There is nothing Victorian about waking up next to someone who loves garlic, which you hate, but who is the epicenter of your life. There is nothing sanctimonious about most marriages, in that they aren't built to last longer than the average car.

Please take the time to read a recent issue of Roliing Stone in which Mark Taibbi wrote about going undercover as a member of a fundamentalist church. He attends a weekend camp to indoctrinate him as a new member of the congregation. His observations of the dynamics of the group are eye-opening and echo much of your experience.

There are two books you might want to consider. The first is So You Don't Want to Go to Church Anymore. It talks about what faith really is and again echoes much of how you feel.

The second is called The Shack. It is a unique study of faith issues in a context you would find entertaining and demanding. If you're going to read one of the two, definitely go with The Shack.

If I lived near you I would give you a copy. I've given several friends copies of both books.

Neither book is TG oriented, but they might offer you a bit of solace.

Angela Rasch (Jill M I)

Angela Rasch (Jill M I)

Honesty and learning

Scott I view your blog as a rear but honest glimpse into the life of a person.While you have suffered pain to get where you are you've learned from it something many don't and you should view that as a positive .I don't want to come across as shoving you a load of feel good bs but growth is good.I think you still feel hurt but don't allow that hurt to turn bitter.I think like you that to many are focused on the word and it's shame that more don't take the vows for what they are a commitment to spend the rest of your life with another and something that should not be so easily undone.May you live long enough to touch the throne of god many more times.Amy

I'm sorry that these were

I'm sorry that these were the circumstances that brought you to this conclusion. I can't begin to understand what you're going through with this, as I've only dealt with divorce from the perspective of a child involved. Even so, divorce is an ugly thing for all parties, and I hope things work out reasonably amicably.

The big marriage debate that's going on these days is something, I must confess, that I don't really understand. As Pippa pointed out, it is very much an issue of the State, as it is the legal protections and recognition that same-sex couples are seeking. I don't really understand what threat this is to the Church, or heterosexual couples in general. Many states and countries already have things like civil unions, and commonlaw parterships (which, in some cases, can even apply to long-time roomates, not just couples), so I really can't fathom why taking it one step further is causing so much controversy.

While I'm sure there are some couples who seek to challenge their various churches to allow them to wed in a sacred ceremony, it is well within the rights of said institutions to deny them, on the basis of their beliefs. The government cannot, and should not, dictate things to a religious institution. Nor should a religious institution dictate the matters of the State/Crown. That said, there are religions and denominations that would welcome same-sex couples, and be willing to wed them in a ceremony.

Whether or not Marriage is a sacred institution to the papacy is irrelevant. The vatican, and other denominations, are free to conduct their marriage ceremonies as they will, and view the parterships as they want, but the Church does not have a monopoly on marriage. That is largely why I don't understand the controversy. Who is one religion to dictate that their methods are the only way? And to enforce it upon others through the law.

The real threat, as I see it, is that to allow same sex couples to marry, is to give their relationships a validity that the 'anti-gays' or whatever they are called, don't want to give. To acknowledge same-sex marriages, is to acknowledge their love; to acknowledge homosexuality; to acknowledge homosexuals as real people, who can love just like everyone else. Those who fervently believe homosexuality to be wrong don't want to do that. To accept that the love between people of the same sex is real, just as real as the love between two people of the opposite sex; is to accept that they aren't really any different than anyone else. Then you can't say that 'they' are one of 'those people' because they're just like 'you'. It's hard to demonize a group when you let them be real people with real feelings and real love just like your own. It's a lot easier to oppose homosexuals when even the law won't say their love is the same as heterosexual couples.

It is truly terrifying that such a ban could even pass in the first place, but we live in terrifying times. When a hateful word like terrorism is a buzzword, thrown around excessively. When during a WAR, we as a culture, can't find something more constructive to do, than to attack each other, and fight over everything from Copyright laws and piracy to sexuality. We're in the middle of a culture war, kicking and screaming against the changes of tomorrow, but tomorrow will come. I just hope we never become anything even remotely resembling an orwellian dystopia.

How can something older than religion be a part of it?

