Gaily Marrying or Gay Marriages

Gaily Marrying or Gay Marriages

The institution of marriage is rooted in religion. Unfortunately, due to the majority ethnocentrism and an American tossed salad, marriage is no longer a simple understood notion of joining and being fruitful. Marriage, as an issue, is climbing the political rickety decadent ladder of controversy and the whispers waft vulnerably and equitably from the lynch mobs to the placatory philanthropists. Who has the squarest shoulders and the gentlest hands for our nation to live up to “Bring me your tired, and hungry…?” Maybe an inspiration comes from an old Swedish proverb “When you point a finger, remember that three fingers are pointing back at you.” If I cannot lean on God for guidance, then I will lean on the American value system in the way of “All men are created equal [.]”, and that our American forefathers originally created laws to protect us from bullies. For these reasons, I indiscriminately vote for gay marriages.

Firstly, Bush is a Christian, and this is a fact and his guidance. For this reason alone, he has a right to reserve marriage for heterosexuals. And because this country is founded on Christian theology, he has a right in his reign to reserve marriage for heterosexuals and thus he cannot be faulted for supporting this pillar as not only indiscriminately, but also within his own value system. In trying to find an objective passage against gay marriages this prejudicial passage is the closest definition of marriage within a traditional view as it states that marriage must not be changed to mean merely two consenting persons agreeing to share quarters and start applying to the government and to employers for economic benefits. Marriage must continue to be recognized as the essential unit of a stable society wherein husbands and wives provide a home and role models for the rearing of children (Dec. 10, 2003 on gay marriages, http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2003/dec03/03-12-10.html.) Ironically what’s not said is that heterosexuals are allowed to marry for non-child bearing reasons and enjoy sharing quarters and applying to the government and to employers for economic benefits.

So, not finding support for “no” gay marriages in the present, I look to the past and find acceptance in same-sex marriages (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_mar3.htm.) In ancient Egypt a tomb discovery of a same sex gay married couple Niankhkhnum and Khnumhotep 1964 in the necropolis of Saqqara, Egypt. This tomb dates to the Fifth Dynasty (circa 2,500 BCE), and shows that homosexual marriages date back over 4 millennia! Roman Catholic Church, a recent book by Yale Historian John Boswell demonstrates that Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches both sanction and sanctify unions between partners of the same sex up until modern times. The churches use ceremonies that are very similar to conventional heterosexual ceremonies. Other countries show same-sex, long-term relationships are publicly acknowledged in ancient Egypt, Greece and Rome, as well as Australia, Europe, India, and Native America. Then I check with current events and find a lack of enthusiasm among the gay community for marriage. Between the June 10 court ruling and Monday, 590 gay and lesbian couples — out of 5,500 couples — have received marriage licenses in Toronto's City Hall. And more than a hundred of them were U.S. same-sex couples that crossed the border to marry. A total of 6,685 same-sex Toronto couples registered as permanent partners in the 2001 census, about one-fifth of the total across Canada.

So with no rush to the altar, what’s all the fuss if only a minority of gays wish to be married? What’s driving gays to marriage? A possible explanation is economics as outlined on the below online site: http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bene.htm. On the order of 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon married couples in the U.S. Typically these are composed of about 400 state benefits and over 1,000 federal benefits. • joint insurance policies for home, auto and health; • dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support; • immigration and residency for partners from other countries; • inheritance automatically in the absence of a will; • joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment; • inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate); • benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare; • spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home; • veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns; • joint filing of customs claims when traveling; • wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children; • bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child; • decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her; • crime victims' recovery benefits; • loss of consortium tort benefits; • domestic violence protection orders; • judicial protections and evidentiary immunity; • and more....

Most of these legal and economic benefits cannot be privately arranged or contracted for. For example, absent a legal (or civil) marriage, there is no guaranteed joint responsibility to the partner and to third parties (including children) in such areas as child support, debts to creditors, taxes, etc. In addition, private employers and institutions often give other economic privileges and other benefits (special rates or memberships) only to married couples. And, of course, when people cannot marry, they are denied all the emotional and social benefits and responsibilities of marriage as well. Research and (life experiences) is suggesting that in the absent of God being a determining factor, economics play an important decision on whether gays push for marriage or not, and the rest of us are running around wasting time on worrying about what a minority can or cannot do. I have a proposal, a simple efficient proposal. Because this is America, land of the free, and marriage is a religious institution, then disband (do not state or federally recognize) the institution of marriage. Instead, hand those who wish to form a solvent structure within a “family hierarchy” the legal requirements to form a partnership together for the business of having a family. Some of the topics that are covered in the two partnership agreement contracts are: Ownership interest, Loans by partners, Allocation of profits, management, duties, salaries and compensation, borrowing money, reimbursement, competition, authority, admission of new partners (by birth or consensual), meetings, and termination and more.

For those who think this is too stuffy for their beautiful love flower, let a religious institution join them, serve them in sickness sorrow and despair, divorcements, and relegate the dispensing of children. People can have both, either, or different marriages with different partners. This solution allows for any one to establish a financial plan and securely raise children or not. There are worse cruelties in life than to worry about a nurturer’s sex orientation or that there are two people or five people in a consensual union. Allow these partnerships to both foster and adopt children and establish routine, domesticity, and economic growth.

Lastly, the issue about Gays in the work force is an issue about nonconformity. Gay CEO’s, bouncers, office clerks, etc are usually socially acceptable if they are not flamboyant. However, this is only fair because society frowns not only on interoffice intimacies, but also on heterosexuals holding hands, kissing, and public displays of affection. These sensuous behaviors do belong behind closed doors and not in hurting the paradigms of those around them. Maybe as an extreme solution is to incorporate into Valentine’s Day a day to show your orientation, so that those that want to attract females could wear green, and those that want to attract men could wear lavender, and those who want to attract more than one partner can wear prints with circles.

Humans depend on prejudices to open-mindedly make their own choices. Race, ethnicity, and sex orientation are the most simple-minded way to develop prejudices so we can decide where we “freely” want to go. I am proud to live in America, be a part of this tossed salad, and hope we keep wrangling over these issues and finally grow into our idealisms.

Show all stories by   Author:  62927 ( Click here )