Eliminating marriage as a legal institution to save marriage as a holy institution
by Michael Christian
A ravenous clamor arises from every corner of the land. It seeks to claim; it seeks to garner; it seeks to devour. For what is this clamorous crowd so exceedingly hungry? For nothing less than the privileges granted to married couples. The homosexual community wails for its deprived members who cannot, through what they claim to be a grievous oversight of the law, obtain spousal benefits given to almost every heterosexual spouse in America. They claim that they and their partners must be recognized as a married couple to alleviate what they term to be a case of wholesale discrimination. But whether the individuals who desire this distinction realize or not, this issue is not about civil rights or discrimination at all. It is about the secular world's attack on God and all His gifts.
Some of the partisans involved in this issue care nothing for the religious aspects of the debate. They only want the legal recognition which will bring them health and death benefits given to married couples and sometimes to cohabital heterosexual couples. Others, however, have a more nefarious reason for backing the position that homosexuals, "in a committed relationship," deserve the same rights as married couples. This segment seeks nothing less than the erosion of moral principles and a total acceptance of any personal lifestyle, no matter how deviant. At this point, some will, no doubt, claim that I am homophobic, or that I hate homosexuals. Neither is true. I do not fear anyone, and I do not hate those who practice homosexuality. I believe that they deserve and were given the same rights and the same responsibilities as everyone else. What is involved here is not a distinction between heterosexual and homosexual, but a mistaken idea of entitlement.
Firstly, marriage was never intended to be a legal institution. God ordained marriage as His gift to His creation, because it is the only healthy way to have such an extremely intimate relationship between two people, and because it was a model of how our relationship with Him is supposed to be. We are to be faithful to Him and not lust after other gods. He protects us and provides for our every need. Marriage is supposed to follow this pattern, and when God joined Adam and Eve in marriage, He did not ask either of them to sign a piece of paper.
We have foolishly allowed the holy institution of marriage to become defiled by the hand of man. The licensing of marriages is tantamount to saying that what men say about the union of two people is more important that what God says about it. When most marriages are performed in America, the minister (of whatever denomination; priest, pastor, etc.) says, "By the power vested in me by the State of" blank... but where did the State get the power to vest anyone with the power to join people together in the bonds of marriage? That power comes from, and is indeed limited to, God. Undoubtedly, it is the decrease of the recognition of God as the sanctifier of marriages and the increase of the idea of government in the same role that has led to today's atmosphere of licentiousness.
One argument which has been made on both sides of the issue of the issuance of marriage licenses is that the government has no place in deciding moral issues. I quite agree, and I propose that this need not be a moral issue. The waters of this issue have for far too long been clouded by the mention of religion and morals, to the point that the real issue of what rights a couple really has have been lost. Perhaps, in order to clear these muddied waters, the community of faith should complete in understanding and Truth what the secular community began in ignorance and deception. Perhaps we should separate the legal institution from the religious one altogether. Perhaps then, we would be able to see that this issue is really about false entitlement.
In order to clear away the fictions that denying benefits is about morality and that licensing homosexual couples is about marriage, let us turn to the realm of science fiction, which has sometimes said truths the intellectual community has been too afraid to admit. Many stories involve or center around the idea of contract marriage. While I disapprove of this term, that is what it is called. Since this is inaccurate, let me immediately substitute another term: domestic contract. A domestic contract states that two people will live together and share some or all of their material goods. It may include such things as might be included in a prenuptial agreement, as division of property in the event of a separation. This would be a legal contract between two parties, and its significance would begin and end there. It would involve two persons of the age for entering into legal contracts. Some term would be devised for this partnership... perhaps they could be called a merged corporation. I say this with tongue in cheek, but I think it is appropriate. It would be entirely a legal matter, and it would not involve any ramifications of morality or religion that would not already be involved with any other couple living together outside the covenant relationship of marriage.
Perhaps you are saying to yourself, "Michael, you've blown a gasket! What's the difference?"
I'll tell you.
Marriage is a covenant relationship instituted by God. It involves two persons, a man and a woman, and a solemn and holy vow to be faithful to each other until God should separate them by death. Anything less is not a marriage. This taking of vows does not require any signatures or government permissions. The minister should say, "In the name of God (or Jesus Christ), I now pronounce you..." for there is no government authority higher than the authority of God. He instituted the practice of marriage, and He should be the source of all such unions.
With the holy vows of marriage separated from the contractual relationship recognized by the law completely separated, all that will remain is the false idea of entitlement under which many people in America labor. Spouses should not be set apart, or to be more accurate, a person's beneficiary should not be limited to his or her spouse. An unmarried person, for example, works in much the same capacity as a married person, and should therefore be given equal treatment, but having no spouse, that person should be able to select any beneficiary he or she chooses; A friend, a relative, or even a special math teacher from the fourth grade. The decision of whether or not to offer benefits should be left to the individual businesses, and the decision of a beneficiary should be left to the individual employees. Thus any moral questions or qualms would rest solely on the businesses, where they belong, and not on government, where they do not.
But some will claim that health and death benefits should be rights. They are not, and they should not be. A person's health care should be a one's own affair and of one's own providing. If a person cannot provide care for self and family, charity should help. That is how God said the church should operate; tend to the sick, the imprisoned, and the needy. All of this is interconnected. Over the years, workers have traded their wages for benefits, so that if an employer chose not to provide insurance benefits, that employer could pay the workers more, enough to provide for their own insurance, and also enough to give more to those in need.
Both sides should see the value in this proposal. Separating the contractual relationship from the spiritual one and giving all people equal treatment will serve the nation better than trying to keep the issue cloudy and trying to destroy the holy institution of marriage, and all sides can be happy. Those who cling to morality will be free to keep thinking as they do without a threat to their beloved Matrimony, while those who cling to commitment regardless of stripe will be free to collect their rewards without a threat of resistance to their health and death benefits. Both sides can get what they claim to want without sacrificing principles. Those with destructive motivations will not like this plan; those bent on disharmony and partisan fighting will not want this accepted; but perhaps those who only want what they hold precious to be accepted or preserved can revel in its beauty. And those who can be happy can live happily ever after.
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
skreyola) wrote,
calm
