Time to rename marriage

  • Follow Letters

The March 9 letter to the editor “Why oppose gay marriage?” discusses issues with which I totally agree. Marriage between homosexuals should not have any direct effect on heterosexuals.

That the government should be involved with the marriage issue also has perplexed me. Perhaps the government considers marriage as only a civil right with nothing holy about it. In a letter to the editor in 2011, I pointed out that some people may construe it to be a civil liberty.

But, for most Christians, marriage has always been recognized as a union between a man and a woman commissioned by God to prevent them from fornicating. Therefore, true Christians believe homosexual marriage is wrong and does not eliminate the sin of sexual intercourse with a person of the same sex.

Since, in many places, the homosexuals appear to be winning on the marriage issue, I offer one solution for Christians.

That solution would be to change (remove) the word “marriage” from heterosexual wedding ceremonies performed by a Christian pastor and replace it with “holy matrimony.”

There are several other ways to wed, including by a non-Christian pastor. Let homosexuals get married only outside of a place of worship by those legally permitted to perform the ceremony and call the marriage a “civil marriage” on the marriage certificate. Let Christian heterosexual wedding unions be called be called “holy matrimony.”

The lack of written outrage by our clergy on this subject is bothersome to me. I think that God will not look upon their silence with favor.

As for civil rights, I believe that all legal citizens of the United States – regardless of martial status, race, religion, nationality, income, etc. – should have equal civil rights in everything, including our complicated and controversial taxation laws.

Ralph F. Cauble

Martinez

Comments (23) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
deestafford
28585
Points
deestafford 03/30/13 - 07:50 am
7
5
So the answer is to take a word that has had a certain

definition of meaning for thousands of years and change it because 3% of the population is homosexual? Words mean something specific, not just what a minority of people want it to mean.
Everytime the issue of homosexual "marriage" has been put on the ballot for the people to vote on, it has lost. And most of the time by wide margins even in liberal California.
Marriage has a certain conotation for the government as to certain benefits. There are tax benefits for married couples and children because the government has a vested interest in increasing and sustaining the population in order for the country to survive. Many older people marry even after childbirth age because they don't want to live in sin.
Why is homosexual marriage accepted so much by the younger generation? It's because of the brain washing sexual education classes they have been forced to attend since kindergarden. In those classes they were/are taught that anything goes as long as people want to do it.
There are no absolutes. Everything is relative.
If homosexual marriage is ok why not marrying multiple people? How about marrying your cousin? Your sister? Your aunt? You can have a loving and committed relationship with all of those. So, what's the difference?
In human history homosexual marriage has never been allowed by any country until very, very recently. Even in "anything goes" France, tens of thousands were demonstrating in the streets last week against the government's plan to legalize homosexual marriage. Homosexuality is a deviant behavior. If you don't believe it look up the word "deviant" in the dictionary. That's the book that tells one what words mean.

AutumnLeaves
8381
Points
AutumnLeaves 03/30/13 - 08:46 am
6
4
Why not change the word

Why not change the word marriage for man to woman "Holy Matrimony"? Well, because when people are married they want people to know they are married to a person of the opposite sex, as up until recently was understood. A few states start to marry same sex people and that is no longer a given. Confusing. Also, because how would you like to go around telling people, I am holy matrimonied, instead of I am married? Marriage should remain the word for one man one woman, let this civil union between same sex partners come up with a new name. Don't change what was for as long as the word marriage has been in existence.

soapy_725
43757
Points
soapy_725 03/30/13 - 09:58 am
0
0
You will not hear anything from the pulpit about
Unpublished

greed, gluttony, lying, sodomy, fornication, adultery, drunkenness, etc. And the answer is....The Pharisees love money". Pure and simple. The New Church is a billion dollar industry selling "felling good about oneself". Looking good and being rich. The blessing of God without the disciplined life of sacrifice. It sounds good and it sells great. Just ask Oral Roberts, Kenneth Hagen, Pat Roberson, Joyce Myers, Benny Hinn, etc.

