Same Sex Union: Marriage It Is Not!©
by Wayne Mayfield
Recently I was in a discussion concerning American rights under the Constitution of America. Instantly the question about same sex marriage popped up. After much heated debate I went home and did some interesting research. To do this I decided to narrow my inquiry to some specific issues. First, language; second, legality; and thirdly, cause. Before I could look at social issues it appeared to me these following points must be the foundations upon which I would gage two issues; social and political.
In order to apply any type of inquiry for political and social ramifications I wanted to set aside my belief and faith as best I could. I wanted to apply myself to neutrality for the sake of prejudicial feelings. While I can’t hide these, I wanted to make the attempt in a way that we are instructed with the scientific approach of hermeneutics. I hope for the scholar this attempt is satisfactory.
There are a lot of different old English and Scottish issues with the word ‘marriage.’ The best I can find dates to the early 900’s when kingdoms began to view unions for the Royal aristocracy as a form of diplomatic ties and interventions for protection from war. These were efforts to ally multiple kingdoms till the next generation.
In Scotland families who intermarried within the small townships the couple would use an embroidered cloth that recorded not just a union with record of family linage but the marriage also. Perhaps this is where the word ‘Marr’ derived from with the rough meaning, ‘mated’ or ‘joined.’ Hence, in times following, during the 1200’s, when the king of England, known as Longshanks, decided to give first night rights to the lords when a woman was to be ‘joined,’ and as the representative ruled for the English crown in Scotland, this was to marr the Scotts to England and under English rule (to basically delete the Scottish blood by infusing English blood into the fabric of the Scotts family linage).
By the time Shakespeare began writing his plays there was an addition to the word Marr; ‘age’. This became Marriage in the 1500’s and became a legal term; roughly, age of union. In the legal sense this meant both people were of the age to procreate. In the guise of the Biblical meaning in the Old Testament, after a woman had her first menstrual, she was of age and could have children. This rule has been modified in the social fabric of America as we have attempted to create an ‘age’ of consent to find some acceptable balance in our legal need of definition and sense of morality for most.
The legal implications developed to address the issues in those times past were based on the procreative act, and this act alone. Because of this three issues became paramount in the legal application, such as land holdings, inheritance, and rights. In the 1500’s there developed sovereignty issues between kingdoms and had concern to the non rights in Royal Marriage. For example there could be no divorce (shall not leave or forsake). When Cromwell led an army of peasants to take King James and imprison him, he could not be separated from the throne because they the people could not divorce him, nor he them. It was accepted the king or queen of the moment was the procreative force of the kingdom to the people they ruled. Often a Queen in power was called the Queen Mother of a nation.
When Cromwell let King James return to the throne it was mainly because the Parliament could not divorce itself from him without divorcing English sovereignty. This would have been unacceptable and unholy thereby would dissolve England as a rightful kingdom in the eyes of the other kingdoms. By this time it was more than a state of being, it was about a procreative type of relationship between ruler and subjects. To such reason nations are the ‘mother’ and referred to as she, not he.
When I look at cause I’m addressing the interpretation assigned to the majority of the world, excluding Greece, Rome, and India. The philosophical and religious beliefs did not always agree with the majority of the world around them of these three nations. This prompted a lot of enemies throughout the known world and those beliefs contrary to these nations brought rebellion. It is amazing that the majority of the world still does not agree with these philosophical issues today.
Which this now brings me to the marital cause and its true purpose to exist.
Marriage, when it became a legal, political, and accepted medium for heterosexual lifestyle gave a nation its strength (continuation and prosperity). It also opened the door to various legal issues that can only be applied to such life issues. The basic rudiments of marriage are the same legally in its base form today, as I have alluded to, throughout the world. It is in such application there continues a thriving standard for various social responsibilities.
