Be as gay as you want to be
Matt Chiaramonte
Issue date: 10/10/08 Section: Opinion
Marriage is a confusing term. As defined by the law, a marriage is between a man and a woman. As defined by the Catholic Church, a marriage is between a man and a woman. As you might guess, this is upsetting to those members of our society who have no interest in marrying someone of the opposite gender.
Recently, the government has introduced new legislature that gives each state the power to decide if they want to allow gay civil unions. A civil union has all the same benefits of a marriage, with one exception: If two people are married in one state, then they are married in every state. If two people enter into a civil union, then that union is only recognized in states that choose to recognize it.
There are several stances regarding these laws. On one hand, even the idea of a civil union is upsetting to some people. These wonderfully open-minded people don't want any union that is not between a man and woman to be recognized. On the other hand, there is the stance that a civil union is not equal to a marriage, and is therefore discriminatory towards homosexuals. They believe that the legal definition of marriage should be changed to encompass all forms of love.
This gives rise to a whole new problem. There is yet another group of people who are fine with civil unions, but believe that if the definition of marriage is changed, then that can interfere with the church's beliefs. These people are afraid of the confusion that would arise if legal marriage meant one thing, and the sacrament of marriage meant something different. So there lies the confusion of marriage.
At this point, I believe it is time to pose my opinion: A marriage should be between two people who love each other and wish to start a family.
So why not just allow civil unions everywhere, and avoid the confusion with Catholicism? Because that, my friends, is bigotry. It makes a distinction between a heterosexual love and a homosexual one. Say it with me: big-o-treeee.
Recently, the government has introduced new legislature that gives each state the power to decide if they want to allow gay civil unions. A civil union has all the same benefits of a marriage, with one exception: If two people are married in one state, then they are married in every state. If two people enter into a civil union, then that union is only recognized in states that choose to recognize it.
There are several stances regarding these laws. On one hand, even the idea of a civil union is upsetting to some people. These wonderfully open-minded people don't want any union that is not between a man and woman to be recognized. On the other hand, there is the stance that a civil union is not equal to a marriage, and is therefore discriminatory towards homosexuals. They believe that the legal definition of marriage should be changed to encompass all forms of love.
This gives rise to a whole new problem. There is yet another group of people who are fine with civil unions, but believe that if the definition of marriage is changed, then that can interfere with the church's beliefs. These people are afraid of the confusion that would arise if legal marriage meant one thing, and the sacrament of marriage meant something different. So there lies the confusion of marriage.
At this point, I believe it is time to pose my opinion: A marriage should be between two people who love each other and wish to start a family.
So why not just allow civil unions everywhere, and avoid the confusion with Catholicism? Because that, my friends, is bigotry. It makes a distinction between a heterosexual love and a homosexual one. Say it with me: big-o-treeee.
Viewing Comments 1 - 1 of 1
Brady Kiser
posted 10/10/08 @ 11:22 PM CST
This is probably some of Chiaramonte's better work, so hats off on the improvement. I could have gone without the "At this point, I believe it is time to pose my opinion:" And the title did not accurately reflect what the column was about (but still made it the most popular). (Continued…)
Post a Comment