RSS

A Marriage Proposal: My Resolution to the Same Sex Marriage Debate

01 Aug
A Marriage Proposal: My Resolution to the Same Sex Marriage Debate

Amid the controversy of statements made by Chick-Fil-A CEO Dan Cathy, about his support of traditional marriage, I want to share with you my proposal to solving this seemingly never ending issue on same sex marriage vs traditional marriage. For the record, I am a Christian Conservative who supports traditional marriage between one man and one woman, therefore, although I respect proponents of same sex marriage, I oppose their platform on the matter, in favor of the tenets of my religious faith. Those who would oppose me because of their secular humanist philosophy or religious views even, certainly have the freedom to do so, however, if such opposition includes ad hominems such as bigot, homophobe, religious zealot or any other such labels, immediately, they demonstrate a lack of the very same tolerance which they demand from me, rendering their arguments exponentially futile to my ears.

Since this missive is not about the current Chick-Fil-A controversy, I will not discuss it, however, you can read Dan Cathy’s statement here if you are unfamiliar with it. Currently, only six states have legalized same sex marriages – Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont & most recently, New York. Although these states recognize same sex marriage, the DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) means that the federal government does not have to recognize these unions performed in those states. Also, Washington, DC, Maryland, Rhode Island and two Native American tribal jurisdictions recognize these unions from those six states but does not perform them. According to Wikipedia:

Same-sex marriage has been established through court rulings and legislative action, but not via popular vote. Nine states prohibit same-sex marriage in statute and thirty prohibit it in their constitution. The movement to obtain marriage rights and benefits for same-sex couples in the United States began in the 1970s, but became more prominent in U.S. politics in 1993 when the Hawaii Supreme Court declared the state’s prohibition to be unconstitutional in Baehr v. Lewin.

Throughout the 2000s decade, public support for legalizing same-sex marriage grew considerably, and various national polls now show that a majority of Americans support same-sex marriage. On May 9, 2012, Barack Obama became the first sitting U.S. president to publicly declare support for the legalization of same-sex marriage.”

Before the current Chick-Fil-A controversy, the last event to re-ignite the debate on same sex marriage was indeed President Barack Obama’s open support of same sex marriage which some celebrated & others stood against. President Obama is no different from any other citizen in that he can personally choose to support or oppose any view he wants but since he is a self-professed Christian, this decision disappointed me greatly. As a Christian, I believe in the biblical scriptures on which I base my opposition to same sex marriage. The Bible is explicitly clear on homosexuality in both the Old & New testaments, therefore a marriage based on a homosexual union is utterly invalid to those whose religious faith inherently prohibits it:

Leviticus 18:22:

You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman.”

Romans 1:26:

That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other.”

Christianity is not alone in it’s condemnation of homosexuality:

“We also sent Lut: He said to his people: Do ye commit lewdness such as no people in creation (ever) committed before you? For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds. And his people gave no answer but this: they said, “Drive them out of your city: these are indeed men who want to be clean and pure!” (Qur’an 7:80-82)

 “If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, Take the evidence of four (Reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them, or Allah ordain for them some (other) way. If two men among you are guilty of lewdness, punish them both. If they repent and amend, Leave them alone; for Allah is Oft-returning, Most Merciful.” (Qur’an 4:15-16)

In Theravada Buddhism, it is explicitly mentioned in the Vinaya (monastic discipline) and prohibited. It is not singled out for special condemnation, but rather simply mentioned along with a wide range of other sexual behavior as contravening the rule that requires monks and nuns to be celibate. 

Of course there are non-religious persons who support homosexuality and believe that it is as normal as heterosexuality and two persons who love one another should be able to join together in marriage legally. The arguments for same sex marriage are vast but predictable (in my opinion) and there are some religious persons (self-professed Christians included) who present arguments in favor of same sex marriage as well. I won’t present them here but the point is that regardless to the arguments from both sides, a solution to this dilemma will require compromise from both groups. Here are some major points in my proposal to resolve the issue:

