Alternative thoughts on Marriage, Civil Unions and Families…
Over the last 60 years or so, our country, our society and our religious organizations have unfortunately largely gutted the institution of marriage. Decades ago, marriage used to be a sacred institution; today it is nothing more than a ceremonial institution. Now, before you get all upset, please take a deep breath, relax and read on, so that I can try to explain my logic.
Today, thousands of couples will get married in elaborate, often religious ceremonies; tomorrow, thousands of couples will get divorced, by simply signing papers in a lawyer’s office. Today, marriages are conditional, with legal clauses and pre-nuptial agreements. Marriage in our country today is nothing more than a civil union between two people, who may change their mind tomorrow. And when divorce happens, the religious organizations that support this so-called sacred institution shrug their collective shoulders, dust off their hands and walk away. Are these religious organizations demonstrating responsibility? No. Hypocrisy? I’m afraid so.
So if it’s not the institution of marriage itself that is sacred, what is? I believe it’s the hoped-for result from marriage that should be considered sacred: That result is the family. For it is the family that ensures that future generations in our country carry on the work ethic, integrity and character that the parents have. We used to have these values, passed down from the elders to the young. These values helped to make our country strong.
Today, we have news reports of the proliferation of gangs, drug use, kids having children, divorce rates of 50%, half of all urban students never graduating high school and even mothers throwing babies away in garbage cans. We are losing those values. Yet here we are, trying to legislate and define a marriage as being between a man and a woman. If we were to legislate marriage as such, would that legislation help to educate kids, reduce drug use, reduce the divorce rate and end the proliferation of “throw away” kids and babies? Of course not. If it did, then we should all be in favor of that legislation. Legislation won’t help. In fact, the mess we have now was created by a man and a woman.
What people fail to realize is that generations ago, marriage was the tool that enabled that institution, “The Family” to flourish. (Think of marriage as a means to an end.) No more. You want marriage to be special and sacred today? Then don’t allow married couples to divorce. It was that way for a reason 60 years ago, to insure that the young had a fighting chance to obtain the attitudes, beliefs and work ethic that could be passed down from their elders. But divorce has become an integral element in our society and not easily removed. So what do we have today? We have nothing more than “Civil Unions”, with pre-nups, legal clauses and conditions.
But what if that “Civil Union” couple can remain together for decades, develop a Family and pass on the sense of stability and ethical instruction to their children? Then and only then, can we say they have a true Marriage, because they have weathered the years of aggravation of being together, have provided for their young and can take pride in how their children have grown and succeeded in life. THAT, DEAR READER, IS WHAT IS SACRED!
Now hopefully, you are beginning to realize; there is nothing sacred about an act of “Marriage” between a man and a woman when a divorce is a phone call away. There is something sacred however, about two people who live together for decades, have a Family, support and instruct that Family, and insure that Family members have developed a sense of tolerance, ethics, integrity and character that can be passed on to future generations. This is what you must remember from this article above all else: Today, it is the Family that creates the Marriage, it is not the marriage that creates the Family. The Family is the sacred institution we should be supporting, both by religious groups and by our government.
And if that sacred result is created (or developed) by two men, two women, or a man and a woman, does it really matter? Of course not, if the end result is bright, intelligent young people, tolerant of others, successful in life and contributing to society.
I hope you agree.
Earl Rynerson
Reader Comments
Earl;
Thank you for speaking up for what is fair and just for our community.
All your articles so far demonstrate these feelings, from Budgets, Green Space and Toloerance. In my opinion some might call you a Gaurdian Angel to help guide us to a new and improved direction.
Thank you for giving the matter obvious considerable thought. One of your major conclusions rubs me the wrong way: children are NOT necessary for a marriage and should not be used to define a marriage.
Bravo. Good thoughts and very well written.
Well if we are speaking in an open minded fashion let me throw my two cents. From a traditional point of veiw marriage was for creating a foundation of a culture to pass on virtues as Earl suggests. It also is an institution for procreation of the next generation to prepetuate those virtues. In modern times the speed of information, exposure to different points of veiw, and the ability of anyone to restart somewhere else renders it moot. It still should be treated as a fundamental pillar of any society because it enforces committment of a man and a woman. On that same thought there is no reason why two males or two females cannot experience that same dedication to another. So everybody loosen your fists and give the two situations different titles. Hetrosexual union call it what it has been called a “marriage” and homosexual union call it a “civil union”. Give both of those situations the same benfits and responsibilities because they are same, but with different gender make ups.
