Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 6

Vivien Lasken 2/27/2012 ANTH 270 12 PM Discussion 1. Even more, some states have taken it a step further.

For instance, last year in California, the citizens passed a referendum entitled "The Protection of Marriage Initiative." In this initiative, voters reaffirmed that gay marriage was illegal in California despite the lack of challenges to the contrary. According to the supporters of this referendum, reaffirming the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman would strengthen marriage in general. In fact, one web site went so far as to promise that this referendum would reduce divorces and out-of-wedlock pregnancies. As a California resident, husband and father, I was pleased to know that I could solidify my marriage by simply voting "Yes" on a referendum. This was certainly much easier than actually communicating or showing love, appreciation and support for -- whatshername. In truth, I am continually amazed by the arrogance of heterosexuals on this issue. Let's face it, we have had marriage all to ourselves for thousands of years and we have made a mess of it. According to some statistics, half of all marriages fail and the other half end in divorce before they've had a chance to fail. Legal Defense of Gay Marriage by: Sean Carter http://whosoever.org/v6i5/marriage.html

2.

Same-sex marriage. Gay marriage. Does it violate separation of church and state? I don't think so. I strongly support separation of church and state, and I hope to correct any misunderstanding that same-sex marriage is a violation of that value. If marriage were in fact a solely religious institution then I would not wish to take part in it. However, marriage is not the property of any religion. People of all religious backgrounds and affiliations are entitled to the benefits of marriage. The same is also true of the non-religiously affiliated, agnostic, or atheistic members of our society. Non-religious people may choose to conduct their wedding ceremonies without any religious components, but they still can and do marry. This is because marriage licenses are issued by the state, and not by the church. Although many religious institutions choose to bless the unions of their members, the marriage itself is an institution of the state. If religious institutions had the authority to grant marriage licenses rather than the state, I would have no difficulty getting married to my same sex partner.

Vivien Lasken 2/27/2012 ANTH 270 12 PM Discussion This is because there are many churches which openly accept gay people and are willing to bless our unions. Unfortunately, it is the state and not the church who has the power to issue marriage licenses. Fighting to enact laws which deny couples the benefits of marriage due to your religious views is an outright violation of the separation of church and state. Although each church must decide for itself whose unions it will bless. It is the state that issues marriage licenses, not the church. Please do your part to support your gay family, friends, and community members by standing in support of our desire to enter into committed relationships with the legal protections afforded by marriage. Thank you. Gay Marriage - Violation of Separation of Church and State? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y-vl4IJpk8

3.

Marriage, to me, is in the Bible. But all of you Christians have a right just as much as anybody else to voice your opinion on anything. All the devil is trying to do is take your opinion out. You can talk about who you want to be president. I never will, but I can, because Im a citizen just like you. So we have to be understanding of what the law says. Miles, you gave a great message here on what the Bible teaches about the institution of marriage and gods foundation of that. A whole lot of people dont understand those details, but they understand marriage is between a man and a woman because god built that into every human being and into every culture. Therefore, whether or not you know that information, you can still argue for marriage as we described here because its a foundation of civilization. Whether your motivations are informed by the bible or are just informed by reflection on what forms a solid society, it shouldnt affect our vote. Its still a secular issue. Marriage in Maine - It is not about Separation of Church and State http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQ7naIoMFyw

Vivien Lasken 2/27/2012 ANTH 270 12 PM Discussion

State Endorsed Sanctity


Marriage. Its a word that everyone has heard, that everyone can identify and index in their minds; maybe for you it is the union between a man and a woman, or maybe it represents sacred vows in a church, or possibly its just a state-based agreement between two people. This word, and the ideology that goes along with it, is often taken for granted; historically speaking as well as in a modern context. Merriam-Websters dictionary defines marriage as a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>. This definition, though refreshingly liberal, is modern in its definition. What marriage is and who it applies to has shifted drastically throughout history, from medieval times to the modern. Marriage was a part of many societies throughout history, though not in the form we think of it. Throughout much of biblical history, it was widely accepted to take multiple wives, and was in fact expected. During the Han dynasty in China, divorce was legal and common if the husband could prove he had a jealous or un-filially-pious wife. Marriage wasnt even considered a sacrament in the Catholic church until the 12th century, and had no particular religious rite until the 16th century. Moving into more modern times, dowries were widely accepted, women given as property with a gift of money or land in several countries. This idea of a wife as property continued through most of recorded history, with only a few exceptions. Up until 1967, even interracial marriage was banned in the United States. And these are only a handful of examples of the extremes marriage has been stretched to accommodate over time; its definition is something we are grappling with even today, particularly where same-sex marriage is concerned.