  • Rather than re-defining marriage as well as civil unions for every citizen as an arrangement based on gender and sexual preference, let’s re-define them based on the institution ordaining the marriage or presiding over the civil union (religious institutions vs. the government). In other words, a marriage becomes a union ordained by a religious institution and a civil union becomes a union presided over by the government. This removes the entire issue of sexual preference by redefining it based on who performs the union. One complaint from those in the LGBT community is that “civil unions” have a negative connotation and are inherently inferior by name. Since a civil union would now be defined by merely being a union sanctioned by the government, regardless of the gender of both parties, non-religious heterosexual couples would also be “merged”under governmental civil unions.
  •  With marriages & civil unions re-defined in this manner, certain terminology would also change. A religious institution will “marry” couples & the state (government) will “merge” a couple. Partners in a civil union will be called “life partners” and in marriages they will be called “spouses” . Religious institutions may or may not specify this with “husband”and “wife”. Civil unions will designate a “life partner A or B” (or I & II) on documentation.
  • Leaders of individual religious institutions or entire denominations as a whole will not be required to maintain licenses, the couples they marry will not either. Each religious institution may issue it’s own marriage licenses or permission to marry (or not)based on their own decision making processes. Each denomination or individual institution must submit their marriage requirements or procedures to the state government for the purpose of record keeping and in case of divorce proceedings.
  •  The State (government) can continue to issue licenses as is for same sex and heterosexual couples alike who choose state sanctioned “mergers”.
  •  It is the couples’ decision alone on which arrangement to seek. It is the religious institution’s decision to accept or deny a marriage based on their religious dogma or their interpretation of it.
  •  Divorces would have a two step process for marriages (for filing), first, the religious institution would issue an certificate or decree (written consent) to divorce and take on the responsibility for any emotional distress and counseling. This certificate or decree would be presented to the state for the sole purpose of dividing assets, calculating child support or alimony payments to either spouse. The religious institution will deal with the spiritual and emotional, the state (courts) will only decide material & monetary divisions. The religious institutions may give a recommendation with the divorce decree/certificate/written consent for custody of any minor children, but this too, will remain the role of the courts. Civil Unions would only have a one step “dissolution” process, filing directly with the state and settling all monetary/material distributions with the courts just as marriages will.
  • Religious institutions must adhere to the law in each state with regards to the legal age of consent. In other words, a religious institution cannot marry a 40 or 18 year old man and an 11 or 14 year old girl in Georgia (for example), whose age of consent is 16. Religious institutions must also adhere to the law in each state not allowing blood family members to marry one another. This is because there is a proven biological risk for birth defects and other medical problems when close family members procreate. Such relationships includes siblings, cousins, parent-child…etc. Marriages of this type performed by a religious institution knowingly, can be annulled by the state and the religious institution would pay a penalty.

Now I have shared only a portion of my marriage proposal here and will share more as I fine tune it but with this proposal, marriage is defined by religious faith which is in accordance with today’s marriage practices, because for the overwhelming majority of marriages in the United States, the date of actual marriage (and anniversary celebrations) is based on the date of the ceremony and not the date when marriage licenses are issued by the state. Now as I briefly alluded to above, there are religious persons who support same sex marriage and believe that the Bible does not expressly forbid it, because although the New Testament mentions it (Romans 1:26)  their main argument is that Jesus himself does not forbid it in his words. This is a spiritually dangerous technicality in my view, but everyone has the right to believe what they want. For the religious institutions in support of same sex marriage, as you may have deduced, they will in fact, have the freedom to marry couples of the same sex in their individual institutions or denominations.

Before my fellow Christians in opposition of same sex marriage start cursing me or my proposal, this is not problematic, because although we know and believe that homosexuality is expressly forbidden based on the scriptures, we cannot dictate to a church, synagogue, mosque or other religious gathering that they must share our interpretation of scriptures or sexual morality. Sinners are allowed to sin. If an entire church body decides to approve a same sex marriage, in short, that’s their business and we don’t have to attend such a church. I refuse to. That’s my personal decision. To find this problematic spiritually, you’d also have to take issue with any denomination that has any practice which yours does not based on a difference in scriptural interpretation or a lack of one. We cannot pretend as though all denominations are the same theologically or otherwise.

