What Is Marriage?

With proposition 8 and other events swirling about, I have been thinking what marriage and why utlization of the word and being married is so important. Today, I think I came to an answer;


Marriage is special, it is something you share with someone you love. Something that lives, maybe not in the way you or I live, but it lives within you and the person you share it with. Marriage is unconditional love; the desire and willpower to stand at your lovers side throughout all arguments, all troubles, all calamities. Harsh words can kill it, maim it, but loving words and daily attentions can make it thrive. It is that special look you see in the eyes of your special someone, like sharing a secret that no one else knows. It is happiness, it is patience, it is kindness, forgiveness. It is love, but much more. A bond that binds your love, and symbolizes the commitment that each partner has made so long as each is faithful. To me, the commitment should be stronger, so that it is harder to get a divorce and harder to go to Vegas and be married in 15 minutes. It should be planning, it should be consideration, it should be sharing time with your best friend.


But it is more than that as well, because marriage also embraces the sexual, it entombs the closeness one can get as they share in a lover's embrace, and are at the utmost levels of intimacy; something not to be shared, or should not be shared, with anyone but that special someone.


And for some religions, marriage gets you closer to God. In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, marriage is all of the above, but ideally marriage is also a mutual relationship with God. Being spiritual together, sharing thoughts, praying together, learning together as you plan to be together through time and all eternity; sharing all that is important with the one you love.

Hopefully more most, marriage implies all that. (Including the spiritual, however it can be defined for any individual) Marriage between the individuals should mean all that. Society may not see it that way, government just tags marriage with a bunch of tax benefits, protections, and other associated rights, but for the most part, those are extra.


So what makes the difference between a civil unions and marriage then? If all the same benefits and rights that the government tags to marriage are tagged to civil unions, then legally nothing is different. But what does civil union imply? Because all of what I said that marriage is, is what I view marriage as, how I view it's composition. Is the same imagery that I view marriage as also apply to civil unions? For me... not really.


While civil unions should embrace all that marriage is, all the love and care and attentions that are implied and should be present in both marriage and a civil union; the imagery inspired by a civil union is signing a contract with a government. That is what first comes to mind, because that is what civil unions are. They are not a concept that marriage is, but rather a legal device.

And so for the first time in contemplating this, I see why same gendered couples are not satisfied with being constrained to civil unions; because conceptually and idealistically a civil union and a marriage, while they can legally be equal under law, are not equal in the slightest. Does love exist in both? Yes. Does Happiness exist in both? Yes. But why settle for one concept when the other fully defines and/or epitomizes your love for the other.


Just something to think about.

The Sutherland Insitute, Asexualism, and You.

With the two Salt Lake ordinances that passed this week granting work protection rights to gays, and with the LDS/Mormon Church backing them, you think all would be happy in Utah, right? Not so, one group, the Sutherland Group, disagrees. Upon hearing their representative talk, you'd think they're speaking out against gay rights equality.

Not so. If look into the bad grammar and oddly placed logic, you'll see that they're suggesting something else entirely:

Sexual orientation is an illusion. Your idea of rights is an illusion. Your equality is illusory.

"Sexual orientation is an illusion". Apparently the Sutherland institute believes we're all supposed to be asexual. This is further apparent by their statement,

It only exists in the minds of activists, and their academics, who need to explain away why people do what they do even when they don't want to do it.

So, according to Paul Mero of the Sutherland Institute, he has no sexual orientation and believes that there should be no sexual orientation at all. He's either a cyborg with robotic manly bits, or he's completely asexual. Although the more logical answer would be that he's a cyborg, his states,

The truth is that we are born male and female with moral agency.

See! He says we're all born male AND female. Not 'Male or Female', but 'and'. Clearly that means he is arguing that only asexual humans have rights.

Of course, it doesn't help that he contradicts his asexual argument by saying,

Because it's behavior, our sexuality is always a choice, and any other sexual construct is an illusion.

Of course he could just be saying that heterosexuality and homosexuality are both illusions. That's probably it. He thinks everyone who isn't asexual is actually holographically projecting their sexual behavior, since they aren't asexual.

And, as a follow-up Mero said,

Your idea of rights is an illusion. With the backing of every miserable misanthropic philosopher of the post-Enlightenment era, your initiative feeds on the unreasonable notion that you have these magically organic rights to do whatever you desire.

Clearly the only explanation is that Mero is Morpheus, an asexual cybernetic humanoid who is subtly informing us of the Matrix that we live in, and that we're all an illusion because we aren't asexual. It has nothing to do with his views on homosexuality or that a gay person could view heterosexuality as an illusion, it's that we're all battery-like slaves and he wants to set us free.

I think we should listen to the man, cause I can't wait to asexually split with myself.

Political Hypocrisy

This is going to be short, but when watching the news and reading some News Stories about the Health Care Bill passing in the House, it was mentioned that Catholic Popes are directly influencing House Representatives. In fact, Jason Altmire, D-Pennsylvania told CNN that He must have approval from his Catholic Bishop before he can vote yes on the bill.

Now what sort of political hypocrisy is this? Catholic Bishops can directly affect legislation, can directly influence politicians and no one says a thing about it, but the LDS/Mormon Church asks it's members to donate money to Prop8, to fight what they see as a moral dilemma, and everyone gets outraged?

Come on. This is a load of bull. Really it is. There is clearly a double standard going on here, a severe double standard. Yes, I understand that people are upset because they see the LDS Church as "Voting on their marriage" and sticking their beliefs in the legal system and all that, but when Health Care Reform is being voted on, something that will actually affect the quality of life and so much more, nothing is said when the Catholic Church directly influences Congressional Representatives to vote yes or no on a bill.

I am so glad our nation is full of a bunch of hypocrites. I really am.