Edeyn This is something that's always made my brain ache, even without the skull fractures. Marriage, as an idea or ceremony, is older than any of the 'established' mainstream religions, yet it is nearly always pointed to as the purview of religion! It doesn't make sense to me. Marriage may be something you go to your religious leader (no matter what religion) to have the ceremony performed, but it's usually something to do with respect for the pastor, priestess, or what-have-you. How can you claim that something is a religious ceremony if the ability to have it performed is extended to atheists? If if were a religious thing, not only would atheists not be allowed to have it, but having a marriage or wedding that crosses religion wouldn't be allowed.

Edeyn Hannah Blackeney
Wasn't it Jim Henson who said, "Without faith, I am nothing," after all? No, wait, that was God... Sorry, common mistake to make...

The Right is trying to conflate religion and marriage...

Puddintane's picture

...although in the USA they have nothing to do with one another, at least in theory.

This is one foot in the door toward reinstating a State Religion, enforced by the Feds.

Anyone for mandatory Christianity? Well, the "good" kind...

It all comes down to the Bible, "After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances." - Leviticus 18:3

The Rabbinic response to this curiously vague passage was that the practices of Egypt included "men marrying men, and women marrying women," so Paul took on this worldview and passed it on, although some hope to argue that Paul was deliberately vague for technical reasons, largely in vain.

Of course, this stern prohibition in Jewish law is tempered by the fact that any "sin" (except for murder, incest, and idolatry) is permissible if done to save a life, even if the saving is metaphorical, so the Reform and the Conservative Movements allow same-sex commitment ceremonies, and the typical response of Orthdox Rabbis is to look the other way. The principle of "lashon hara" prevents Jews from making adverse comments, either in person or by innueando, and possession of the "evil tongue" is a sin far worse than mere homosexuality, for whom the Rabbis proclaimed that anyone with such urges should go to a strange town, dress in dark clothing, and do whatever was necessary to make their life bearable. In other words, almost anything is OK, as long as you don't do it in the street and scare the horses.

Cheers,

Puddin'

-

Cheers,

Puddin'

A tender heart is an asset to an editor: it helps us be ruthless in a tactful way.
--- The Chicago Manual of Style

Life Is So Hard Sometimes

jengrl's picture

I am a Christian myself, but I tend to separate my belief in God and Jesus from the dogma that is present in many religious denominations. So many try to put God in a box and say that He couldn't have made someone Transgendered, Gay or Lesbian. I believe that God is so much bigger than the minds of mere mortals can grasp. There is a reason for everything. It is sad that your wife could tell you that she didn't love you after sixteen years. My dad told my mother that after 15 years of marriage. He literally ran off with the girl down the road. I do believe that marriage is as you say, a word. I do think that there are marriages that are true partnerships. My paternal grandparents were married for 59 years and had their ups and downs. At the core of it was real love and true devotion. My grandparents told me that too many couples of today give up too easily when things get hard. My grandmother said that the word divorce never passed their lips even during the most difficult times. They made it work by talking to each other. I certainly hope that the religious zealots out there will leave the CA law alone. It IS NOT anyone's place to define happiness for two people no matter what their gender or sexual orientation may be. We have so many more important things to worry about as a country and same sex marriage should not be one of them.

Hugs,

Jenn

PICT0013_1_0.jpg

In Defense of Marriage

Puddintane's picture

First off, let's acknowledge that the real purpose of the so-called "Defense of Marriage Act," and the proposed Constitutional Amendment to enshrine bigotry in the highest law of the land, other -- of course -- than international treaties, is not to do any such thing, but rather to protect the Republican Party from defeat by throwing a bone to the evangelical conservatives who are its loyal guard dogs, by rallying the haters who formed its "Southern Strategy" to pile on a new "safe target," the perverted "love that dare not speak its name," without the messy complications of Jew-baiting and the lynching of "Persons of Colour." After all, who can object when one bashes a bunch of "faggots?"

But let's look at what a Federal Amendment would do in reality. First, the government would have to implement a series of regulations, set up an agency to make sure that impermissible marriages didn't take place, and start setting up Federal obstacles to guard the newly Federalised institution of marriage.

We've seen how successful government intervention has been in the control of other vices, drinking, sexual immorality (casual fornication), prostitution, gambling, drug use, and whatnot, all by now dim memories, since they've been "stamped out" by a benevolent State. So there's no reason to assume that a new Federal law would actually *do* anything other than to undermine the authority of the Catholic Church.