Now to some that begs the question, “Why can’t the federal government just legalize same sex marriage everywhere? What’s the difference?” The answer is simple – because in doing so the government is legislating morality for all. When an umbrella is opened fully, whoever is under it will be in the shade regardless as to whether they want to be or not. In order to get back in the sun or rain, one must have the freedom to do so and this is impossible with only one umbrella or a federal mandate.For some, this is the same problem if a majority vote does not go in their favor. If the federal government (or for that matter individual states) makes a law to legalize same sex marriages everywhere and the government decides who gets licenses and requires them in order for a person to perform a marriage, what is to stop the government from refusing a license to someone who refuses to marry a same sex or heterosexual couple? Wouldn’t a same or opposite sex couple be able to sue a religious institution for discrimination? Of course they could because as it stands now, marriages in the church are subject to the authority of the state, because without a license, a minister cannot marry anyone.

If we sever this relationship, the decision of who to marry becomes the sole decision of the religious institution and they cannot be punished or rewarded in any way for it. If you are thinking that such a scenario will never happen, think again, it already has in this instance. There have also been instances where churches refused to marry same sex couples and homosexual pastors have refused to marry heterosexual couples, which is their prerogative. In my opinion, this is inherently in conflict with anti-discrimination laws because of the existing license requirement imposed on leaders of religious institutions by the state. If we take away license requirements, we cut the religious umbilical cord to the state.

To avoid all of this, the decision of who can marry should rest in the hands of each religious institution or entire denominations and we must eradicate licensure requirements in this regard. What I am advocating for are individual umbrellas for each religious institution and one for the state. A religious institution has the right to oppose and refuse gay marriage or allow it. My proposal renders the state non-partisan as it should be and restores autocracy to religious institutions as far as marriage is concerned. Others will ask, will a church or mosque be able to deny interracial or interfaith marriages? The answer is yes as they should be, because religion is a predecessor of government and religious institutions can define marriage how they want with a few limits. Contrary to what some think or recent events, institutions who refuse interracial couples are not popular nor widespread. Ones who refuse interfaith couples (for example a Christian marrying a Hindu) are doing so because of religious dogma and are within their rights to refuse such a union. For every religious entity which discriminates for these reasons, there are ones that don’t. In America, we have options, let’s utilize them.

Both spouses and life partners would also have equality in civil and legal matters which are not covered by legal documents such as wills, for example. If same sex or opposite sex couples do not want a merger under a civil union because of any perceived inequality or inferiority because of naming, they can seek a marriage from a religious institution which will marry them and these days there is no shortage of institutions willing to do either. I must reiterate that neither marriages or civil unions are defined in my proposal by the gender or sexual preference of the individuals which make up the couple by the state. It’s up to the religious institutions to restrict their definitions to same sex or opposite sex couples, or allow both. This also would mean that DOMA would not need to be repealed necessarily, but rather it would be amended to define marriage as a union of religious origin rather than gender, for two or more** persons. A religious institution, however, can define marriage by gender in it’s decision of who it will and will not marry. 

What one religious denomination decides to allow or refuse has no bearing on the religion as a whole. Denominations were created because of varying religious interpretations for the most part. If a religious institution presided over your ceremony you’re married, if the government did so you are merged. Your gender is irrelevant. From my perspective, this is the best way to compromise while keeping the state in it’s proper place with regards to marriage – limited but allowed some regulation, which is no different from private sector commerce. Think about it.

**Stay tuned, Walter Myers III will explore the topic of polygamy & marriage in Part II to this blog!

 
23 Comments

Posted by on August 1, 2012 in Philosophy, Politics, Religion, Society

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

23 responses to “A Marriage Proposal: My Resolution to the Same Sex Marriage Debate

  1. Cory Burroughs

    August 1, 2012 at 11:55 am

    Gays have taken up the wrong issue
    . It is not the institution of marriage that should be challenged rather it should be Government acknowledging partners so they can have their rights when it comes to to inheritance taxes and the host of other things they want that marriage provides. The Church itself does not ‘compromise ‘ on such an issue.

     
    • teemtwo

      August 1, 2012 at 2:18 pm

      Cory you are right but that won’t solve the problem because the LGBT community wants to be able to marry and say that they are married. As it stands now if a homosexual dies & even if he or she leaves a will leaving everything to his or her partner, the blood relatives of the deceased can challenge the will and win as they have in many cases since the partner is not a spouse. What you suggest would solve that but it’s about more than that they have an agenda that they want to be mainstream.