Now that would lead us to adoption. It is not a right. It is a privelige granted by the goverment, similar to being able to drive. I have heard pro and con arguments about it I think it is wash. Because no matter who you are you can be decent and honorable person or a nasty and bitter person.
Of course I have an opinion…….I’m not gay but I don’t see the fuss. Homosexuals should have the same marriage laws that abide to heteros. Why? Because I saw what happened to my neighbor of 80 years old. His partner of 40 years passed away. He inherited the house that was paid for in full. Problem is, he wasn’t a “spouse” PS, he moved out. His taxes skyrocketed. I mean from $2000 p/y to over $7000 p/y to an 80 year old man. That was obscene and unfair. That house should have been handed to him. He lived in it for over 20 years and supported it along with his partner. Perhaps they should have written the ownership differently but that doesn’t happen with a wife. He dies, she inherits or vice versa. So it’s okay for gay people to live out 40 years in a relationship exactly like a marriage but when it comes time to reap the benefits, they are not allowed. Yet the same people that oppose these Civil Unions are those that have affairs, illigimate kids and use city, state or federal funds to pay for what is considered a mortal sin. I’m not religious but these people have the gull to be that too!!! I just don’t get the hypocracy. Meanwhile they dwell on this issue. How about dwelling on an issue like getting rid of our $10 billion a year war which is/has been sucking us dry? What are they loosing by NOT allowing Civil Unions?
The government issues the marriage license and when the marriage is made a host of contractual laws take effect. The laws have been made over a long time by elected officials; the laws support contractual rights and obligations. Marriage is just that. Don’t confuse it with “morals.”
I think same sex marraige will prove to be the downfall of our society. It isnt natural for two people of the same sex to involve themselves in a relationship that was created by God for the purpose of procreation.
I see Romney declares that marriage has always been been between a man and a woman. Strange, because his church once redefined it to be between a man and several women. Then after a while, redefined it again to be between one man and one woman. Is it only Mormons who are allowed to redefine marriage to keep up with current fashions?
No, not really. In the United States marriage was restricted to people of the same race under most state laws until the second half of the last century. Since then the definition has been changed and now blacks and whites can get married. So states can change the definition too. when the social climate changes. (A lot of churches fought that change, just as they are fighting this one.)
Actually I don’t see anything in the bible that says marriage is between one man and one woman exclusively. There is much better authority in the bible for polygamy or, for that matter, for raping maidens seized as booty in battle.
With all that redefinition going on throughout history, what’s wrong with expanding the definition so more people who love each other can get married too?
I feel that all Gay couples should have equal rights as the same
As straight couples do. Including Health for both and Social Security if one pass away. And Marriage as well. And we can all pay for
Are fair taxes also.
Pardon me for being so mellow, but I can’t be bothered with an issue long ago settled in civilized countries. Instead, I think we should open a all-out campaign to outlaw heterosexual weddings.
As a practicing Catholic I must agree with the Church’s position in the matter, marriage should be restricted to a union between a man and a woman. This is why I have always supported the concept of civil unions so that all can have access to the same benefits as married persons. As an individual who feels that no one should have the benefit of an advantage because of their marital status, or for any other reason for that matter, I believe that the solution is to do away with all such concepts. Start anew on a level playing field.
As for supporting President Obama because solely on his recent statement on this one issue, I am strongly opposed. One should not go all-out for a presidential candidate based on that person’s stance on a single subject that may or may not result in a desired benefit to a limited number of individuals. We should all keep in mind that the subject is one that must be addressed at the state level.
The present economic situation is dire. Rejuvenating the economy and putting people back to work should be our primary goal come November, not what amounts to nothing more that a political trick to enhance President Obama’s war chest.
We cannot and should not remain narrow minded but must begin to think of the welfare of all Americans rather than a few who may or may not receive a benefit. We are all in this together. Lets work and vote with that in mind. Remember what President Kennedy said, “a rising tide raises all ships.”
I disagree. You are entitled to your opinion, but your opinion is discriminatory against a group of people, and that is wrong. Hiding behind the Bible in order to discriminate is even worse.
Earl