Marriage debate

The recent Newsweek article regarding homosexual marriage and the bible is stirring up quite a storm. It’s hard not to notice it, so I read the article. The piece is not 100% accurate and is written with a certain bias that does not understand the counter culture. It did what I believe was intended though, it got readers – and readers create revenue. Fanning the flames sometimes can be very profitable when you’re selling fire wood.

Now, I’m not against homosexuals having committed relationships recognized by the government. I’m not against homosexuals enjoying the same benefits other civil unions enjoy from a governmental perspective. What I have a problem with is forcing a quite large subset of the culture to accept something counter to their religious beliefs. If my religious belief is that eating meat is wrong, will the government force me to eat it because “most” Americans disagree with me? My example is arbitrary and not perfect by any means, but hopefully conveys my point adequately. The government needs to be careful about making laws that go against individual beliefs, especially ones as wide-spread as this.

I’m not sure there is a perfect answer to this dilemma, but how about this for starters? Have the government change all references to marriage to say civil union instead. Allow religious organizations the use of the term marriage, but force the government to recognize the term as nothing more than a civil union. Next, allow any couple wishing to enter a civil union, under governmental law, the ability to do so (and afford them the same benefits unilaterally). All civil unions would be equal under governmental scrutiny and therefore, by law, no discrimination would occur. Then, allow religious organizations to place restrictions on the use of the term marriage, if they so desire, within their own organization. Each organization would not be required to recognize a marriage from a different organization, but would be free to do so, if they so choose. This affords exclusion and inclusion to be determined by each group of people sharing beliefs (including homosexual communities). Leaving a particular organization/community wouldn’t discount your civil union, from a legal perspective, upon exit. It may affect your status as married, but not your legal standing. Let the groups determine for themselves what marriage means and let the government call everything a civil union.

I think we should keep the government out of the business of telling its people what to think and/or believe. I thought that was one of the basic tenants of this great nation – freedom to say and think as you choose?