Wednesday, April 7, 2004

Other religions: ‘Get over it, Christians’

It is interesting that in your opinion piece, “Christians and gay marriage: What to do?” you seem to think that marriage begins and ends with the religious definition in the Christian faith.

Would it surprise you to learn that there are other cultures and faiths also involved in this debate? I myself am a Wiccan. Of course, the mere fact that I am a non-Christian means to many people that I am going to suffer some sort of damnation at the time of my death.

What is most interesting to me in this entire debate on gay marriage, or the lack thereof, is that everyone is focusing on the Christian-only view of marriage.

I am by no means arguing that Jesus didn’t imply that marriage was to be between a man and a woman. What I wonder is, if the institution of marriage was defined by Christ and/or his disciples, does that mean that heterosexual marriages between non-Christians are not actually marriages? Does the mere fact that I am not a Christian invalidate any possible state of matrimony I might enter into regardless of the sexual make-up?

Also, if the institution of marriage is to be defined by a religious organization, then how does this mesh with the fact that judges are empowered to perform civil ceremonies currently known as marriages? If marriage is a sacred institution, then I would argue that the separation between church and state would remove the power of a judge (unless said judge also be ordained as a minister) to perform such unions.

Of course, what all this is leading to is: The definitions need some alteration. The whole uproar seems to center around how the union between a man and a woman is defined. The various religious organizations call it “marriage.”

Maybe a union between a man and a woman conducted by an ordained minister should be called a marriage, but a union between two consenting adults that is witnessed and conducted by a civil official should be called a “civil union.” The rights under the law should be the same for both instances, the only difference being the term by which the union is called.

This way the Christians (as well as the other religious groups involved) would have their marriages untainted and the rest of us who don’t fit in your narrow mold would be able to enjoy the same legal protections and privileges.

But I have an even better solution. Maybe those of you who are of a particular religious belief that does not allow or condone marriage between same-sex couples should exercise a little more tolerance.

Why should those of us who do not share your beliefs be forced to constrain our actions, lifestyles, and behaviors to them? This is counter to the freedom that is guaranteed us in the Constitution of the United States.

The First Amendment of the Constitution states (for those who don’t already know): “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The Defense of Marriage Act, passed into law by the Congress of the United States is in direct violation of the First Amendment. By defining marriage in the terms of “only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife” Congress and the President have tacitly endorsed the major religions present in the United States without giving thought to those of us who practice different religions.

By using the tenets of Christianity as an argument in favor of this act, the Congress established Christianity as the default and is restricting the free exercise of other non-Christian religions.

By endorsing such laws and engendering such animosity in the debate over gay marriage, Christians are exercising hatred towards others, not love or caring.

Andy Fore

arfore@valdosta.edu