This is a follow-up to yesterday’s blog. One of the BIG political tensions in the faith arena is the global attempts to “reform marriage”, make that redefine marriage to accept non-heterosexual relationships.
One of the important elements of the traditional marriage ceremony was the statement that “marriage is ordained by God”. I rather suggest that we have gone a long way in dealing with relationships to the point that we are on the verge of making it the statement “marriage is an institution defined by legislation.
Now this is not about homosexual marriage per se, although that is the push in the halls of power. This is more a reflection on a historical change in the way that we accept relationships. It is also the reason I placed mutuality ahead of marriage.
Life a lifetime ago –
A little before my time there were three relationship statuses people defined others by. Everyone started out in singleness and then after a while most became married or widowed (eventually), but there were some who declined that decision and set up house together bypassing marriage. This was called “living in sin” and frowned upon by the general population.
Life about 40 years ago –
About forty years ago the position changed. The biggest change was that there was a legal recognition of couples who remained in a committed relationship as being “common law” or de-facto relationships. It was a quasi marriage state and recognized by legislation, no doubt to attempt to protect the progeny of such unions.
Life more recently
Now it is the more normal to be asked if your wife/husband is your “partner”. No doubt to conciliate with an assumption that marriage is on the skids. Perhaps this is the line in the sand that we as a Community of Believers need to draw. The statisticians tell us that about fifty per cent of marriages end in divorce and I find this an incredible position because I cannot accept that half of us go into bad marriages.
Into the future
What about into the Future? There are moves to legislate non heterosexual relationships as a marriage. Not as a marriage like relationship but as included in the definition of marriage, with all the rights and responsibilities that are enshrouded in that relationship.
As I understand the debate, there are two issues.
From the homosexual community the argument is that they need a legal recognition to be considered family in hospitals and the like, and further they need it for entering into agreements that have a legally binding consequence. One argument I have heard is that upon the death of a partner the surviving member may be excluded from planning a funeral for their love and even any assets of the relationship.
The second issue is one raised by the civil libertarian lobby. Yes the one that had the Ten Commandments and the Bible removed from public places in America. Their argument is that we should have “compassion for those who have a different sexual orientation to heterosexuals and recognize their relationships
What happens from now is up to us. If marriage counts as a BIBLICAL STATE then we must strive to protect it, by prayer but also by politically proactive efforts to defend it. My focus has been on choice, there is no requirement to expand the definition of marriage to expand the rights and responsibilities of people choosing to live outside the marriage relationship.
Questions of a legal foundation.
No comments:
Post a Comment