Same Sex Marriage

mar·riage [ márrij ]


legal relationship between spouses: a legally recognized relationship, established by a civil or religious ceremony, between two people who intend to live together as sexual and domestic partners

specific marriage relationship: a married relationship between two people, or a somebody's relationship with his or her spouse

joining in wedlock: the joining together in wedlock of two people

Synonyms: nuptial, wedding, bridal, matrimonial, marital, conjugal, connubial

See full definition · Encarta World English Dictionary
 
In this definition, does it anywhere state "between a man and a woman"? No! It states, "between two people", the "joining together of two people", "sexual and domestic partners"! So why have states decided to include discrimination in their own definitions of marriage?
 
For many, this is a religous matter. They believe that marriage is a religious institution and that, if gays are allowed to marry, the institution of marriage will be irreparably harmed. Many religious leaders fear having to preside over gay marraige, against their belief-system. They also hold beliefs that children reared in same-sex homes are not given the benefits of living with a parent of opposite sex or same sex, as be the case. And most fearful of all, opponents of equal marriage rights fear that same-sex relationships will be promoted in public schools, brainwashing the next generation of young people into either becoming gay or accepting a lifestyle they find abhorrant!
 
Here is how I feel about those arguments:
 
1) Marriage is not a religious institution in regard to US law.. it is a contractual agreement between two consenting adults. If it were a religious institution, exclusively, then people of NO faith or bi-faith couples would not be allowed to marry either and would be subject to Civil Unions. This is not the case anywhere in the US.
 
2) The institution of marriage is not harmed by the sex of the adults consenting to the union; I would argue that it is harmed by the actions of the two: adultery, abuse, lack  of respect, financial ineptitude, etc. have been the leading causes for divorce in America, and the rates of divorce have increased over the last 50 years as we realize that we don't have to put up with adultery, abuse, lack of respect, etc. etc. The biggest threat to the institution of marriage is the cavalier attitude that many take before entering the contract!
 
3) Religious leaders will not be forced to preside over gay marriages if they choose not to. This type of force goes against our own constitution and would most certainly be overturned if anyone tried to pass such legislation! As it currently stands, religious leaders do not have to marry "unequally yoked" couples (bi-faith couples), athiests, etc. They dont even have to marry couples who do not attend their own church, even if they follow the same denomination! I know this to be true as I tried to find someone to preside over my own marriage 14 years ago! I called every church in the phone book and the only person who would marry us was a retired Unitarian Universalist! My husband and I were, and are, bi-faith.. at that time, I was Christian and my husband was athiest. Today, I am Buddhist and my husband remains athiest. If we were unable to find someone to preside over our wedding, we would have been forced to go before the Justice of the Peace at the courthouse, when I wanted to be married outdoors. I am so thankful to the UU pastor that agreed to marry us!!
 
4) Children are currently being raised in same-sex homes, regardless of the institution of marriage, and that won't end! What I think is a much greater risk for children is to be raised in an abusive home, not a same-sex home! Children of same-sex families that are loving, caring, and provide for their physical, emotional, psychological, and spiritual needs are just fine to me!
 
5) Public school curriculum is set by state school boards. We have seen sex education being legislated differently across the states, where some include safe sex information, pregnancy avoidance, and abstinance education; whereas others stubbornly maintain the failed abstinance only curriculum. I believe that any sort of same-sex relationship curriculum would follow the states-rights path, and that any attempt to teach tolerance of same-sex relationships in schools would spark much debate and controversy. But just imagine, for a moment, our schools teaching tolerance! One can hope...
 
6) Finally, I firmly believe in our constitution. And our constitution guarentees us individual rights that even a majority of discriminatory views cannot continue to deny a minority group. Our constitution also guarentees us religious freedoms, and inherent in that right is the freedom from religion. And our constitution separates church (religious ideology) from state (government and law). Therefore, as a free nation, we cannot continue to deny the rights of certain individuals all of the benefits that the contract of marriage grants to other individuals!
 
What do you think? Where do you fall on this subject?