Showing posts with label sanctity. Show all posts
The Sanctity of Marraige
in divorce, gay marriage, law, marriage, sanctity
A recent tongue-in-cheek blog post by fellow attorney and blawger, Gabriel Cheong, describes his support for the 2010 California Marriage Protection Act.
The 2010 California Marriage Protection Act, a proposed amendment available at http://rescuemarriage.org/2009/08/22/2010-california-protection-of-marriage-act/, takes Proposition 8 one step further by banning divorce in the state of California.
Support of the 2010 California Marriage Protection Act demonstrates the hypocrisy of attacking gay marriage for being detrimental to the sanctity of marriage when the state allows divorce. Divorce, after all, is the ultimate attack on the sanctity of marriage.
Although this is the classic slippery slope argument, the method can hardly be questioned by those who claim gay marriage will lead to people wanting to marry their pets.
This leads to the question: What does it really mean to protect the sanctity of marriage?
Sanctity is defined by the Merriam Webster Dictionary as 1. the holiness of life and character, or 2. the quality or state of being holy or sacred.
So when you hear pundits, politicians and protesters telling you that the sanctity of marriage is being attacked in the United States, they are right. But it isn't under attack because homosexual couples want to get married. The sanctity of marriage has been under attack since the first time one spouse cheated on their spouse, lied to their spouse, or otherwise disrespected the bonds of marriage.
The fight to keep marriage sacred is not a fight that can be won by the writing of laws, or restricting certain people from enjoying that bond. The fight to keep marriage sacred is an ever vigilant effort by a spouse to support, love and respect their spouse, and it takes two spouses willing to make that effort.
Forcing people to stay in marriages where their spouse is unwilling to make that effort is just as silly as refusing to recognize that homosexuals also have the ability to participate in a sacred bond of support, love and respect with their partners (whether or not the laws support them).
The 2010 California Marriage Protection Act, a proposed amendment available at http://rescuemarriage.org/2009/08/22/2010-california-protection-of-marriage-act/, takes Proposition 8 one step further by banning divorce in the state of California.
Support of the 2010 California Marriage Protection Act demonstrates the hypocrisy of attacking gay marriage for being detrimental to the sanctity of marriage when the state allows divorce. Divorce, after all, is the ultimate attack on the sanctity of marriage.
Although this is the classic slippery slope argument, the method can hardly be questioned by those who claim gay marriage will lead to people wanting to marry their pets.
This leads to the question: What does it really mean to protect the sanctity of marriage?
Sanctity is defined by the Merriam Webster Dictionary as 1. the holiness of life and character, or 2. the quality or state of being holy or sacred.
So when you hear pundits, politicians and protesters telling you that the sanctity of marriage is being attacked in the United States, they are right. But it isn't under attack because homosexual couples want to get married. The sanctity of marriage has been under attack since the first time one spouse cheated on their spouse, lied to their spouse, or otherwise disrespected the bonds of marriage.
The fight to keep marriage sacred is not a fight that can be won by the writing of laws, or restricting certain people from enjoying that bond. The fight to keep marriage sacred is an ever vigilant effort by a spouse to support, love and respect their spouse, and it takes two spouses willing to make that effort.
Forcing people to stay in marriages where their spouse is unwilling to make that effort is just as silly as refusing to recognize that homosexuals also have the ability to participate in a sacred bond of support, love and respect with their partners (whether or not the laws support them).
VIP Followers
Info recommended by:
Webpages of law
Popular entries
-
500 Coke employees lost their health insurance the day after they went on strike. The union has sued under ERISA , claiming the action wa...
-
Well kids I plan to scoot out of here shortly, to begin my long solemn weekend regimen of prayer , reflection , and expanding my abdomen , s...
-
(BY HUGO) Since the beginning of May, the flow of an emissary of Lake Champlain, the Richelieu River, is near or at record level, and a larg...
-
Billy Shields has a nice piece on the never-ending saga involving BDO Seidman and the new trial that commenced this week against BDO Intern...
-
(BY HUGO) Just a quick post to follow up on reports relating to shale gas leaks from wells in Québec. The Québec Ministry for Natural Resour...
-
Former CFO for R. Allen Stanford, Jim Davis, pleaded guilty to fraud yesterday . This is probably not good news for Proskauer's Tom Sjob...
-
(BY HUGO) On 27 April, the Québec Ministry for Sustainable development, Environment and Parks presented a regulation project on pricing of ...
-
Two weeks ago, a Florida man was arrested for logging on to his Facebook account and requesting that his estranged wife list him as a "...
-
(BY HUGO) Les Cahiers de droit just published their issue 3 & 4, Vol. 51, a special issue on water law with many articles exploring int...
-
You know, I find it more than a little annoying that Scott Rothstein has stolen my 3d DCA "bunker" imagery. It's mine, dammit!...