A View from Left Field: Defining Marriage to Suit All Perspectives

As we approach the November Presidential Election, political thought is heating up, especially on the subject of what constitutes a marriage.  Recently North Carolina passed an onerous law prohibiting same sex marriage and further denying those couples the rights afforded heterosexual unions.  Certainly this is an infringement of equal rights protection for all citizens under the law.

In the spirit of accommodating all points of view, here is another spin on the old dilemma.  Since constant references to the Bible are used to support or define marriage, it is essentially a religious experience.  Couple that with the fact that churches, synagogues and mosques etc. fall outside the domain of government (separation of church and state).  Thus, each religious institution has the right to formulate the precise nature of marriage as it applies to their respective flock.  If they determine that marriage is for a man and women only, so be it.  Congregants of the same sex persuasion will have to seek out other avenues for spiritual guidance or the blessings of religion.  Options are, find another place to pray or lobby to change attitudes within their existing houses of worship.

The government is a different matter.  Under Constitutional Law, all citizens must be treated equally.  Instead of defining “significant other” relationships as marriage, they should all be deemed civil unions instead.  Whether people in these unions are of different sexes, the same sex or family members, they are all  entitled to the same rights.  Note, relationships defined herein are for governmental purposes only, and should not be confused with religious unions.  This way Uncle Sam will be best positioned to equitably distribute benefits due all civil unions and the climate will be markedly improved for loved ones to gain hospital access to their significant other in times of need. 

People cohabitate for a multitude of reasons.  Grandparents raise orphaned or neglected grandchildren, financially strapped people often join forces to ease the pain of insolvency, or siblings may be forced to care for indigent parents.  Whatever the reason, all of them are deserving of and should be guaranteed equal treatment and benefits under law.  Should these relationships change; the new partners could register as significant others or civil unions; and the new arrangements would supersede the old ones.

Religion, on the other hand, is like a private club. It addresses scripture and man’s spiritual or ethical needs to make for him or her a better life.  Each denomination has every right to define marriage as it sees fit, given the dictates of its liturgy and traditions.  On the other hand, fairness compels the government to act in a way that doesn’t discriminate with reference to all of its citizens, whether they are inside or outside the box.

This marriage controversy has consumed our nation.  It could be minimized if the issue was separated into its religious and governmental components.   Each religion defines the “correctness” of relationships in concert with guidelines provided by its faith, while relationships under law must be looked upon with fairness for all. On a personal basis, each relationship can define itself.   While this solution might not always hold sway in every instance, it will work better than the contentious state that exists today.