No blood, no hell, no sin, no repentance and no absolutes. Nothing is sacred. Not the Cross of Calvary. Not innocent life. Not God ordained marriage. Come on in and feel good. Bring your sin with you and we will celebrate your life choice. Hey, we will even crank up the amps and dance. Drink some rarefied coffee. We love you and absolve you of all you mistakes and even embrace those sins. Contributions and partnerships are welcome.

GiantsAllDay
9842
Points
GiantsAllDay 03/30/13 - 11:03 am
6
12
Was Jesus Gay? Sometimes I

Was Jesus Gay?

Sometimes I think it's enough to say, "he might have been gay. We don't know for sure, and neither do you." That alone is probably enough to boggle some closed minds.

Jesus was an unmarried Hebrew Rabbi, which was quite unusual during those times. He had twelve disciples, whom he clearly loved. However, the Gospels seem to go out of their way to say John was the disciple whom Jesus Loved....why? It occurs to me, that although he loved all of his disciples, his relationship with John was of a special nature.

I have always thought that Jesus was gay. There is way too much emphasis on this Jesus/John thing to be just a man crush.
Besides, a straight guy would've turned the water to beer.
The real risk to christians is that gay couples will visit them for dinner parties and wince at their tacky decor.

InChristLove
22481
Points
InChristLove 03/30/13 - 12:42 pm
4
1
Reasoning gone out the window.

Assuming Jesus was gay because he wasn't married is stretching a bit. By that viewpoint, all men who are mature in age but haven't married, would be labeled as gay.....is that your point? As for John being the one whom God loved...it is quit possible that because Christ placed such a high valued on young children, and because John was the youngest, Jesus was closer to him because of his youth and had nothing to do with sexual desire as you are implying.

As with most, or I would hope with most, when growing up it is perfectly normal to have a "best friend" or someone close that you love more than your other friends. Why is this any different with Christ. It is because He was God in flesh so therefore He can not have a close friend, someone he loved more than the other?

Some people are looking for anything to degrade Christianity, to continue to mock and deny the existence of God, because if they don't then they have to question the validity of his existence and by a slim chance, they just might be wrong.

InChristLove
22481
Points
InChristLove 03/30/13 - 12:47 pm
3
1
It makes perfect sense

It makes perfect sense that since Jesus knew he would soon be put to death, it is quit possible that he did not marry....not because He was gay.....but because He did not think it wise to leave a defenseless widow behind when He would be crucified or the distraction from his ministry that a family would require of him.

GiantsAllDay
9842
Points
GiantsAllDay 03/30/13 - 01:50 pm
2
9
It is not mocking god to

It is not mocking god to suggest that Jesus may have been gay. That is offensive to our homosexual brothers and sisters.

InChristLove
22481
Points
InChristLove 03/30/13 - 02:51 pm
5
2
"Besides, a straight guy

"Besides, a straight guy would've turned the water to beer"

Most would consider this statement mocking of a Holy and Righteous God. If someone said this about my earthly father I would take offense to it just as I do my heavenly Father.

KSL
134063
Points
KSL 03/30/13 - 04:15 pm
4
3
Homosexuality and it's

Homosexuality and it's acceptance, has waxed and waned over recorded history. Can someone tell me why the term "marriage" is so important when the legal rights of a union between 2 people should really be the issue? As long as you get those rights, why demand on the term? Or is that more of your in your face attitude.

Several years ago, my husband and I went to Charlotte and took my son and his wife to a Christmas concert. The row in front of us became occupied by what appeared to be 4 male homosexual couples. For the first half of the concert they just sat there. The second half, their public display of affection was just disgusting. It would have been just as disgusting had they been heterosexual couples. But then, at the age these people were, that would not have happened had they been normal. Yes, I will use the word "normal." Can someone say that was not an "in your face" attitude on their part to us sitting behind them?

KSL
134063
Points
KSL 03/30/13 - 04:20 pm
3
3
To the letter writer

Marriage is marriage. Don't usurp the term!

KSL
134063
Points
KSL 03/30/13 - 04:26 pm
2
3
Find a church that will

Find a church that will perform the ceremony and call it marriage. Just don't stick it in our faces.