Vivien Lasken 2/27/2012 ANTH 270 12 PM Discussion The issue passing through the government right now is whether or not marriage should be legalized for same-sex couples. Is marriage a religious term, in which case non-secular groups could define it however they like, or is it a state-issued contract? Is it somewhere in between? Different groups seem to disagree. My 3rd source, Marriage in Maine - It is not about Separation of Church and State, addresses marriage as an institution founded in religion. Their argument fulfills Kroskritys five rules; firstly, defining marriage as between one man and one woman invalidates any non-heterosexual relationships, and prevents these laws from changing the in the future, thusly serving the interests of the opposed Christian groups. This issue as a whole, like all issues, fulfills Kroskritys second rule in that there are several opposing views. Marriage in Maine doesnt express much awareness, in my opinion. Their arguments are largely religiously seated, and disregard the fact that many American citizens are in fact of different denominations or non-religious. In particular, the statement A whole lot of people dont understand those details, but they understand marriage is between a man and a woman because god built that into every human being and into every culture struck me as fairly ignorant when it comes to global awareness; there are many cultures that do not practice marriage, or at least not any sort of marriage that is similar to the Christian-norm, and to assume that every human being and every culture understand these values is simply not true and an invalid assumption. Fourthly, this interpretation of marriage allows them to mediate this social structure, the union of a man and a woman, with the word they believe represents it, marriage. To address the fifth, it serves the heterosexual Christians goals to exclude homosexuals from entering into marriages, for various reasons they also address in the video and other similar videos. This exclusion helps redefine themselves as a group; as separate from the nonbelievers and homosexuals.

Vivien Lasken 2/27/2012 ANTH 270 12 PM Discussion While the Marriage in Maine video contains a group of religiously active speakers, my second source, Gay Marriage - Violation of Separation of Church and State? is a piece by a young man on YouTube who is a part of the LGBT community. He has no official position other than being a member of the group being affected by the different ideologies surrounding this word. In his discussion, he addresses marriage as not a religious institution, but rather as a secular agreement offered by the state to couples of any denomination. Atheists, Muslims, Buddhists, and Hindus are all allowed to get married, he argues, not only Christians. In this, he sees a divorce between the word marriage and the Catholic sacrament. Since these two items are inherently different, the church, he argues, should not be able to interfere with secular marriages or object to same-sex couples being legally married. To use the idea of indexicality, this young man expresses the fact that the word marriage, which to the Maine group indexes heterosexual couples married in the eyes of god, to him it means a set of benefits through the state. These two very different views represent the very different facets that a word can take on; while for both groups, the word marriage indexes a joining between two adult, romantically involved parties, who is allowed or what the purpose of this joining is changes depending on the person. As according to Kroskrity, this view serves all those non-hetero-normative couples who desire to get married through the state. It is just another of the multiple and diverse views on this issue. To address the third rule of Kroskrity, this young man shows quite a bit of awareness, addressing not only the legal element, but the fact that many churches accept and validate same-sex marriage, and that it is only certain groups who do not. Once again, his views on marriage mediate between the social structures of his community and the church groups hes talking about at the way we use the word marriage, as well as what it defines to us. This viewpoint helps him identify himself as part of a cultural group that wont be oppressed by bigoted, religiously oriented goals.

Vivien Lasken 2/27/2012 ANTH 270 12 PM Discussion

In my final example, Legal Defense of Gay Marriage, we see a depiction of the idea that keeping the word marriage to heterosexual couples will somehow make the institution itself stronger, and a person who apparently doesnt agree with this ideology. Sean Carter is a writer for Whosoever.org, a website that claims to be Christians for equal rights, and though he is a heterosexual and married himself, he believes that there are no legal reasons for a state to deny marriage to any of its legal, eligible adults. Kroskritys rules become slightly less clear here; certainly, his view that the word should be shared, and that it doesnt help heterosexual marriage any to prevent homosexuals from marrying, helps the LGBT community in their fight for equal rights. It serves their group, but that isnt necessarily a group he himself is a part of. Instead, due to high levels of awareness on his part, he takes a step back from the issue and analyzes it from a legal standpoint; once again examining the secular law rather than religious bias. This doesnt solidify his identity as part of a group other than that he is a member of an open-minded community who recognizes the fact that marriage, as a word, should not have any effect on what marriage is as a legal institution.

Вам также может понравиться