       
    • Lisa

      August 2, 2012 at 10:16 am

      I totally agree…I couldn’t have said it better myself.

       
      • Lisa

        August 2, 2012 at 10:17 am

        Cory,right on the money

         
  2. Sharon Shown

    August 1, 2012 at 1:59 pm

    Pretty good article, Talitha, seems to be you have done considerable research. However, in one part: “…sole decision of the religious institution and they cannot be punished or rewarded in any way for it. If you are thinking that such a scenario will never happen, think again, it already has in this instance. There have also been instances where churches refused to marry same sex couples and homosexual pastors have refused to marry heterosexual couples, which is their prerogative. In my opinion, this is inherently in conflict with anti-discrimination laws because of the existing license requirement imposed on leaders of religious institutions by the state. If we take away license requirements, we cut the religious umbilical cord to the state.” My problem with this is the 1st amendment which trumps any ‘anti-discrimation laws’ which have been put into place as the modernity of society who is in the minority have raised their voices louder and louder occurred over the past 30 years. The question I would ask is does the ‘voice of a few’ out way the voices of the majority? It is evident with the DOMA law being recognized in each state’s constitution for 30 states should reveal that the majority do not agree with the ‘umbrella’ of the few being opened to force ALL to gather under one ‘umbrella’. As to the ‘license requirements’ why should the small minority make the decision for the majority in the ‘license requirements’? Additionally, in another part of the article, it is mentioned: “Both spouses and life partners would also have equality in civil and legal matters which are not covered by legal documents such as wills, for example.” I am not aware of any law or legal document that cannot cover everything that the homosexual couple intends to have completed that the heterosexual couple have. So, where would there even be a need to pass additional laws? In my opinion, there needs to be standards within our laws. For example, should there come a day that one would want the laws to be changed in order to ‘murder’ a person should they be allowed to do this with just a change of a law? Where are the standards? Does one continue to head into lasciviousness because a ‘few’ are going that direction? Does a nation lawfully decree anything and everything that one may want to do or to participate in because ‘they may believe it is their ‘right’? Lastly, a comment to this part: “If same sex or opposite sex couples do not want a merger under a civil union because of any perceived inequality or inferiority because of naming, they can seek a marriage from a religious institution which will marry them and these days there is no shortage of institutions willing to do either.” I would respond on this by saying that the absolute main reason that the homosexual couple wants to be ‘married’ and to also have that ‘marriage’ in a church is because as you stated “…couples do not want a merger under a civil union because of any perceived inequality or inferiority because of naming, they can seek a marriage from a religious institution which will marry them…” However, I don’t believe that even this will be satisfactory for the group until the ‘homosexual couple’ has been ‘married’ in a church that is complete disagreement with this [according to many scriptures in the Bible other than the two mentioned in this article] ‘marriage’ in order to have complete recognition in the ‘eyes of all to include all religious institutions’. An example would be if one ‘steals’ something but went on a campaign to fight for the ‘right’ to steal from anyone because it is their ‘right’ and that they should be allowed to exercise that ‘right’. Consequently, where does America end up? What will be the demise of America’s society of one is allowed to anything and everything without any restraint? There would be eventually chaos, wouldn’t there?

     
    • teemtwo

      August 1, 2012 at 2:15 pm

      Sharon you make some excellent points but you also strengthened mine. because even with all of that in place and having the 1st amendment there is still such societal & government bias against Christianity more than any other religion and there have already been cases where churches were told by the government that they were discriminating against gays including the example I linked. So we know that’s not enough apparently. When you have a president who circumvents the constitution every chance he gets having such things in place is little assurance anymore. The religious community needs to own the narrative and since (unfortunately to me) there are religious institutions willing to marry same sex couples we can keep the government out w/o preventing gays the opportunity to “marry”if they don’t want a civil union. They just have to find a church who will perform such a ceremony or allow it. It protects marriage as a religious entity.

