Time to get real about Marriage

Gay Marriage Protest (photo: Gerald Bush)

“Many argue that marriage is essentially and necessarily a religious rite – they conceive of marriage in almost exclusively religious terms. Therefore, legalizing gay marriage constitutes a type of sacrilege and an unjustified intrusion of the state into what is necessarily a religious matter. Because of religion’s traditional role in sanctifying marriages and presiding over wedding ceremonies this is understandable, but it’s also incorrect.” [1]

Before we continue we feel that it is necessary to quantify where this original notion of marriage came from in colonial to modern history. First we would like to know why ‘”Because of religion’s traditional role in sanctifying marriages and presiding over wedding ceremonies…” is incorrect.

Why is this tradition incorrect? We feel that is the first notion that needs to be cleared up. Moreover, there must be a reason why marriage is conceived in exclusively religious terms. Tradition is an established cultural norm; therefore, changing that or any tradition is going against the main flow of community. Moreover, when looking at word origins, traditions can also be described as: customs, rituals, practices, institutions, habits, conventions, beliefs, or accepted norms of the society.

“The nature of marriage has varied greatly from one era to the next and from one society to the next. In fact, the nature of marriage has varied so much that it is difficult to come up with any one definition of marriage which adequately covers every permutation of the institution in every society which has thus far been studied.” [2] (Could you name just a few that you’ve studied and their variations?)

Sometimes skilled writers will juggle and boggle words on purpose to have the reader draw the conclusion that the writer is trying to support. This is precisely the reason “why” we break these quasi-intellectual musings apart and address the issues the writer’s are trying to persuade.

“This variety (nature of marriage) alone ensures the falsehood of the claim that marriage is necessarily religious, but even if we focus exclusively on the West – or even exclusively on America – we still find that religion has not been regarded as a necessary component.” [3]

So just what is this but a rhetorical argument – that of course – in the end will have no concrete answers and be void of substance?

Philosophically there is an old argument that goes something like this; “Did God create man, or did man create God?” Of course this is rhetorical in nature and only one’s belief system can answer the question for that particular one person. However, we want to assure our readers that just about every society, community, or civilization known to humankind has had either icons, idols, or other items of worship. There are literally hundreds of expert scientist’s and theologians that are examining pictographs and cave drawings to sort out who those ancients worshipped.

Therefore to insinuate that although there are a variety of definitions of marriage throughout history in no way “ensures a falsehood” when speaking about theology, religion, and especially relevance.  We see that ideology as quite the contrary to fact, insofar as marriage in fact does have religious connotations.