Let's say that you're a Roman Catholic Priest. First, you'll need a license from the Government to do a significant portion of your job: marriage counselling, performing the Sacrament of Marriage, and so on. How thankful the Church will be to find its apostolic authority second-guessed by the Federal Government, its teachings on marriage now subject to a new "Higher Authority," and their lay parishioners made cognisant of the new lay of the land, that the State is higher than the Bishop, the Archbishop, the Cardinal, the Pope, and even God.

Consider also the source of the new agitation for Federal laws regulating marriage, to wit the Born-Again Protestant religions who've used legislative means to attack the "Papists" and other undesirables time after time, from Prohibition, to immigration control, to Woman Suffrage, to Eugenics, and on and on, all darlings of the Protestant Republicans (and their predecessors) aimed straight at the heart of the Roman Catholic Church.

It's not an accident that the infamous "Border Fence" is now being erected on the Mexican (Catholic) Border while the Canadian (mostly Protestant) border languishes undefended.

At its core, the proposed Constitutional Amendment is *really* Anti-Papist, letting parishioners know that the Protestant State is superior to Catholic Church authorities, justified by hate speech meant to rouse and "convert" the susceptible rabble of both parties, but with peculiar implications only for Roman Catholics and other churches with traditional religious hierarchies, a "Poison Pill" aimed ultimately at slowly killing Roman Catholicism in the USA.

-

Cheers,

Puddin'

A tender heart is an asset to an editor: it helps us be ruthless in a tactful way.
--- The Chicago Manual of Style

Iucunda macula est ex inimici sanguine.*

I had been 100% against a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, but given your comment I'm rethinking my position. Anything that pierces the Catholic Church's armor has merit. The latest Pope has some nerve coming to our country and apologizing for the sex scandal, after he was a central character in the cover-up.

*What a pleasant stain comes from an enemy's blood.

Angela Rasch (Jill M I)

Angela Rasch (Jill M I)

Homosexuals are just the easiest target

Puddintane's picture

Once discrimination against an unpopular group is enshrined in the Constitution, one can think of just oodles of undesireables to join them. Discrimination against transsexuals and cross-dressers has already been made deliberately legal by mere Federal statute*; imagine what the right-wing could do with a Constitutional Amendment.

Who's next?

Puddin'
--------------------------------
* A gift of the late Jesse Helms

In Germany, they came first for the Communists, /
And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist; /
And then they came for the trade unionists, /
And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist; /
And then they came for the Jews, /
And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew; /
And then... they came for me.... /
And by that time there was no one left to speak up.

-- Pastor Martin Niemoeller

-

Cheers,

Puddin'

A tender heart is an asset to an editor: it helps us be ruthless in a tactful way.
--- The Chicago Manual of Style

Ahhh Butt

It's Slick Willy that we have to thank for making discrimination against homosexuals a law in "don't ask/don;t tell". As you point out it doesn't matter who's currently sliding out of control down the slippery slope when you're in line at the top hoping you won't be the next to be shoved over the edge.

Angela Rasch (Jill M I)

Angela Rasch (Jill M I)

Actually, you hvae your facts slightly wrong...

Puddintane's picture

Bill Clinton promised during his campaign to allow all citizens regardless of sexual orientation to serve openly in the military, but ran into a perfect storm of Republican and Blue Dog Democratic opposition, including then-Democratic Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia, who held the chairmanship of the Senate Armed Services Committee. To placate the opposition, he backed down on his promise and offered to let the oposition draft the policy which he would later propose.

Colin Powell (remember him? lifelong Republican? toady for the powers that be from Viet Nam on to Bush Jr?) actually drafted the policy, which was the best that could be done, given the strength of the opposition, who were very vocal, and despite the support of Barry Goldwater, who was always more Libertarian than Republican, and who urged a complete elimination of the ban on homosexuals, and lesbians, and, by the way, transsexuals in the military.

