Civil Unions and Gay Marriages

With an emphasis on live and let live

The ideal American family has always been perceived as a man and woman, married, with the average of two children. Most of these children are born into the family while the rest are adopted. As a family, they have responsibilities and privileges as specified by law (religious and/or civil).

There are homosexual couples in our country who live in similar fashion. Many have been monogamous and productive members of society. Some have even gone so far as to have/adopt children and make the effort to raise them responsibly, with morals and respect for their fellow human beings. They live and function as a family, but the only difference is they are same-sex couples. Why can't those couples who work and live like responsible families have legal access to similar privileges that traditionally married couples have?

I have thought long and hard about this. I know there are those that believe homosexuality is such a terrible sin and they should not be allowed any marital privileges at all. First of all, sin is sin. For example, those that are quick to preach the evils of homosexuality or promiscuity but will gossip or tell "little white lies," even for good intentions, are hypocrites. Someone who demonizes people who openly fornicate but will take work supplies home without thinking twice is a hypocrite. Yes, it is in the book of Leviticus that clearly states that no man is to lie down with another man as he would a woman. However, in the book of Exodus, two of the Ten Commandments are "You will not steal," and "You will not falsely testify against another." You can't denounce one sin as more repugnant than the other.

As for homosexuals, many are not the obnoxious, cross-dressing publicity whores that they are stereotyped as. Most are not the evil, lurking pedophile many imagine them to be, either. I know many that are basically good people. They have many friends and have productive lives. Many do volunteer work or have charitable causes they contribute to. Why should they be penalized just because some of us don't agree with their lifestyle? Shouldn't we be rewarding a citizen's good behavior regardless of skin color, sexual orientation, physical appearance, or some other insignificant thing that has nothing to do with a person's character?

Having said that, I believe that they should be allowed to have civil unions. It would be a legal acknowledgement (without any religious implications) that two people wish to live as a single-family unit. It's not a marriage, but it would let them have access to (for example): filing their taxes jointly as do married couples, and have access to health, life, fire, and auto insurance coverage as a family.

I've heard the argument from the homosexual community that they want to be able to "marry" their life partner. Speaking for myself, I do not believe there is such a thing as a gay marriage. If I'm not mistaken (and I'm sure someone will correct me if I am), don't most religions reference a marriage as a union between a man and a woman? Don't these same religions also discourage homosexuality (if not outright forbid it)? That's why I believe a civil union would be a compromise between gay people and the laws of society. It would be a non-religious status that would respect the unity of the relationship without changing the original definition of the word "marriage." If a homosexual couple still wishes to have a religious marital-type ceremony, that will be a decision between them and an official of their religious faith. However, unless their religion specifically allows homosexual marriages, their ceremony will not be a true marriage, no matter how bad they want it to be one. This is a consequence of their choice to pursue their orientation. I'm not saying their orientation is a choice; I believe it is hereditary. However, the pursuit of that orientation IS a choice.

Now, I'm sure some Christians are probably thinking that I've flipped my lid and need an exorcist for my views about this. I keep thinking about what Jesus would do. I keep seeing the scenario as referenced in the Bible about a mob that caught a woman in the act of adultery and brought her to Jesus for judgment. They said, "The law says she is to be stoned to death. What do you say?" Christ said, "He who is without sin may cast the first stone." One by one, each person in the crowd dropped their rocks and left. They knew Christ was right. Here the mob was eager and ready to end the life of someone they chose to scapegoat, and He gently reminded them that they had no right to judge; they were just as guilty of other sins as the adulteress they openly condemned. We all need to remember that! Christ told the woman not to sin anymore, but He did not condemn her.

Remember Mary Magdelene? She was a former prostitute and shunned by everyone in the community. Mary, mother of Jesus, welcomed her into her home and treated her with love and respect. Having Ms. Magdalene in her home did not mean Christ's mother had to act like a prostitute or condone prostitution. It meant that Mary, mother of Jesus, could show Ms. Magdalene how a person should treat another person, simply by her own actions. Following that course of logic, just because someone is homosexual doesn’t mean we can’t treat him/her like a human being.

Not everyone in our country adheres to a religious faith that denounces homosexuality. If we want our faith (or lack thereof) to be respected, we have to be willing to acknowledge and respect those of other people. If this must include the enactment of civil unions in our country, then so be it. God gave us all free will, and we are not responsible for what other people do. Ultimately, we are only responsible for our children and ourselves.