"> Why Don Ardell Opposes Same Sex Marriage!
 
Related Topics Helpful Products

Book: Aging Beyond Belief by Don Ardell

If you plan to age, prepare yourself — it's later than you think. The challenge of aging well should be taken seriously, but not grimly! Whatever your age, it's never too soon, or too late, to learn and apply the fine art of aging well, really well. Discover what aspects of aging can't be changed and improve the rest that can. Mold your own realities with REAL wellness, Ardell-style.

The 69 tips — one for each year of the author's life — are thought-provoking, challenging, eye-opening, manageable and fun to read. And all provide practical guidance for intelligently designing your own life-style evolution.
Learn more

Don's report archive

by Donald B. Ardell, Ph. D.
Read Don's blog!

Wellness in the Headlines
(Don's Report to the World)

Why Don Ardell Opposes Same Sex Marriage!

Wednesday August 18, 2004

On Thursday of last week, the California Supreme Court ruled that over 4,000 same-sex marriages performed in recent months in San Francisco were "void and of no legal effect." I know this will be a big relief for the members of the court to learn that I approve of this ruling!Yes, I am against same-sex marriage, just as are the Alliance Defense Fund (the Christian group that successfully sued the city of San Francisco over the same-sex marriages), George Bush, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and religious fundamentalists throughout the US, not to mention Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and other god-fearing countries the world over. I take the same position, but not for the same reasons as animate the stalwarts just noted. 

My reasons for opposing same sex marriage are not remotely related to the objections expressed by the holy-roller types. I don't care a twig if a holy book forbids same sex marriage or believers choose to think it does. Likewise, I'm unimpressed with the notion, voiced by our preacher-in-chief, that same sex marriage violates "the sanctity" of the institution. Similarly, I am not persuaded that such unions would ruin family values, unleash a plague of locusts, destroy Western civilization or bring about "the end times," as prophesized by Nostradamus or some Pope or semi-literate character who authored a chapter or two of the Old Testament a few thousand years ago. 

As you might discern from the above, I don't have a decent regard for any of this nonsense. There is a much more fundamental reason for my opposition to same sex marriage. I'm against the idea of marriage itself, whether same sex, opposite sex or no sex. It simply seems like a very bad idea to intermix affairs of church with those of state. The California Supreme Court, by the way, clearly stated that its ruling was NOT on the merits of same-sex unions but on the principle of the separation of powers in government. My argument is somewhat similar but broader--I want to separate all government powers from the provence of religions, as well as keep religions (and religious based-policies) OUT of government.

Whatever else it might represent for some, ultimately, marriage is a religious institution. Any religion should be free to forbid or allow marriage to anyone for any reason, as it pleases, with no interference from the state. People should be free to worship anything in any way they like, provided it's all done by consenting adults and does no harm to anyone else. (Whether it is ethical for parents to attempt to brainwash their children in their faith for nearly two decades is a topic for another day.) 

Unfortunately, for a wide variety of historical reasons, the religious rite or sacrament of marriage became inextricably intertwined with the legal, secular institution of state and other governmental bodies. Thus, there are significant rights and obligations of a legal nature associated with a religious ritual, as there are in the much less utilized and not quite equal partnership called civil unions. I favor civil unions for any couple that choses to unite in this legal fashion. Of course, if such a couple can find a religion or church group of some kind willing to marry them as a religious rite, the couple (and the church group) should be free to do so, without government interference. 

This is a right that should be protected for religious groups as well as same sex (or other gender varied) couples! Just as churches (religions) should be free to ban anything they like (for their own members), so too should they be free to favor and approve of whatever they choose, including the conduct of marital rites for those who wish to participate in such a religious service. 

All the legal stuff, of course, should obtain only as regards civil unions, which should be open to any couple-period. 

That's my take on the matter. What do YOU think, and why? 

Be well--I say, "look on the bright side, whatever your take on this matter."

Domain: mental
Subdomain: relationships

Search other reports in the Don Ardell report archive.

 
advertisement
website design:
Web site design by Well Web Development
Online Payments
This website is certified by Health On the Net Foundation. Click to verify. This site complies with the HONcode standard for trustworthy health information:
verify here.