Month: March 2013

I have been putting this off for quite some time but, with the supreme court hearing on this topic, it is finally time to make my full position regarding so-called “same-sex marriage” known. Now, this task will take some twists and turns and what you think to be a final position may not be so. Just bear with me and read all the way to the end.

Marriage’s definition has been changing within society. The phrase “gay marriage” is composed entirely of words that have been changed well beyond their original meaning. Back in 2001 I recall that the definition found on m-w.com for marriage was very simple and was essentially “the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law”. Not being able to view an old version you will have to take my word for it. I even believe the words “man” and “woman” were in there. Now, if you visit that entry, there are many more definitions, one of which says, “the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage”. With the ever changing meanings of words found therein, this makes Webster’s Dictionary nearly worthless. Even looking to the origin of the word “marriage” on that page is not helpful in providing more information. It only says, “Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry”. So since this Supreme Court hearing and many of the political battles are over the definition of the word “marriage” I find it very important to find out what the word originally meant. So far we have marriage -> mariage -> marier (which means to marry). This knowledge is of no help.

When things do get interesting in this search is when we, unsatisfied with basically using a word to define itself, look into the etymology of the word more deeply. Since we left off at marier (which means ‘to marry’) I began the search with “marry” and found that it’s root is the Latin “maritare”. With more searching of related words we soon find the Latin “maritat” which shares the root and means “to impregnate”. Oh my, this definitely presents a problem for those wishing to redefine “marriage” to include those who, in principle, cannot bring forth children together. Marriage, as an institution, is for the creation and raising of offspring. Some people seem to think that it is for the regulation of those who have strong sexual feelings towards one another. That is false.

As a result of this search, and according to my personal belief, marriage can only occur between a man and a woman who, in principle, have the ability to procreate together.

There you have it, case closed, matter settled right? Well, let’s look at another word that people often disagree religiously about, “Baptism”. When looking into the root of this word we find that it comes from the Greek “baptizein – to immerse, to dip in water”. Well we had better get the government into forcing those who perform baptisms by sprinkling to follow the real definition of the word. Wait, what’s that you say? There currently is no legal definition of baptism and government is prohibited from getting into such matters of doctrine and belief. Oh wow, my world is shaken. Then why is government involved with a religious institution like marriage? Shouldn’t they be prohibited from making any “law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. What’s that you say, they have been dictating and supporting one religious view over another and butting into marriage for a long time? This seems like it is beyond the scope of the proper role of government.

Can it be that the definition of marriage is a doctrinal question and that people have the right of conscience to have their own beliefs on the matter? Which is more important, the right to the free exercise of belief or enforcing my view through government? Setting aside for now the problem of children being brought into a gay union (which is a huge issue that would take far too long to address, so it is a can I will gladly kick down the road), and only focusing on the union for which it is, in principle, impossible to bring about a child, no one’s rights are infringed by allowing two other people to have such a belief or union. I therefore must conclude that there should be no legal definition of marriage just as there is no legal definition of baptism.

It is a hard thing to remember that if the view I disagree with is not protected then there is no guarantee that my own right is protected. That statement only applies to views that do not infringe on the rights of other people, meaning life, liberty, property etc. The view of a murderer or thief regarding murder and theft cannot be protected. But my views on marriage and the views of those who disagree with me must be allowed in order to have true freedom. If, for example, marriage is redefined and given status as a “right” by government then any group which believes otherwise will be seen as infringing on the rights of others and will themselves be oppressed. Currently people who believe that marriage only involves sexual attraction cannot legally act on their belief, which is wrong, no matter how much I disagree. The only way to let everyone be free is to have no legal definition of marriage and have no different treatment of non-right-infringing citizens regardless of relationship status or type. Get government out of this issue and end the political battle surrounding the enforcement of laws regarding religious belief. Any solution other than that is either idiotic or has an agenda, and likely both.

---

This is a great video that I believe most people do not have the capacity to grasp. I won’t spoil what the most important thing to have is, watch the video:

I agree very much

---