By: Gus Victoria
Here we stand and wait at the threshold of history. Waiting for a verdict from the highest court in the land. Nine men and women soon make a decision that will impact millions. History will judge them based on that decision. We will celebrate or we will scorn. As a nation we will debate long after the decision has been handed down. Tears of joy and tears of despair will flow and mingle together.
Thousands march on either side. Millions more use their voices, words, and actions to advertise their belief. To change minds and hearts if possible. To rant if not. And what does it all mean? Nothing and everything.
Thousands march on either side. Millions more use their voices, words, and actions to advertise their belief. To change minds and hearts if possible. To rant if not. And what does it all mean? Nothing and everything.
At question is marriage and who among this nation’s citizens has a right to marry and whom. Seems a simple answer. The heart follows its own path, infinitely capable of that one force that is greater than all others; love. Can a couple of the same sex be allowed to marry and enjoy the same rights and benefits that heterosexual couples already do? To most of us the answer is clear and undebatable. The problem is that answer is not the same. Debate must, in such a State as our own, commence. Unfortunately we aren’t very civil when we feel ourselves, or those we care for, threatened and we begin to pepper this discussion of love with hate and prejudice. Violence can never create and hate can never persuade. Fear may induce some to act and think in a certain way for a while, but understanding brought about by love can banish fear easily. Hate has a firm hold only because we grasp it so tightly. Let go of it and let the heart speak. You’ll be surprised what it says.
More to the issue at hand though. Vague studies have been known to show...everything. I hate to discard a whole category of argumentation, but here when people are discussing passionate matters then the debate cannot be stripped down, quantified, and presented in a neat little study. Better to dispense with it altogether. Why cannot a man marry a man or a woman a woman? That is the question. At its center being the question; what is marriage?
How does one define it? That answer dictates on what side of this debate a person stands.
Scriptures and fear drive much of the conversation on one side. Fear and loathing on the other. Fear being common to both. The great divide is who can marry whom. For many that is what defines marriage and what, in maintaining the status quo, will keep its sanctity. A man marries a woman and they raise a family. That is marriage and its purpose. There is no other.
Scriptures and fear drive much of the conversation on one side. Fear and loathing on the other. Fear being common to both. The great divide is who can marry whom. For many that is what defines marriage and what, in maintaining the status quo, will keep its sanctity. A man marries a woman and they raise a family. That is marriage and its purpose. There is no other.
Wrong.
In this argument there is, and there must be a definite wrong answer and it is what makes it so refreshing for a philosopher used to dealing with deep, yet vague, questions about existence and the meaning of life. Outdated notions of the family unit are regressive in a world ready to move beyond the ancient mold of superstition and spiritual oppression. This does not mean religion does not have a place in this world, it still does. However it must understand it cannot captivate the minds and hearts of people as it once did to affect wholesale change on a society. Those bonds have rusted over the years and are clearly snapping.
That struggle is a death struggle. Rationalism and humanism in this century have and will continue to usher in a new Enlightenment. A second one that the church will not survive without serious reflection and change. Ignorance right now is an ally they need to abandon. Love was once its foundation, there will they find salvation.
That explains the ferocity of the opposition. The undermining of scriptural authority.
It is a moot point. Marriage may be defined in the eyes of the law however the lawmakers decide and the law of the heart that is love will always supercede it. A man may love whomever he chooses and a women may as well. The vow they make to each other no law of the land may ever break. To attempt to only condemns the lawmaker. Yes, hardships may have to be endured in a place where love outside the established norms exists. Some of these hardships may be fatal. This is a tragedy that those standing against marriage equality should take note of. Though the heart may be bruised and the body broken love, if it is true, will always endure. There is the sanctity of marriage. Not in the sex. Always in the heart.
The slippery slope argument that warns man may marry all sorts of animals and such after marriage is made legal is silly on two counts. The first one should be self-evident. The legalization of marriage will not create a wave of barnyard lovers. The second point is that marriage can even be legalized. Law ought to have no say in a covenant where they are not partners. It can grant benefits or take them away, but is cannot dissolve the union between two people if they have promised themselves to each other. You can says its invalid in all the law books of the country, but that does not make it so for them. Love is never invalid.
I rejoice as I stand at this threshold with many of my friends. I have no doubt that change in our nation will soon be upon us. I have no doubt that even that doesn’t matter. The debate won’t end. Love will outlive it though. Stand firm, be hopeful and NEVER be afraid to love!!
