On Monday, former first lady, secretary of state and presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton came out in support of gay marriage.
The part of me that supports gay marriage thinks this is a great thing. But the part of me that has watched with mild dismay over what the Clintons have referred to as marriage is a little taken aback.
My personal belief is that marriage is a covenant between the two parties involved and God … or the church, if you prefer. I have long believed that if a couple could find a church to pronounce them spouses, it makes no difference what the state or federal government thinks. After all, the state’s role in marriage is simply one of codifying that which is already true.
To further explain: If two men or two women could find a church to say that they are legally married, the state of New York (or any other state) should not have any sort of veto power over a legally binding contract. The state’s sole role should be to mark it in the books as being “so.”
As of late, the topic of gay marriage has gained support among not only Democrats but the public at large. In fact, a recent poll said that 58 percent of Americans now support gay marriage. To be honest, I find that number to be surprising. I am shocked to believe that that many heterosexuals would be willing to share their “right” to marriage with homosexuals. But it shows that as a society we are making progress on the compassion front.
My biggest issue here is that by Hillary Clinton attaching her name to this cause, she actually dilutes the notion in a sort of “guilt by association” manner. Because the Clintons marriage has long been believed to be more of a political partnership than a personal partnership, I fear that some who oppose gay marriage will actually hold Bill and Hillary up as an example of why not to support gay marriage.
Imagine if you will Bernie Madoff discussing the importance of investing. Once his name is involved, the whole notion becomes tainted. He is probably responsible, after all, for people burying their money in their backyard or hiding it in a box under their bed. In fact, his suggesting that people should invest in the stock market should only serve as an example of why you’re best off doing just that — hiding your money in your freezer, ala William Jefferson.
Ronald McDonald shouldn’t be a spokesperson for dieting. Chelsea Handler shouldn’t be a spokesperson for sobriety. Sylvester Stallone shouldn’t be a spokesperson for yoga. And Hillary Clinton shouldn’t be a spokesperson for marriage — gay, straight or any other kind.
Scott Leffler would hide his money in his freezer … if he had any to hide. Follow him on Twitter @scottleffler.
2 comments:
I like your premise, but in reverse: When (not if) two men or two women have state say that they are legally married, the church should not have any sort of veto power over a legally binding contract."
That's essentially what a marriage is, a contract. Yes, there are traditional, religious and emotional aspects to it, but 95% is about the state-granted benefits, privileges and protections.
All marriages should be legal in the eyes of the state, and churches can choose to acknowledge them or not.
Interesting take, Jim. I never really thought about it that way. Then again, I still look at marriage as a religious thing more than a government thing. So that's why I came at it from the angle I did.
Post a Comment