I was just chilling, drinking some tea before bed, figuring I could look at facebook and spend a few relaxing moments. But no, there's posts about marriage rights (from both the left and right) spewing hate comments at the other side of the argument. ENOUGH ALREADY!! Chris Rice put it very well when he said "louder doesn't make you right ... you don't have to yell." (seriously listen to Chris Rice's "Don't Have to Yell" great song) So now I'm frustrated, and unable to sleep, so here's my two cents to save the world.
I think the biggest things that both sides need to realize is that they are looking at marriage through very different lenses.
One side is looking at marriage as a religious institution, where marriage is a covenant, a binding relationship between a man, woman, and God. Spiritual, emotional, and unbreakable, higher than any other legal or moral code. The model for this type of marriage is the relationship between God, Christ, and Christ's Church. Where the Father is the spiritual head, Christ leads, guides, and lays down his life for the love of his bride the Church. (Believing this way about marriage also lends itself to say a few things about divorce, but it rests mostly on the verses "What God has brought together, let no man separate." However that is a topic for a different time.)
The other side is looking at the lens of the legal institution, the binding of two people together for their mutual benefit. Legal marriages do have certain benefits; once married a spouse can legally speak for the other when the spouse is unable to speak for themselves, there are tax advantages to being "married" on top of one person's benefits being able to cover the spouse. This side rightly says that being confined to "civil unions" does not supply the same legal benefits that being "married" does. (Nor does it sound as romantic) However many people in this camp don't care about the "spiritual" implications of marriage.
My question is this why can't "civil unions" come with the same legal benefits as a "marriage"? By saying this, I will freely admit that I believe that marriage is a covenant between God, a man and a woman. Marriage is a religious institution, not a legal one. But I do ask, why don't the benefits that being "married" in the eyes of the state apply to civil unions? Why can't two people, who are in legal agreement, choose to support each other? Regardless of their relationship to each other. I mean if two brothers want to help and support each other, why can't they? Say one has a great health care plan, but the other makes an awesome living and they choose to cover the other, why couldn't they do it legally? Or rather than two brothers, be it two friends or two lovers.
When I listen to why people are arguing for marriage rights for all types of relationships, it is always about the "rights" that are currently limited to people who are legally married. I wonder if we made these rights apply to a broader community, would it remove some of the hostility? I know it won't solve the problem, the world is still broken. But would it stop the yelling?
I think the biggest things that both sides need to realize is that they are looking at marriage through very different lenses.
One side is looking at marriage as a religious institution, where marriage is a covenant, a binding relationship between a man, woman, and God. Spiritual, emotional, and unbreakable, higher than any other legal or moral code. The model for this type of marriage is the relationship between God, Christ, and Christ's Church. Where the Father is the spiritual head, Christ leads, guides, and lays down his life for the love of his bride the Church. (Believing this way about marriage also lends itself to say a few things about divorce, but it rests mostly on the verses "What God has brought together, let no man separate." However that is a topic for a different time.)
The other side is looking at the lens of the legal institution, the binding of two people together for their mutual benefit. Legal marriages do have certain benefits; once married a spouse can legally speak for the other when the spouse is unable to speak for themselves, there are tax advantages to being "married" on top of one person's benefits being able to cover the spouse. This side rightly says that being confined to "civil unions" does not supply the same legal benefits that being "married" does. (Nor does it sound as romantic) However many people in this camp don't care about the "spiritual" implications of marriage.
My question is this why can't "civil unions" come with the same legal benefits as a "marriage"? By saying this, I will freely admit that I believe that marriage is a covenant between God, a man and a woman. Marriage is a religious institution, not a legal one. But I do ask, why don't the benefits that being "married" in the eyes of the state apply to civil unions? Why can't two people, who are in legal agreement, choose to support each other? Regardless of their relationship to each other. I mean if two brothers want to help and support each other, why can't they? Say one has a great health care plan, but the other makes an awesome living and they choose to cover the other, why couldn't they do it legally? Or rather than two brothers, be it two friends or two lovers.
When I listen to why people are arguing for marriage rights for all types of relationships, it is always about the "rights" that are currently limited to people who are legally married. I wonder if we made these rights apply to a broader community, would it remove some of the hostility? I know it won't solve the problem, the world is still broken. But would it stop the yelling?
No comments:
Post a Comment