|
On Meet The Press, Sunday Nov. 28, 2004, the Rev. Jerry Falwell said in regards to marriage in general and gay marriage specifically that we (the USA) should keep the same standard that we have for the last "6000 years".
I agree wholeheartedly.
As we (again, the USA) are a country with immigrants from all over the world, we can be fairly well assured that we have descendants of almost every culture known to man, including many that recognized the validity and usefulness of polygamous and group marriage as well as recognizing gay marriage.
Only halfway of those 6000 years, about 1000 b.c. or so, the most Macho society possible was at their height in Sparta, a completely militarized state. Oddly enough, they had no problems with homosexual marriage - recognized by the state, don't you know - and they didn't think there was enough to worry about troop-morale-wise to even consider "don't ask - don't tell" as effective, useful, or needed policy.
The word 'marriage' has Latin roots. It comes from the root 'maritus' (a husband) which has at it's root 'maris' which is a synonym for 'mas' - that is, 'a man'...doesn't seem to me that linguistically there is a call for marriage to be "one woman, one man" - rather it seems that as long as there is a husband in the union, anything goes! (Sorry, lesbians...) The Romans (it's their word, remember) recognized marriage between men - true, they were ridiculed, but it was legal.
If we go all the way back 6000 years, as Rev. Falwell would have us do, we can find as many definitions of 'marriage' as there are civilizations. Some accepted any and all forms, some restricted marriage to the aristocracy, not allowing marriage in the middle and lower classes at all - let alone male/female only. I don't know, but would be willing to bet, that there were civilizations that didn't even have a word for marriage, let alone boundaries of who was eligible to join the club.
I am certain that the Rev. Falwell is aware of this, but it seems opposed to what he espouses. So what did he really mean? The USA has been a country for less than 250 years. Jesus has only been gone 2000 years. Could he possibly be going back to the "beginning of time" as expressed in his belief of what the bible says? Genesis? The one in which there is a dispute over whether there was a first wife (Lilith, according to Rabbinical lore and Moslem theology) of Adam? Adam, a possible bigamist (there were no divorce lawyers then...) who 'begat' the first murderer, Cain? Are these the family and marriage values Rev. Falwell are holding up as the examples of "the way it should be"?
It's time to put the bible down long enough to realize that marriage is a *legal* entity, for the state to know who considers themselves a legal 'partnership' - and we know that the law holds no restrictions to the number or the sex of people involved in a legal partnership. "Faith" is *not* a legal concept. If your "faith" does not recognize same-sex or multiple partner marriages, so be it. No problem. Don't allow it in your church or your house. That's your decision and I would never think of trying to stop you from living out your belief system - *as long as you don't harm anyone by following those beliefs*. Charles Manson is a bad person...but *not* because he had multiple common-law 'wives' or had religious beliefs that were 'out of the norm'; he's a 'bad person' because he plotted and had his followers carry out multiple *murders*. If he had stayed at Spahn Ranch, kept to himself and enjoyed the company of those surrounding him, we wouldn't even know his name.
One of the bedrocks of the Constitution is the protection of the minority against the majority - especially when the majority is having a knee-jerk reaction on an emotional level to a subject that doesn't affect them directly. If Bill and George or Ann and Laura decide to live their lives together and want the state to officially recognize their union, it doesn't affect me, or you, or anyone but them and their immediate families - and it's no one else's business. The state should not look to the passages of any religious tome to decide which way the state should fall on this issue - the individual citizen's right to live their life the way they see fit is the only criteria they should use. "The Peepul spoke at the ballot box" is touted erroneously - there is no basis for allowing a ban on gay marriage in our constitution. In fact, Article IV, Section 1 says “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof" followed by Section 2, Clause 1 which says "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States" could be interpreted to say that gay people have the same rights as any other citizen in any other state - including the right to marry whoever they want to. And, let us not forget the amendment to Article IX: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people". The *only* amendment I could find that might reflect negatively on the idea of gay marriage is Article XIII, where it says in Section 1 "Neither slavery nor *involuntary servitude*...shall exist within the United States..." - which is the definition of 'marriage' I have heard described by married people on more than one occasion. (That's a joke, son...lighten up...)
Article XIV, Section 1 is even clearer: "...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States..." The only question that would seem to remain is: Is 'marriage' a privilege? Discuss among yourselves.
We need look no further than the results of Article XVIII (Prohibition) to see a graphic example of what can go wrong when the state tries to legislate 'morality' onto it's citizens.
Thank you, Rev. Falwell - I'm glad to see you've come over to our way of thinking on the whole marriage issue. It's great to know that a couple of straight white guys like you and I (I am assuming on your part...) can support our gay brothers and sisters in their struggle to achieve the same benefits of the society, in which they contribute so much, that you and I hold dear - Freedom to associate with whom one chooses, the right to think differently then the next person, believe in the faith of one's choosing.
Tim Coney Medford, OR
|