Homosexual marriage, or civil union, has always been kind of a mystery to me.
When I moved to Atlanta from a small town in Michigan in 1992, I had never even met a homosexual. Once I got here in Atlanta, I auditioned and was accepted into the Tenor section of the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra Chorus. Out of about 30 tenors, there were only two or three of us that were not gay men.
Quite a culture shock for me, the conservative who was always told that homosexuals would burn in hell. But I met and became friends with individuals, not a group. They were kind, and warm, and caring, and genuinely wonderful people. My attitude toward homosexuals was forever changed. I don’t ascribe to their lifestyle, but neither do I stand in condemnation. That’s someone else’s job.
I’ve heard comics say, “The homosexuals should have the right to be as miserable as the rest of us married people.”
Why should homosexuals want the blessing and licensure of the State on their relationships? What’s the big draw… the big benefit?
It doesn’t appear to be that the homosexuals want to be taken too seriously. The folks that march in Gay Pride parades don’t appear to be concerned with the straight world’s acceptance of their chosen lifestyle.
Could it be that they are looking for a legal status that will provide them monetary benefits that they cannot get today? Like Social Security, Medicare, pension and health care benefits?
They already have the right to have any kind of legal relationship they choose.
The Evangelicals who spend so much time denouncing homosexuals say that licensing homosexual marriage will undermine the “sanctity of marriage.”
First, if you have a faith or religious tradition you follow that prohibits homosexuality, fine. Practice your own individual behavior within your own conscience. But the states and the Federal Government of the USA are secular in nature, not Christian. Don’t presume to force your beliefs onto others.
Second, if marriage was as sacred as our society tells us it is, the state legislatures would not have passed laws that made divorce so easy. Besides, why should any state have any licensure of a marriage? Is it only for the easy fees it generates? Is there any real difference between a marriage license and a dog license or business license?
Seems to me that the essence of this issue is the sanctity of contracts, not the sanctity of marriage.
There is nothing I know of that prevents any two or more people from entering into contract with each other. Two people can go to an attorney and have a legal document drafted that deals with legal duties to each other, community property and the disposition of assets, legal duties to children of the “union,” procedure for dissolution of the agreement (kind of a civil divorce), and any other contractual terms the parties desired.
When the contract was acceptable to all parties, it could be signed and notarized. No preacher or judge would have to officiate…that’s just the romantic myth that accompanies the process. And, there is no license fee for executing a contract.
If the partners of a civil union want to have a little ceremony and a celebration following, great! Nothing prevents it but their budget.
You never see two guys, going into business as a remodeling contractor, draw up a partnership agreement, and then go get a pastor or priest to bless their partnership. Homosexuals don’t need it either.
If homosexuals would stop thinking about being slaves of the State, they could actually become leaders to the rest of the population. They could enter into their own legal relationship agreements, and completely forsake the blessing of the State. Tell the bureaucrats to stay out of their relationships, as well as their bedrooms.
Homosexuals, stop trying to curry the politicians’ favors, and show the rest of us a little taste of individual liberty.
Forget state-approved marriages forever!