The Gadfly Vol. XVII Iss. III
“To persuade and reproach” - Socrates, The Apology
April 18, 2013
Why Homosexuals Should Be Allowed Civil Unions That title alone is enough to scare off even the most adventurous reader, but bear with me as I explore the repercussions of denying homosexuals civil unions that grant similar rights as a heterosexual marriage. First, let‘s define a few key terms here. Marriage is a sacrament defined by a church to recognize the union of persons who are fit to be married in that church. In the Roman Catholic Church, only a man and a woman who have not been previously married can marry. In the Episcopal Church, a man can marry a man and a woman can marry a woman. In the Mormon Church, a man can marry two or more women. Likewise in Islam. Matrimony – as taken from the Latin roots Mater and Monium – is literally the process of making motherhood. As the Catholic understands matrimony, it is the union of man and woman for the purpose of creating motherhood. Contract Law states that any agreement entered into by consenting adults of sound mind and body will be recognized by the government and enacted by law. This is based on English Common Law, as most laws in the United States are. Civil Unions are a contract entered into to recognize two people as a way of combining two people into one household. When a Catholic couple goes through the marriage ceremony, a civil union contract is signed into effect under the name of a marriage license. Civil unions can be entered into without a religious ceremony, as well. Consider the idea of a common law marriage, where a couple is
considered to be married if they live together for five years or more. Separation of Church and State: The first amendment does not keep the government from being influenced by religious institutions. The first amendment grants religious institutions protection from the government. ―Congress shall not establish a religion, nor prohibit the free exercise thereof.‖ Nowhere does it say ―congress shall not prohibit the free exercise of traditional religions,‖ or ―congress shall protect traditional family values.‖ Civil unions between homosexuals are much less of a threat to our worldview of marriage than a government that thinks it can define marriage in a way that is binding on the churches. If the government (the same government that thought that mixed-race marriage was evil 40 years ago) wants to tell the Episcopal Church ―No, you cannot allow two men to marry,‖ they are prohibiting the free exercise of religion. The government‘s duty is to say ―You as a church married these people, we will recognize their commitment.‖ A government that tells a church that two men cannot marry can also tell a church that two carriers for a recessive genetic disorder cannot marry. It can also tell a church that a man and a woman below a certain IQ cannot marry. It can tell a church that two people who are overweight cannot marry. An even scarier prospect is the government defining the most basic family unit: a married couple. After they have defined the most basic family unit, they can move up to
defining the next step of the family unit: a man, a woman and two children. And after your second child, if you get pregnant, you get shot. We focus entirely too much on the moral argument to the exclusion of other arguments. When we consider what is legal, moral and just, we must support the rights of homosexuals to enter into civil unions. We must stand with our homosexual brothers and sisters for their right to enter into the same contract from their religious ceremonies that we enter into with our religious ceremonies. This is the new civil rights movement. Just as we Catholics stood with blacks in the sixties, we must now stand with the gays. We so also have a responsibility to admonish the sinner. Yes, homosexual acts are disordered and unnatural. So is divorce. So are masturbation and fornication. All three of those pose a greater threat to the sanctity of marriage than homosexual civil unions, but do not garner anywhere near the amount of scorn from the religious right. This is the moral argument against homosexual civil unions: that they must not come from a ceremony in our church. Homosexuals cannot enter into matrimony, holy or otherwise, because there is no motherhood. For now, all the homosexuals are asking for is a government structure that grants the same rights as the ones granted to heterosexuals. There is no reason not to give them that. ~A.J.M.
WRITE! WRITE! WRITE! Tell us what y ou th ink by email ing : n otestothegadfl y@gma il .com