Marriage v. marriage
Inasmuch as the issue of “same-sex marriage” has been in the news of late, I thought I’d put down some of my thoughts on the issue. To say it’s a “hot button” topic would be an understatement, and the tone of the debate is rather shrill on both sides.
I personally find the emotional nature of the debate interesting because after all, in our Society, a substantial portion of the populace has chosen to avoid the entanglement of marital vows entirely. For those who do contract marriage, half decide it was a mistake for some reason and wind up in Family Court. Nonetheless, many States have passed laws refusing to sanction same-sex marriages, including Missouri, which did so by referendum which passed with around 70% of the vote. This would indicate strong views about an “ideal” when the practice is less than same.
I should say that my views about Marriage have evolved somewhat over time, solely as a result of 18 plus wonderful years with the EMBLOS. I grew up in a mainstream conservative protestant denomination which in the nebulous past had done its best to throw off all the trappings of Catholicism, which alas, included the idea that Marriage is a sacrament. Specifically, Marriage is a spiritual union of two eternal souls which forms a new, separate and wholly complete entity. This sacrament can only be received by one male and one female and once accomplished, death is the only thing that can break it.
This is not to say that when I was reciting my vows, I believed that the institution of Marriage was purely a civil contract between the EMBLOS and me. Rather, I viewed it as a contract, but with God playing the role of “Super Notary,” which in turn made my commitment more serious. As time has gone on, however, I have learned much and have seen the reality of the sacred nature of Marriage. I’ve come to the conclusion that Marriage is indeed a sacrament and that many Protestants have missed the boat when it comes to spiritual instruction on the issue.
From that standpoint, I suppose, it really doesn’t matter to me how the State defines “marriage.” The State’s definition is irrelevant to me because “marriage” is different than “Marriage.” For the State’s purposes I have a contract. For me, it is an eternal spiritual connection. The State of Missouri could get out of the marriage business entirely and declare that marriage no longer existed as a legal status. Nonetheless, I would still be “Married” to the EMBLOS. In that sense, the reciting of the vows in my church committing myself to the EMBLOS forever is infinitely more significant to me than the fact that the State of Missouri gave me a license which is now duly recorded at the county courthouse.
That’s the difference between being “married” and being “Married.”
I personally find the emotional nature of the debate interesting because after all, in our Society, a substantial portion of the populace has chosen to avoid the entanglement of marital vows entirely. For those who do contract marriage, half decide it was a mistake for some reason and wind up in Family Court. Nonetheless, many States have passed laws refusing to sanction same-sex marriages, including Missouri, which did so by referendum which passed with around 70% of the vote. This would indicate strong views about an “ideal” when the practice is less than same.
I should say that my views about Marriage have evolved somewhat over time, solely as a result of 18 plus wonderful years with the EMBLOS. I grew up in a mainstream conservative protestant denomination which in the nebulous past had done its best to throw off all the trappings of Catholicism, which alas, included the idea that Marriage is a sacrament. Specifically, Marriage is a spiritual union of two eternal souls which forms a new, separate and wholly complete entity. This sacrament can only be received by one male and one female and once accomplished, death is the only thing that can break it.
This is not to say that when I was reciting my vows, I believed that the institution of Marriage was purely a civil contract between the EMBLOS and me. Rather, I viewed it as a contract, but with God playing the role of “Super Notary,” which in turn made my commitment more serious. As time has gone on, however, I have learned much and have seen the reality of the sacred nature of Marriage. I’ve come to the conclusion that Marriage is indeed a sacrament and that many Protestants have missed the boat when it comes to spiritual instruction on the issue.
From that standpoint, I suppose, it really doesn’t matter to me how the State defines “marriage.” The State’s definition is irrelevant to me because “marriage” is different than “Marriage.” For the State’s purposes I have a contract. For me, it is an eternal spiritual connection. The State of Missouri could get out of the marriage business entirely and declare that marriage no longer existed as a legal status. Nonetheless, I would still be “Married” to the EMBLOS. In that sense, the reciting of the vows in my church committing myself to the EMBLOS forever is infinitely more significant to me than the fact that the State of Missouri gave me a license which is now duly recorded at the county courthouse.
That’s the difference between being “married” and being “Married.”
Cheers.
R. Sherman
posted by R. Sherman at 7:03 AM
3 Comments:
Nicely said.
That shrillness you speak of is the result of the attempted forced marriage of Marriage and marriage, it seems to me. Frankly, I'm not sure either "spouse" benefits as a result.
That's a beautiful philosophy on marriage, you have there Randall. I think gay people want the chance and the ease that can only come with society's ull acceptance to find out such beauties for themselves.
It's more of a social than a spiritual argument for them, I think. Individual relationships might be as spiritually meaningful and binding as any heterosexual's, but wouldn't it rankle to have the society you live in tell you that that still wasn't as valuable as heterosexual marriage? It implies some sort of frivlolity about gay relationships.
When president Bush says marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman, isn't he saying-by-not-saying that we, the State do not recognise sacrament for homosexuals, however many pleasant little lawn ceremonies y'all want to "play" at marriage in? That would surely get on my nerves, if I were gay.
My understanding of Republicanism was always of small government, leave it to the states to sort out such matters - the government should supply defence and some services but that's about it - get out of the way of the people. What happened to that?
Thanks for the thoughts, John and Sam. Actually, your comments hit upon stuff I pulled out of this entry before I posted it.
Something to write about in the future.
Cheers.
Post a Comment
<< Home