GiantsAllDay
9842
Points
GiantsAllDay 03/30/13 - 04:47 pm
4
5
Gays cause natural

Gays cause natural disasters:
Meteors
Tsunamis
Earthquakes
Volcanic eruptions

Gay marriage makes gawd mad, and when gawd gets mad, he acts ungodlike.

The anti-gay crowd fears that if marriage becomes too universal, the tax benefits might be watered down or suspended. Follow the dollar.

RMSHEFF
16606
Points
RMSHEFF 03/30/13 - 05:18 pm
2
2
GAD

God will not be mocked !

InChristLove
22481
Points
InChristLove 03/30/13 - 05:40 pm
1
2
Yes, follow the dollar!

Yes, follow the dollar! GAD.......why else would a group of people not be satisfied with a union that offers the same benefits but would be called something other than what the word marriage has represented for thousands of years.

And it's not fear but anger that the anti-gay crowd is feeling.

GiantsAllDay
9842
Points
GiantsAllDay 03/30/13 - 06:09 pm
2
5
Did you just admit to being

Did you just admit to being anti gay ?

OJP
6944
Points
OJP 03/30/13 - 07:43 pm
2
3
@deestafford: Incorrect. Voters in three states approved

marriage equality in 2012: Maine, Maryland, and Washington.

And the definition of marriage gas never been static. The Bible itself has evidence of that.

Young people are not being brainwashed, they're just always less prejudicial than older people. Today's opponents of marriage equality are last century's opponents of civil rights.

Be prepared to look pretty damn awful in 50 years.

InChristLove
22481
Points
InChristLove 03/30/13 - 09:49 pm
2
2
Do you have an issue

Do you have an issue understanding my comment GAD.....Did anywhere in my comment I state I was anti-gay? Beside you make it sound like a bad thing. I believe my last comment is a general statement of some who are against homosexuality. There sure wouldn't be fear or anger if they were pro-gay, now would they?

OJP
6944
Points
OJP 03/31/13 - 02:09 am
2
3
@ICL

Being anti-gay IS a bad thing.

WalterBradfordCannon
1470
Points
WalterBradfordCannon 03/31/13 - 06:58 am
1
2
In a legal discussion in the

In a legal discussion in the USA about marriage, what ANY religion says is irrelevant. If our Founding Fathers were anything, they were adamant that the nation be based upon principles that were common in people irrespective of their religions (or lack thereof). A religion can, of course, make any rules it likes about marriage or holy matrimony and can use them in the context of their religion, but only the government defines marriage for legal purposes.

Right now a married lesbian couple has their day in court, and they will argue that the spousal inheritance should recognize their marriage and not tax them several hundred thousand dollars. They are arguing their spousal inheritance should be treated the same as it would if it were the spousal inheritance of a heterosexual couple. This case frames the issue nicely. There are legal rights attributed to spouses that are denied to gay couples, and it is difficult to argue that is appropriate without being a clear bigot.

palmetto1008
9782
Points
palmetto1008 03/31/13 - 07:21 am
1
2
So clearly argued,
Unpublished

So clearly argued, WalterBrafordCannon. Case closed.

InChristLove
22481
Points
InChristLove 03/31/13 - 08:45 am
1
0
"There are legal rights

"There are legal rights attributed to spouses that are denied to gay couples, and it is difficult to argue that is appropriate without being a clear bigot."

A majority does not have an issue with legal tax and inheritance rights for gay couples, and I think that has been made clear several times, but the issue is the definition of marriage and what it should remain or whether we change the definition of it. It is the opinion of some (both religious and non-religious) that the definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. There are those who would love nothing more than to make this out to be a religious issue when it is not. There are those who by their religious convictions believe that marriage should remain what it has for thousands of years but not all who feel that way do so for religious reasons. Rights for gays can be solved through other means without changing the definition or concept of marriage.

This viewpoint is not coming from a bigot but from someone who feels marriage is between a man and a woman...period. And if the definition of marriage is changed to what a small minority wish it to be, what changes next. This opens a door to a whole lot of other undesirable consequences and the US has been known for act now, regret later.

InChristLove
22481
Points
InChristLove 03/31/13 - 08:47 am
1
0
OJP.....so being gay is good,

OJP.....so being gay is good, being not gay is bad.