Cheers,

Puddin'

-

Cheers,

Puddin'

A tender heart is an asset to an editor: it helps us be ruthless in a tactful way.
--- The Chicago Manual of Style

Slicker than the a-ah-verage willie

erin's picture

The previous laws absolutely proscribed homosexuals or other sexual "deviants" from serving in the military and allowed, even required, investigation into the backgrounds of all personnel to assure there were no homosexuals serving. While Don't Ask/Don't Tell was a step back from what Clinton had promised it was an absolutely freaking ENORMOUS advance on what had gone before. The sentence in Leavenworth was a lessening of earlier rules that allowed hanging, for that matter. Many gay boys wish they were well-hung but there's a limit. :)

When I served in the Army in the '70s being found out as gay or lesbian meant a dishonorable discharge and possible time in a federal prison since it was illegal to be gay, currently or previously. Now it's just illegal to talk about it. Huge difference.

And it's clearly a trap. It's an unsustainable position for the military which will crumble as more and more homosexuals serve with distinction and pride. And as more and more prejudiced military leaders end up getting their br-ass served to them for violating the don't ask part.

It wasn't perfect but Don't Ask/Don't Tell was a victory for Slick Willie -- proving that he really was slick in the Arkansas sense, meaning clever enough to sell you the galluses* you were already wearing while stealing the belt you didn't need.

Hugs,
Erin

= Give everyone the benefit of the doubt because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.

*Yankees call them suspenders and Brits call them braces.

= Give everyone the benefit of the doubt because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.

I feel the need

Breanna Ramsey's picture

to clarify myself.

What I was trying to say is that, in the debate over same sex marriage, many in the LGBT community seem to be hung up on the wording. Now I believe that everyone, regardless of their sexual orientation, should be able to enter into a legal marriage. However, what I feel is most important is the rights conveyed, not the word used to describe the union. It SHOULD be marriage, but if a nationwide law were to be proposed creating a 'civil union' or 'domestic partnership', I don't think we should get all huffy, as long as said union conveyed all the rights and privileges granted to a heterosexual married couple.

Change is all too often painfully slow, and sometimes we have to take little steps. A nationwide law making domestic partnerships legal and equal to marriage would be a huge step in the right direction. I believe in such a case that over time, such unions would be gradually accepted, and eventually the difference in wording would fade away. Domestic partnerships would become marriages in the minds of all, even if the legal wording wasn't there. And eventually, too, I believe the legal wording would be changed.

My whole delving into my own divorce was an attempt to illustrate that marriage isn't a magic word, it's just a word. Marriages are ending every day, even so called 'perfect' ones like mine. If the foundation upon which the relationship is built isn't solid, no word is going to keep it from eventually crumbling. And if the foundation IS solid, then it doesn't really matter what you call it. It will weather any storm, because you have the most important word of all on your side ... love.

Scott

Writing is like prostitution. First you do it for love, and then for a few close friends, and then for money.
-- Moliere

Bree

The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense.
-- Tom Clancy

http://genomorph.tglibrary.com/ (Currently broken)
http://bree-ramsey314.livejournal.com/
Twitter: @genomorph

I would agree, Scott

erin's picture

But I have experience of a civil union law granting me the exact same rights in the case of Jeanne's death as a spouse. The law specifically said that. No one would agree to follow it on the grounds that we weren't married and civil union just was not the same.

Separate is not equal and the back of the bus is still the back of the bus.

Hugs,
- Erin

= Give everyone the benefit of the doubt because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.

= Give everyone the benefit of the doubt because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.

Echo that

Having faced a somewhat similiar (although certainly not the same) situation to Erin's, I tend to agree with her. The problem with civil law is, by the time a court ajudicates in your favor it's often too late to mean anything. In Robyn's case, I had no say-so in how the services were conducted nor where and how she was buried. As a result, she is buried under her maiden name in her family plot. I will be buried almost a thousand miles away in my family plot. Yes, that bothers me. In spite of her parent's best efforts, I did get the payout on her insurance policy; and the "maybe someday" surgery happened, just as we both dreamed it would. But I didn't want the money, not like that.

Like you, Scott, I'm inclined to take what I can get. But it's not enough, not nearly enough for me.

Karen J.

* * * * * * * *
Change We Can Believe In - Barack Obama

The change, it had to come,
We knew it all along
~~~~~~~
Meet the new boss,
Same as the old boss

Won't Get Fooled Again - The Who


"Life is not measured by the breaths you take, but by the moments that take your breath away.”
George Carlin