THE DEBATE ON MARRIAGE

Of late, due to California voters' voting to define marriage as exclusive to members of the opposite sex, the issue of same sex marriage has become a political and societal firestorm. At length, I am going to express my views on this most volatile of issues. Let's start with the questions in play:

What are the origins of the institutions of marriage and alternately its role as an institution in a secular society?
History clearly shows that marriage as an institution is a religious ceremony in every society in every corner of the world. Marriage became an integral part of human societies as church and state were closely integrated. Therefore, the state recognized the value secularly, even though spiritual in origin.

As nations have progressively segregated church and state interests, what then is the proper role of the institution of marriage in a secular society, given its clear religious origins?

This matter is complicated as government (the state) has increasingly become more expansive in their perceived social responsibilities. That is to say, spouses receive benefits accrued to each other when the other passes away. Therefore, those benefits as they exist create an inequity for any same sex couple.

Should a government seek to refine the entire institution to accomodate the benefits that they have extended?

The government has and should find alternatives such as domestic partnership that addresses the inequity that it created by intrusion into the traditions of the institution of marriage. As there is no precedent in any faith for same sex marriage, it would be inappropriate for a secular government to alter its boundaries to conform to its domestic policy decisions. It would in principle violate the view that church and state ought to be separate.

Is marriage a human right?
No. Marriage is an institution one enters into by choice. It is not a necessary function of life, even though it has what may seem to be an obvious value. Again, it has come to be viewed as a human right by many due to spousal benefits that the state extends to married couples.

Is marriage a civil right?
No. A civil right by definition is a right extended to citizens by its government. Marriage, being rooted in faith and religion should not by any ethical standard be redefined to conform to the whims of the state.

Isn't marriage just about two people in love making a lifetime committment?
This is purely an emotional question and not easily resolved. The answer in my mind is NO.

What else could it be?
Obviously, love is integral in the marriage, but not to be forgotten is life itself. The greatest moment in life is childbirth, the moment that love finds its greatest expression in flesh and blood, bringing renewed hope and faith. Obviously, life can only be brought into this world and the hope it engenders through the union of man and woman. Marriage, as an institution, imperfect or dysfunctional as many are has proven to be the foundation for raising a healthy,productive child into a responsible adult. It is the life of the newborn that merits marriage as exclusive to a man and a woman.

Don't gay and lesbian love each other as much as heterosexual couples?
Yes, obviously. Same sex relationships are just as complex and meaningful as a heterosexual relationships. There is no cause nor care to doubt that such is the case. It is not the couples' love that is in question. The hard truth is this: No matter how much two members of the same sex love each other, their love cannot find its most perfect expression in the creation of life itself.

Does this mean that sex should only be for procreation between married couples?
No. We need to have a balanced perspective about sex. There certainly isn't anything wrong with enjoying sex as long as we recognize the potential responsibilities of parenthood.

Certainly same sex marriage would not mean the death of our Republic, but it would be highly irresponsible for secular government to redefine a religious ceremony.