Maybe in your viewpoint.

WalterBradfordCannon
1470
Points
WalterBradfordCannon 03/31/13 - 03:16 pm
0
2
Bigot: one who treats members

Bigot: one who treats members of a group with hatred and intolerance.

There are enormous legal issues associated with allowing gays to engage in "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships" instead of marriages. All states in the USA, and the federal government, have reciprocity of rights for marriages. Most states do not recognize civil unions, and those that do not certainly do not recognize ones established in other states. There is a legal framework for domestic partnerships, and its legal name is "marriage". If you look at states that do recognize rights for gay spouses, they form a line not unlike the Mason-Dixon line. If a gay married couple from the north considers moving south, they would have to do so knowing their spousal rights would not be recognized. A heterosexual wedding union can travel freely without losing rights - not so for a gay one. If it is important to someone, for religious reasons, not to recognize gay marriage, then the church is the right place for that argument, not federal court.

As it stands now, the DoJ claims it feels the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional. The District Court judge ruled it was, and ordered the 40 year domestic partner Edie Windsor be refunded the taxes levied against her inheritance of her spouse's finances. The Appeals court affirmed this ruling, claiming that if a state recognizes gay marriage, the US government cannot define marriage as being between a man and a woman (gender discrimination applied to the role of the spouse), and also affirmed that homosexuals have suffered a history of discrimination. Chief Justice John Roberts is inclined to dismiss hearing the case because all justices at lower court levels have agreed that the DOMA is unconstitutional (it is a waste of the supreme court's time). And it appears at least five other justices support its dismissal.

It appears exceedingly likely the DOMA will be stricken down, and gay marriage will be legal in states in which it is legal by state law. There is another legal issue about its recognition in other states - but the first time it gets challenged - you can be certain the same discriminatory arguments will support it uniformly. The bigotry against gay marriage will meet its suitable legal end. Some gay couple from New York or New Jersey will move to the south, and will have to pay taxes differently from married couples in their state of residence, and they will sue.

InChristLove
22481
Points
InChristLove 03/31/13 - 05:27 pm
1
0
WBC...thank you for the

WBC...thank you for the definition of bigot. It proves what so many have been claiming, that just because you do not approve of a particular behavior does not mean you are a bigot......according to the definition that would have to include hatred and intolerance which neither has been displayed by those being accused of bigotry.

Seems pretty simple to me that if all states agreed to allow gay couples to have "civil unions" and the benefits in regard to taxes, inheritance, etc and leave the definition of marriage as one man and one woman to heterosexuals as has been for thousands of years, everyone would have what they wanted....but then again that isn't really what gays want, now is it.

WalterBradfordCannon
1470
Points
WalterBradfordCannon 03/31/13 - 06:21 pm
0
1
I am pretty sure that US

I am pretty sure that US federal law will similarly find civil unions unconstitutional. If you are a man, and have a spouse, the legal rights of that spouse cannot depend on the gender of the spouse. That is basic gender discrimination. And yes, I do find your views on gay marriage demonstrable of hatred and intolerance. Gay people are born with their sexual orientation, the same as heterosexuals, and depriving gay people of the same rights as heterosexuals demonstrates both an intolerance and a hatred. I mean, it seems pretty prima facie obvious that you consider homosexuals as a secondary caste to heterosexuals, and to anyone that feels that gays are the same as everyone else, that is bigotry. You can change the terms homosexual and heterosexual to black and white and the arguments do not change. You consider the rights of someone to depend on traits with which they are born.

InChristLove
22481
Points
InChristLove 03/31/13 - 06:46 pm
0
1
"If you are a man, and have a

"If you are a man, and have a spouse, the legal rights of that spouse cannot depend on the gender of the spouse. "

It can if the legal definition of spouse is one of the opposite sex and not same gender.

"And yes, I do find your views on gay marriage demonstrable of hatred and intolerance"

Well, there is nothing I can say (other than agreeing with you on the stance of gay marriage) to change your view. Anything other than the view you uphold is considered hatred and intolerance to you. Odd, your view seems a little hateful and intolerant to me. I know I don't hate homosexuals and if that is your opinion, you are entitled to it...doesn't make it so.

'Gay people are born with their sexual orientation" This has never been proven as a fact.

" I mean, it seems pretty prima facie obvious that you consider homosexuals as a secondary caste to heterosexuals" Nothing I have ever posted has indicated that I thought homosexuals were second caste. I do not approve of their behavior and have stated so, this does not mean I view them as anything other than a human being (one who has lost their way as we all have done).

WalterBradfordCannon
1470
Points
WalterBradfordCannon 03/31/13 - 07:44 pm
0
2
There are genetic

There are genetic contributions to sexual orientation. There is also copious evidence of early in utero impacts of the mother's androgen levels on sexual orientation. Lots, and lots, of evidence. And, you can couple that with the complete lack of evidence of any postnatal (that means "after birth") environmental effect on sexual orientation. Homosexuals are not "someone who has lost their way", homosexuals are people who were born that way. You cannot change their sexual orientation by retraining, nor can you make them desire intimacy with the opposite sex. There are lots of scientific articles on the topic, and books, and reviews, and position statements by physicians, etc. There is nothing wrong with being gay, except that when you love someone, and share your life with them for forty years, the state wants to tax you as though you are completely unrelated. If your partner gets sick and requires in-home care, you do not qualify for family medical leave. And if you become parents, you cannot both adopt the child. These, and many other rights, are the sorts of inequities that are assigned to you because you happened to be born gay. Support of this position is highly intolerant of sexual orientation. You have the chance to be on the right side of history, here. This train is going to make it to the station irrespective of your views. 58% of Americans support gay marriage, and as Americans are informed of the biological basis of sexual orientation, the support grows and grows.

InChristLove
22481
Points
InChristLove 03/31/13 - 08:18 pm
2
0
Believe what you want

Believe what you want WBC....there is no scientific, biological, or direct genetic cause of same-sex attraction—a gene or chromosome that actually determines sexual orientation.

angedelune
223
Points
angedelune 04/07/13 - 08:46 am
0
0
hmmm

Has anyone noticed in states that have legalized gay marriage nothing bad has happened; no gigantic cataclysm, no meteors from space, no earthquake, no plague of locusts, nothing. Canada and several other countries have had legalized gay marriage for years and they seem to be doing just fine.
I'm not a christian therefore I don't have to live by your Bible and word of your god, so therefore your religious argument is invalid. If i'm wrong at the end of my life, then that's on me, not you, now let me live my life how I feel, it's not affecting you in any way.
I'm in love very very much in love with a wonderful guy, we go on dates, we live together, we have a dog, we play video games together, we make artwork for/with each other, we laugh and smile and cry and get mad and make up and make love like any regular couple. Just because our genitalia match and we can't make children (which we don't want) don't try and tell me our love isn't worthy of the same recognition as a straight couples. Don't tell me I can't get married just because you don't like it or think it appropriate. Don't tell me i'm wrong with living my life the way that makes me happy (whether it be genetic or a choice, that's another debate). I don't try to make laws or rules to stop you from freely living your life the way you wish, because if you have to use "morals" and "values" as a means to take away rights from others then you probably have no morals or values.
The times are changing and in 30 years your grandchildren/great grandchildren will look at you with the same pity as that racist grandfather we all had growing up and say "oh, well he's just from a different era." How can I be so sure of this, my love and I hold hands and hug and it is OBVIOUS we are together when out in public, and truth be told younger people our age come up and say "hey, that's really great to see, especially here in Augusta." We've had one problem, just one time, with a couple that looked to be in their 40's whom decided they were going to say something out loud and negative. To whom which we smiled looked directly at them and then proceeded to hold each other closer. They continued to verbally harass us until another couple told them they needed to quiet down and mind their business. To us they are just words and it brings us closer together. The harder you fight to keep us from getting married or try and debase our love, the harder we are going to fight against you and the deeper and more passionate our love will become.

Back to Top

Top headlines

ARC to honor 1956 championship team

Because the championship year of 1956 has never lost its glory in Richmond Academy football lore, the team will be honored Thursday at the third annual ARC Hall of Fame banquet, where 10 alumni ...
Search Augusta jobs