Cause then is about the responsibilities of a people. It is about replenishing nations. More basic, it is the replenishing humanity and ideals. With the world population on the increase, we are challenged. We know the cause but rebel against the need and responsibility. We are hearing this more and more when politicians, presidents, and liberals seek to down grade those who have paid their price in life as unbecoming and unworthy of being the true voice of national conscience in carrying the banner marriage warrants. A senator recently said tax rebates to women who get abortions should be given as a reward for their choice to lessen the burden and responsibility of the government. This was said in defense of a stimulus debate. "Abortion gives us population controls and saves government a lot of money." This is abuse of applying humanitarian responsibility to every person alive. Human life has a monetary price after all?
So, where does this leave us now? Perhaps those who purport absolution of standard life boundaries despise their forefathers for the choice to procreate and who did not kill at birth? Had this choice of removing a living organism in the womb been present, we wouldn’t have them crying about it now! Is the choice of life really that miserable? The very ones denouncing births for any reason seem to mock the generations past!
In times past, when nations warred, they slaughtered as more women and children as possible and considered as important as killing the enemy warriors. This was smart politics if nothing else. And, if one looks closely, this increased the power around their borders as they increased the population within the realm of their kingdom. Not only this, but making slaves allowed powerful political cause in a nation who held such power over others. In America we found this appalling and slavery lost its ugly brutality at a great price. At least in the Civil War killing non-combatants within our borders was not tolerated, which abortion now implies as politically acceptable, and seems somewhat preferred. No wonder we are considered double minded with such double standards by other religious cultures.
But returning to the issue at hand, politically sex and procreation topped the chart for marriage because of increase for support both financially, culturally, and educationally. Today, alternate lifestyles help curb population, are called politically correct (economically necessary) and most honorable (social humanitarianism). It is character that makes honor, not power. Besides, without political sanction, no new taxes for states and government, such as ‘marriage license’ and income tax, would not be the same with "same a sex couple" under present law and therefore constitutes loss of financial increase for national spending purposes. Believe me, money and votes are really are truly part of our issue!
Every society has, from generation to generation, fought to have pleasure without responsibility. Survival brings false security to social orders. While many of us can sympathize with the complexity of societies, become emotionally confused at times by these, there must be at least an attempt to adhere to some set rules and common sense. Throughout the generations of man, politics, especially as Leo Straus framed it in his teaching at St. Johns University, Santa Fe, is only a science if the objective goes beyond social want to a demand and social need, not just want. As a moderate liberal, such ideals to him were only prevalent because more than votes and power exist within the frame work of government and ideals. Never would types of anarchy within society be considered as the norm in a democracy.
Also, no group, in his mind, in a democratic setting, should be allowed to impose an unrelenting posture over riding common sense realities. Liberalism though has become bogged down in unrealistic attempts of new applications over the good of people and the reality for national stability. This politic further fragments and de-empowers the basic good, or world good for that matter. Only political power mongers want and need this division while claiming to create bonding on the social level. This alone should bring us to question such claims as whimsical and fantasy.
Humanity will never have a ‘perfect and cohesive appearance’ to its need to continue as a people. Utopia is reserved for a greater time and power, perhaps. Sometimes we just have to be sympathetic (accepting) of people’s preference without the need to "socialize" those preferences. Sometimes, within the frame work of active societies, history has shown human behaviors, while not the norm, have found, acquiescence is as good as it gets for all parties without having to empower unreasonably against the common good, i.e. co-existence over political idealism.
Law is for the protection, not the wants, of society. For example, every group within our democracy has the right to not be in fear of reprisal if that group adheres to a framework of our constitution. For this reason, hate crimes are not tolerated, but also it doesn’t mean I have to approve of someone’s preferences. You can’t force opinion by law.
In England, to justify certain political power actions, it seemed necessary to have a type of state church. Forced to publically accept something you didn’t believe created an exile of alternate faiths to America. England, by the choice to control opinion, lost a lot of revenue and confronted the desire to curtail that loss by sending troops to war against good people. As in every case of socialized control, England eventually lost what they thought they created, social control and financial opportunity for their nation. Power run rampant does this in societies and the fall of nations always reverts to this same issue.
