The furor regarding gay marriage is not over at this time. When do words mean what they mean, and not what one group wants them mean today? Or tomorrow?
One opinion: Confusing legal rights with moral rights is the sticking point. The ability to join in marriage, as sanctioned by the state is one issue. To enter into Holy Matrimony is another.
This comes into play the first time a gay couple is refused the “Right” to have a wedding ceremony in their favorite church. At that point a lawsuit will inevitably follow, sooner or later. Then comes the decision: Is it tolerated for the state to force a church to allow the gay couple to marry in a Christian denomination church? And if it is, is that not what the Founding Fathers were talking about when they suggested the separation between church and state?
I submit that it is.
Should we also be forced to accept a gay person in a Christian Fundamentalist church as pastor, simply because that’s what they want? I submit, the answer is no.
It seems in theory, that whatever one person wants, they must be granted the desire of their heart. I suggest that life isn’t fair, and humans aren’t able to fly without a mechanical aid of some sort. A human isn’t able to free dive to 2,000 feet in the ocean (and survive) and that’s just the way it is. Get over it.
Not everyone will be a pianist, nor an artist or an engineer. So what. The gay couple can have a civil union which completely sidesteps the issue of ‘marriage’ and the result would be the same. It just wouldn’t be called a marriage. So what.
Equal treatment under the law appears to have been the crux of the problem, at one time. That is no longer the case, now the LGBT community wants the word “marriage” to mean what they want it to mean. One well stated article on the difference between a Civil Partnership and Marriage is found at the BBC regarding the situation as administered in the United Kingdom.
Sociologist Carol Smart of the University of Manchester. calls the event a “milestone” that “is marriage by any other name, essentially”. She adds: “Legally speaking, there’s only a tiny difference. “The actual allowing of same-sex couples to enter into a state-recognised, basically marriage, with all the same obligations, the same safeguards and so on is really, really significant.”
From my perspective as a Conservative Libertarian Christian Fundamentalist that would have been a far better course of events in the US. It would allow for equal treatment under the law and yet it would also leave the definition of the word marriage unchanged.
Words are supposed to mean something after all, that is the basis of human communication. I say: “The sky is blue and the duck quacked loudly under the tree.” Anyone who speaks the English language will know that I was not stating a dog was barking at midnight while sitting atop a pistachio tree.
When words only mean what they mean right now, and not tomorrow, nor the same as two years ago, the result is a breakdown in communication and understanding. That would be one definition of social chaos.
Those who disagree with this opinion are free to do so, that is Googledy Moogley with me, just don’t expect an Risdrat Motradium response to date of Trellis Miedeeliumosis from me.
(I intend to maintain my opinion as is, and will not change it for the sake of Political Correctness)