       
  3. Gail Meek

    August 1, 2012 at 2:39 pm

    This is EXACTLY what I have been trying to get across to people. There is Biblical marriage and there is secular (legal) marriage. Take the government out of marriage altogether (except for the dissolution for purposes of property and support of dependents) and leave the matter of marriage to the church. That would allow gay or straight people to choose the civil union or even civil marriage if they want to call it that…but it must have the word “civil” in it. Much like the distinction between civil law and criminal law. It’s law but it’s different law for different circumstances. Now, the problem will be two-fold…gays who insist on ceremonial (Biblical) marriage in the church..and some churches will comply and already do; and straights, evangelicals, who will still not want gays to even have the benefit of a civil union or civil (government recognized) marriage…based on principle alone and the desire to apply their Christian beliefs to everyone else, including non-Christians. But this is a very reasonable proposal. I support it. Of course, then the states would have to vote on it….and leave the federal government out of it completely…that is a dangerous way to go…federal law.

     
    • teemtwo

      August 1, 2012 at 8:10 pm

      Gail thanks for your thoughts. Actually in this proposal even gays who want to be “married”won’t have a problem because they can do so in a church that allows it/will perform it. Such a church is not a reflection on the entire religion by any means.

       
  4. Linda

    August 1, 2012 at 3:57 pm

    @Sharon, I understand your concerns, but sadly many of them have already come to pass in this country. Murder IS sanctioned by our government. Some people say it is their “right.” It’s also done without restraint, as well as being fully funded by all of our tax dollars. It is now in every aspect of our healthcare system along with our public school system through ObamaCare. And it is fiercely defended, as a “right”… (Yes, abortion.) BTW, are you aware that Planned Parenthood will now be in every public school in the nation now?

    Gay marriage IS coming to our country, and there is not much we can do about it. Young people these days are extremely sympathetic to this issue. It appears they have very little regard for traditional values or remaining celibate before marriage, as many of them often opt to “live together” prior to marriage anyway. Secular humanism and atheism has taken over huge portions of our educational system, and Christian values and Biblical teachings are largely lost. Without a major revival across this nation, this is the path we are on, and certainly will continue. I came from Texas, but have lived in CA for the past 12 or so years. I’ve seen first hand the huge difference when liberal humanism takes over our government and educational systems. This trend is now nationwide. Moreover, the entire Democratic Party has chosen to make gay marriage a part of their national platform. It is what it is, and it’s a current reality for our Nation.

    That said, as Christians, we need to insist that our religious freedoms are not lost. To me, taking it back to when marriages were largely managed through the Church is our only option. We have to figure out a way to live side-by-side with unbelievers and sinners who are going to live the way they want, yet we need to have strong boundaries as well, fiercely guarding our values and rights. We need to make sure we are not forced into condoning and paying for lifestyles which are truly against God’s Will, Word and Ways. Coming down on what some people say is the “wrong side of history” is nothing. Coming down on what our Creator says is wrong, and will surly be judged is deadly and disastrous for our souls, and well being in this life. Obviously if a church is going to agree to sanction and perform same-sex marriages, they would be allowed to under the system we are describing. At least all Christian churches would not be required to, if marriage were taken out of government and given back to the Church.

     
    • teemtwo

      August 1, 2012 at 9:53 pm

      Linda excellent points! it is so true that young people are very sympathetic to gay marriage so that’s also why I am going to fine tune it and submit to my local legislators and Congress.

       
  5. kay

    August 1, 2012 at 8:31 pm

    I believe churches, cake makers, any and all that serve marriages will be forced to do so or pay penalties.
    I do so enjoy reading your articles.

     
    • teemtwo

      August 1, 2012 at 9:51 pm

      Kay some may think that’s silly but the government can do what it wants & that’s why I don’t want them in charge of marriage.

       
  6. joycetyler

    August 1, 2012 at 10:15 pm

    Talitha this is so interesting and I can’t find any real holes in it. Polygamists may want a piece of the marriage pie from the church and the government so that’s the only problem I see. I do not think polygamy should be legal by the way. Great job!

     
    • teemtwo

      August 2, 2012 at 5:04 am

      I am still fine tuning it but I think it is a great compromise. I am collaborating with my conservative BFF Walter Myers III on the polygamy inclusion because I did consider that so look to that in the near future. We are revising it 🙂

       
      • Glenyce

        September 17, 2012 at 4:31 pm

        Pedophiles are now starting to take the small steps that the homosexuals took in their quest to be considered a condition of birth and just a different way to love. That they are people with a preference for younger partners, instead of the perverts that they are. And with permission of the younger person, any sexual act with that younger person can take place. The president favoring gay marriage just to garner votes from the LGBT community, has thrown the door open to just about anything. We now hear the term of pansexual, which by it’s description sounds like a sexual addiction problem. And when the military was forced to include homosexuals, they were also forced to allow sex with animals! I’ll never understand that one! While your very well written answer to gay marriage is interesting and a step in the right direction, it just doesn’t cover enough possibilities of unacceptable “mergers”.