At the time of this article being produced, we are on the verge.
Legal Problems of Same Sex Unions
Our legal system struggles with issues of sui-generous law. Basically, one of a kind laws in a narrow parameter. One such issue is "contempt of court." Another is jurisdiction. Surrogate births have become another. We can apply certain legal principles but they are not always sufficient. Surrogate birth is facing issues of ‘financial support’ for the child born. Whose egg and whose sperm could create a new set of legal opinions for child support. We just haven’t quite got there yet.
With all these special issues comes a financial, moral, and quagmire of legal struggles that bogs government down. Enacting laws without taking precautions or circumventing the ability of avoiding a log jam of our already heavily burdened courts is necessary. So, let’s take a look at what might be at issue.
To allow same sex unions to have rights equitable to marriage, because of the physical difference comparatively to marriage, many of the laws for divorce would not have the same application. For example, most would not have child custody issues. Division of property could be mitigating which would vary from the now normal ‘roommate’ perspective. Assumption of debt from financial institutions, or credit cards, from divorce proceeding would become even more precarious, at best. Does the partner assume a common debt upon a split in the union?
What if one partner has a disease the other had no knowledge of, who would pay the hospitals and doctors (would nationalized health care be called on with the liberal push for government health care)? Would health care be required to treat the condition without recompense? Or if two women decide to have a permanent union and there is a child involved from a previous union or marriage, can one who is not the mother sue for visitation? This issue caught national attention because it is going to court without sanctioned ‘union’ rights being in law.
These are just a few of the issues that vary with these unions.
If it is called ‘marriage,’ and doesn’t meet traditional legal standards, then all the laws concerning marriage are up for re-interpretation and will further complicate what it has taken 200+ years of legal case history in our country to establish.
My suggestion, simply, is have a new title and prepare a set of laws which circumvents the disruption of an already complex issue for marriages in courts at our present time. Cost, energy, and time could be saved even though the government hasn’t been able to control the basic rightfully even as I write. To do this the train run wild congress would have to do some real work, not just ramrod something through. Does this sound feasible with the track record of our legislators today?
As a Christian, I do not believe that same sex is proper, and I do not believe it is mentally healthy, but as an American and a part of this society I must not expect humanity to believe as I believe. I do not believe, for example, Jesus would condone crimes against homosexuals. Remember, he stopped the stoning of a prostitute despite the ‘honorable’ intentions of the religious leaders of the day. In the parable about the neighbor who needed bread he did not say whether either was saved or non-saved, homosexual or not. The religious leader who left the man on the side of the road because he deemed that person unworthy was not satisfactory either.
I must have a duty to truth as I know it, and my stand is very well known. But I believe also compassion means patience with others as long as their lifestyle doesn’t seek to destroy my beliefs and my hope. Nor can it be to the downfall of others.
I don’t condone what homosexuality does to the social fabric of nations no more than I condone suicide bombers claiming divine cause. Sadly, people make personal choices that are not detrimental to me personally but effect the generations that follow me, such as 9/11, but I am committed to speaking freely (without hate and guile) and to the preservation of people. I am an American, and I hope I can differentiate that responsibility wisely and act accordingly. As with abortion, I will stand in the face of its evil that smacks of Moloch, and can chose to not participate in abortion, but I have to know that the evils of society eventually will come with a price. My job for now is to see that generations have truth available and to harm not the smoking flax.
There is a time and place for a stand, and, unfortunately when that time comes we as humanity will reap what we sow and be accountable. I must seed the time that will come with the fruit of wisdom now. My only hatred I can have is to evil itself and yet act responsibly in His compassion.
I write this as an American; I anguish as a human; and I despair as a Christian. We as Christians are truly a people of many sorrows! As an American I expect issues to be handled with wisdom by our elected officials, to weigh laws in every aspect, and to be a government of reason (at present this may be asking too much). Hope is the power to transcend emotion, love is the gift of truth, and truth is the power to overcome.
Click here to email this page to a friend.
<Back to News