Politics and Religion; two subjects that are taboo in social situations (if you still want the same level of respect the next day). These are two topics that should not mix, but they do - one fine example is ‘marriage’.
Marriage is a religious sacrament. Marriage is not a political position.
It is a fact that marriage was created by religion, yet, governments recognise unions, that have not been recognised by the church, as marriage. I dont doubt that these unions are found on love and respect for their partners - I simply doubt the viability of a Government legally recognising a union as ‘marriage’ when they’re technically not the authority on the matter.
I am not religiously devout, nor politically committed - I’m just drawing the line that should have been drawn.
Marriage means more than ‘forever’ to the religiously devout, it means more than eternal love and commitment to your partner; marriage has an inextricable link to their religion and God, a commitment not only to your partner, but your church and your God. ‘Marriages’ committed outside of a religious nature (ie - between two athiests, on the beach, confirmed by a celebrant) do not have the religious foundations or depth of religious commitment - so technically (without doubting their devout love for one another) this type of union is not ‘marriage’.
This is not my opinion - it is fact. However, that line has been blurred by Government legal terminology.
Why have I decided to write about this? Why do I care?
Well, the government have got themselves into a fluster with the valid debate on ‘Gay Marriage’.
I am 100% for equality and fairness, however, the Government’s excuse for not allowing ‘Gay Marriage’: The church only allows for marriage to be between a man and a woman.
Well, news flash: The church does not recognise marriage between atheists, heterosexual un-religious beings (and the like) who have committed to one another outside the church either. So what we’re witnessing here, Ladies and Gentleman, is where the Government have overstepped the line (*SHOCK! HORROR!*).
Authorising marriage should not be the place of politics, yet, it is legal for heterosexual’s to wed and illegal for homosexual’s to wed.
I think we’re arguing the wrong point when it comes to ‘Gay Marriage’ - I think we should be arguing why the Government legalise ‘Straight Marriage’ or why the government legalise ‘marriage’ at all!? Did they legalise my Baptism? No.
I understand that people feel a need to commit - this is fine - however, this commitment should simply be called a legal union (or something with a fancy name if you please). There would then be no argument that the Government could present to disagree with whether or not these unions should be between a heterosexual couple or a homosexual couple - because then it is not linked to religion and there could be no argument to this degree. Because at the end of the day most people just want to be recognised by society as being ‘together’, not recognised by the Church (which is the way it is now anyway, it’s simply entitled ‘marriage’ by law).
Furthermore, people should be educated on what ‘marriage’ is and re-assess whether or not they actually want to submit to a religious sacrament. I mean, the same people who are wanting to get married; are you the same people who have also submitted to baptism, confirmation, communion, reconciliation, etc (or whatever other religious sacraments apply) - if not, why would you then think you want to submit to ‘marriage’? It is one of the highest sacramental religious rights and you - who is not religious - would like to participate in something created on the bare foundations of ‘Religion’? Interesting…
All I’m saying is that getting married when you’re not religious and having it authorised by a celebrant is like getting a degree in medicine authorized by your local library… (hardly viable) only to find out that you never wanted a career in medicine anyway. Pointless? I agree.
