Feathers will undoubtedly be ruffled, but here goes...
Marriage is an ancient institution that has had many forms and definitions. The passion displayed here and elsewhere is indicative of the psychological and spiritual yearning that loving couples wish to share in matrimony. However, in those myriad definitions of monogamy, polygamy, polyandry, arranged marriages, yadda yadda yadda, I have yet to see a single spiritual text that endorses SAME-GENDER marriage.
98%-99% of the world population believes in some form of spirituality. Marriage is exulted in most of those faiths. It's an extraordinary uphill battle to expect that folks will turn off their "faith" because marriage has been co-opted to include a whole host of civil advantages. And it's because of those advantages that this whole debate is more complicated.
To me, the civil bit is ALREADY separate from the actual marriage. When my wife and I married, the minister lost our paperwork, so we weren't registered as married with the state for years. Still, people came to the wedding; my wife changed her name; she was covered under my insurance as were our kids.
Whether civil unions become the de facto standard for everyone, or a temporary "holding pattern" for GLBT couples, GET THE RIGHTS ASAP, by any means necessary. Calling it "marriage" may come later, but having the rights will offer much needed protections. As an aside, no one can legislate your invitations. Put what you want on them and share your commitment and love with your family, friends and community. At the end of the day, that's what I hope matters most.
In regards to the Warren pick, it's pretty clear that Obama is rubbing off on Warren more than Warren is rubbing off on Obama. Warren has back-pedaled from his most offensive comparisons of same-gender marriage and has scrubbed some homophobic rhetoric off his site. Given how Warren has been called to the carpet on his specious claims that marriage has "always" been one man/one woman, I would be surprised to hear him repeat that trope. He's too smart to for that. On the other hand, imagine the difference it would make if he started extolling the fairness of granting marital RIGHTS to same-gender couples vis a vis civil unions.
Marriage is an ancient institution that has had many forms and definitions. The passion displayed here and elsewhere is indicative of the psychological and spiritual yearning that loving couples wish to share in matrimony. However, in those myriad definitions of monogamy, polygamy, polyandry, arranged marriages, yadda yadda yadda, I have yet to see a single spiritual text that endorses SAME-GENDER marriage.
98%-99% of the world population believes in some form of spirituality. Marriage is exulted in most of those faiths. It's an extraordinary uphill battle to expect that folks will turn off their "faith" because marriage has been co-opted to include a whole host of civil advantages. And it's because of those advantages that this whole debate is more complicated.
To me, the civil bit is ALREADY separate from the actual marriage. When my wife and I married, the minister lost our paperwork, so we weren't registered as married with the state for years. Still, people came to the wedding; my wife changed her name; she was covered under my insurance as were our kids.
Whether civil unions become the de facto standard for everyone, or a temporary "holding pattern" for GLBT couples, GET THE RIGHTS ASAP, by any means necessary. Calling it "marriage" may come later, but having the rights will offer much needed protections. As an aside, no one can legislate your invitations. Put what you want on them and share your commitment and love with your family, friends and community. At the end of the day, that's what I hope matters most.
In regards to the Warren pick, it's pretty clear that Obama is rubbing off on Warren more than Warren is rubbing off on Obama. Warren has back-pedaled from his most offensive comparisons of same-gender marriage and has scrubbed some homophobic rhetoric off his site. Given how Warren has been called to the carpet on his specious claims that marriage has "always" been one man/one woman, I would be surprised to hear him repeat that trope. He's too smart to for that. On the other hand, imagine the difference it would make if he started extolling the fairness of granting marital RIGHTS to same-gender couples vis a vis civil unions.
Comments