         
  7. William Hodges

    August 2, 2012 at 9:44 am

    Luv, once again, you stated your position quite eloquently and given a clear perspective. An excellent article.

     
    • teemtwo

      August 3, 2012 at 4:14 pm

      Thanks so much William!

       
  8. lawst

    August 3, 2012 at 12:38 am

    Marriage is not the property of Christianity. All cultures across time have had something akin to it in one way or another and different cultures have different values involved with it. I want the government out of the religious side of it completely. To most Christians it means a man and a woman, in Islam it can mean many wives, athiests….whatever, to Native Americans it’s a convoluted thing involving not just blood kin but clan structure. I would no more marry a man from the Salish tribe who was Bear than I would marry another Seneca Bear because that’s the same as marrying my brother. It doesn’t matter is he’s from WA and the Seneca are in NY, he’s still kin. Christianity says that’s ok, my culture says it’s not. I don’t want to impose my rules on everyone else nor do I want others to impose on me. Each should be left to their own version of what right looks like for their religion (or lack there of). The First Amendment was meant to allow this so that we don’t end up with a Church of America as there is a Church of England. On both sides of this issue each is seeking to use the government as a tool to meet their own ends without thinking how those laws will affect them and their own religious freedoms down the road If the government is allowed to dictate to one you can be assured that it will do so to YOU sometime in the future when another party is in control. It doesn’t matter if you’re for or against gay marriage, the issue at stake here is government control of religious freedom. If you don’t like what the middel east looks like you can blame it on government controlling religious practice. Imagine someone who wants to go back to how things used to be for Christians, not 20 years ago but 1000years ago. Women not working, slavery, public stoning, etc. That’s all there in the Bible. The people of Iran didn’t want that either but that’s what they got when they voted in favor of Sharia law. There are people in this country who *want* to go back to that. I can’t imagine anyone here wants that. Maybe I sound like an alarmist but really, this is the risk being run by anyone who wants to set aside the First Amendment to keet their own goals.

     
    • teemtwo

      August 3, 2012 at 8:49 am

      @lawst I never asserted that marriage was the property of Christianity or any other religion so I’m not sure what you’re talking about. Non-religious people can still be merged in civil unions/partnerships & have the exact same rights as married couples so what you are arguing for is a name at this point which is silly.

       
  9. Linda

    August 3, 2012 at 1:37 am

    I’m so glad you are working on this,Talitha! It’s so great that good minds are working on this together and submitting ideas to Congress and our leaders. We need to be proactive on these issues that mean so much to us! We’ve already seen the lengths some government leaders will go to with zero regard to what the People want or need! It’s been stunning to realize how quickly and easily they have foisted THEIR will on the public, behind closed doors and with such little thought–without even reading LAWS we and our children will all live under. It’s scarey.

     
    • teemtwo

      August 3, 2012 at 4:16 pm

      Thanks Linda! I am going to send to legislators, we need to resolve this once & for all and move on to other things, like the economy. I’m tired of politicians re-igniting this every time I turn around. Enough is enough!

       
  10. labradorman

    August 14, 2012 at 4:10 pm

    The word marriage derives from the word matri (mother) and mony ( being in the state of). What homosexual union, male -male or female- female could cause a woman to naturally end up in the state of being a mother; neither. THe word marriage does not work with respect to either homosexual union. Therefore no homosexual union should be treated or called such. What they have is a very friendly relationship. Lets stop bastardizing the english language as the homosexual community has tried to do with the word “gay” for nearly 30 years. THey are far from gay, they are homosexual. Marriage in fact is a sacrament. It is the divine icon of the trinitarian God; the father, the son and the holy spirit- in essence the whole concept of marriage derives from a religious perspective. TO call any union other than a union in which the complementary sexuality of the partners allows for the complete self donation of one to the other, thereby leaving it open to creation is nonsense.

     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: