The “sanctity of marriage,” same-sex marriages, Constitutional amendments defining marriage, and the myths that come with them are a-plenty. But what’s the truth behind all of this. Are gay weddings a risk to the sanctity of marriage? The truth is, the “sanctity of marriage” is just a myth.

There was a study released recently that said that divorce and unwed parents cost American tax payers around $112 billion a year, and that funding had to go into marriage programs to stop this.

And what are they basing the $112 billion on? Here’s how they put it:

Scafidi’s calculations were based on the assumption that households headed by a single female have relatively high poverty rates, leading to higher spending on welfare, health care, criminal justice and education for those raised in the disadvantaged homes. The $112 billion estimate includes the cost of federal, state and local government programs, and lost tax revenue at all levels of government.

That’s right — “based on the assumption” — is the basis of their calculations. They basically assumed that the result of divorces and children born out of wedlock is single mothers on welfare. While they may be right that there is a higher likelihood, this does not apparently factor in the large number of women that know how to take care of themselves, and of course, God forbid, single fathers, who apparently are always doing alright.

The study was funded by the “Institute for American Values, the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, Families Northwest of Redmond, Wash., and the Georgia Family Council, an ally of the conservative ministry Focus on the Family.” While I will accept the argument that this study was not done with religious funding, or in the name of religion, I expect you to accept that this is a major argument of the religious folk.

There are many questions that this study brings up. Not only questions about the legitimacy of the study, but the implications of it. There seems to be no one more vocal about the sanctity of marriage than the religious, yet religious people are more likely to get divorced than non-believers. (Thanks No God Blog)

So what is the sanctity of marriage and where does it come from?

Realistically, it’s a belief. It’s what some people refer to the best-case-scenario of marriage as. It’s two loving partners, one male, one female, that get married in true love, and go on to raise the all-American family together. Theoretically, at least.

But is this a belief or a legal obligation? Marriage is a legally binding partnership, based on a long-standing belief, which may or may not be based on religious beliefs. For some, marriage is just a legal document that provides financial security, as well as insurance and tax benefits. For others, it is a religious ceremony that takes place for emotional reasons as much or more than legal reasons.

The question of the sanctity of marriage comes up most often when discussing the things that are “ruining” the sanctity, such as gay marriage. But is gay marriage any worse for the custom than what straight, religious people have done to this institution?

President Bush has called for a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. In his State of the Union address in 2004, President Bush said,

“On an issue of such great consequence, the people’s voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage.

The outcome of this debate is important — and so is the way we conduct it. The same moral tradition that defines marriage also teaches that each individual has dignity and value in God’s sight.”

If marriage is about God in any way, and if religious people are the one’s upholding the sanctity of marriage, then why is it that the divorce rates are higher for believers than non-believers? It’s a bit odd, isn’t it?

Just how does gay marriage, and the “activist judges” that legalize them ruin the sanctity of marriage. I suppose the argument is that marriage is between a man and a woman, period. A marriage between two men or between two women is immoral, in their eyes, therefore a marriage between two people of the same sex is also immoral and wrong.

I think with an argument like this, you just can’t win. I will never get anyone who believes this to give in on the argument, so why try? Well, that’s more simple. I’ll try because it’s the right thing to do. It’s not about gay or straight, it’s about legal protection.

If marriage was simply a legal document that showed two people were in love, then I really wouldn’t care. But it’s not. Marriage brings certain rights to a partner that otherwise aren’t available, such as health insurance, inheritance, and tax benefits. It’s not simply man-woman love made legal. It’s a two-partner partnership. If a man and a woman can get married without being in love, and do it only for the legal benefits of it, how does two gay men or women getting married out of actual love ruin the sanctity of marriage.

Why haven’t I heard about Hollywood marriages in a State of the Union address? Celebrities getting married and divorced every three months doesn’t ruin the sanctity of marriage?

The sanctity of marriage is a myth. It is nothing but a way for the religious powers to try to keep homosexuals from having any type of equality. That’s all it is. If it were actually about marriage, then you’d hear at least some complaints about the scam marriages that happen everyday between men and women who don’t love each other.

Take a gay male couple and a lesbian couple and they can’t get married. But pair them up with each other, and you can get two legal, binding marriages between a man and a woman, and no one will complain about it. Really, which scenario is worse for the “sanctity of marriage?”

How about the quickie Las Vegas marriages? Getting married on a whim in Vegas, and getting it annulled or getting divorced soon after is great for the sanctity of marriage, right?

Most estimates say that between 40 and 50 percent of all marriages end in divorce. That’s straight people getting married. How is this protecting the sanctity of marriage? How is this worse than gay weddings? The answer is that it’s not.

The idea of offering gay couples “civil-unions” is a slap in the face if it doesn’t come with all of the legal privileges and protections that marriage comes with. I’m not really concerned with what the binding is called. If civil-unions and marriages are legally the same thing, then go ahead and say that marriage is between a man and a woman. But don’t deny human beings in the United States equal protection under the law because of their choice of life partner. That’s not the America that this nation was founded to be.

And the Constitution of the United States of America is not the place to be trying to insert language that has anything to do with marriage. If you want to try to pass a bill, fine. But keep that nonsense out of this nation’s most sacred document.

The sanctity of marriage does not exist. It is a piece of propaganda perpetuated by the religious powers in the world. Gay marriage is not going to do any more damage to marriage than has already been done. While many that are in this group will surely disagree with me, I can point to the divorce rates and scam marriages and show them that I’m right. They have a belief, the rest of us have reality.

Feel free to share...

Discussion

2 comments for “The Sanctity of Marriage Myth”

Post a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.