By SARA CASLER
Marriage is an institution established for the creation of an eternal bond between, yes, a man and shockingly enough, a woman. Although some states may recognize the union of same sex couples, that is not marriage. It should never be defined as marriage. Religion and respect of tradition would have to collapse first.
Yes, it is understandable that same sex couples should be offered the same rights and privileges, just like heterosexual couples. Advocates for gay rights have been pushing for gay marriage since the beginning of the gay rights movement in 1989 with the New York City Stonewall riots. Their arguments for equal rights on a state and federal level are appropriate, but their push for allowing gays to “marry” is inappropriate.
Although it was not an official practice of the Christian church until the Renaissance, marriage has been around since the beginning of time. Ancient Israelis had ceremonies bonding a man and woman for life, with proof evident as early in time as the book of Genesis. To offer perspective, page one of this approximately 1200 page book is the beginning of time. The first union occurs on page 2 between Adam and Eve.
The ancient Jews were not the only ones performing marriage ceremonies. The ancient Greeks had ceremonies to bless relationships. The first Chinese marriage took place between two of their original gods, Nuwa and Fu Xi, with permission of the heavens. Nikah is an Arabic term used for marriage, meaning the physical relationship between a man and woman. The original meaning is found in the pages of the Quran. Marriage was started as a coupling of those of the opposite sex; history speaks for itself.
“But what about civil rights? Interracial couples went through the same thing,” said a poorly informed nay-sayer. Wrong. The argument has been made that individuals of different races were in a similar situation when interracial couples were outright outlawed. First flaw in the argument: the establishment of marriage has rightly not been adjusted to fit the needs of a homosexual couples, that’s all. As of June 2011, only 12 states outright prohibit same-sex marriage via statute and 29 via the state’s constitution. That’s 41 states that still have their heads on their shoulders, rather than muddled with emotions.
Another argument can be made on the destruction of a traditional marriage by adjusting the rules after thousands of years. It would be a quest to change the fundamental marriage ideals, where the man is dominant over the woman, and the woman is responsible for taking care of her man.
In a homosexual relationship, although one partner “wears the pants,” so to speak, there is no obvious dominant half or submissive spouse.
The National Organization for Marriage is a well renound advocate for avoiding the redefinition of marriage. The most powerful, most effective argument they have been backing since their foundation in 2007 reads, “Gays and Lesbians have a right to live as they choose, they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for all of us.” It is not appropriate for less than one percent of the population according to the 2000 US Census to rewrite the dictionary.
There is more than enough evidence to place a legitimate argument regarding the rights of homosexual couples. Long lasting meaningful relationships between two people of the same sex is a new thing, with adjustments only being made as early as the 1970s. Even this stubborn writer can agree that these couples deserve the same rights as heterosexual couples, but there is no reason to be hasty, take the “easy way out” and make marriage, a religious institution, work across the board.
According to the federal government’s Government Accountability Office, more than 1,138 rights and protections are conferred to U.S. citizens upon marriage by the federal government; areas affected include Social Security benefits, veterans’ benefits, health insurance, Medicaid, hospital visitation, estate taxes, retirement savings, pensions, family leave, and immigration laws. These are not problems that will be fixed overnight with the wave of a civil rights wand.
Again, returning to the original point, marriage is between a male and a female. There is no denying that. The outlawing of interracial relationships was based off of racial segregation and contests between classes rather than a need to adjust the laws of eternal bonding.