- Published on Wednesday, 10 April 2013 19:50
- Written by Super User
By CHARLIE ALLO
Marriage: The act of uniting one man and one woman for life. It’s instructional to see how this definition has changed over the years; this definition was taken from Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary, printed in 1957. Over time the wording has changed, allowing for a broader interpretation of the term. The problem with changing the meaning of marriage is that many of the laws already on the books have utilized the meaning that has been presented here.
One would hope that the public is not so naive as to think that our elected representatives would put the time and effort into assuring that the new interpretation would not conflict with past legislation. It is interesting that the judicial system uses past law as its guide, but they seem to have no hesitation to disregard the original meaning and intent of the marriage term.
Society seems to pile one contradiction on another; how can one ever apply reason that would be viewed as valid. A rational society would develop a set of principles that would help to guide it through its growth; the Constitution has many of the basic principles that were intended to help the country in its development.
One principle that is suggested is the freedom of the individual, which suggests that this basic tenet should be applied to all citizens. It would appear that those in favor of the union of two same sex individuals are intent on having the term “marriage” applied to the union they are entering into.
The complications that would be incurred if this action were taken, as proposed, would be incalculable, but it is unlikely that the legal system will take the time to look at the impact this action will have on society. Most of the problems that society is currently involved in are a direct result of the actions that our representatives have taken in the past; they are guided by the public’s emotions, not by any set of principles or reason.
The politicians have complicated the situation by giving certain segments of the population benefits that were not available to other sectors of the population.
There are many views on how the marriage question should be addressed: one may look at it from the standpoint of natural law; it could be broach from the biblical point of view, or it could be viewed from the standpoint of individual freedom.
The first two would suggest that marriage is between a man and a woman; the major difference with the biblical interpretation is that it is a union that is sanctioned by God; it has become apparent that this is going to create some problems within the religious community and its various denominations.
There are many marriages that have been performed outside the church; this might be the result of leaning towards the natural order. Regardless of what one thinks of same sex unions, the right of two consenting adults should not be impeded, but it would present many problems for our society to consider this form of union to be a marriage, there’s no reason why compensations could not be made to allow for a fair distribution of benefits that do not create havoc within the various sectors of society. If this segment of the population is unwilling to accept anything less than the term “marriage”, then it is going to create problems within segments of our society.
There are many people that do not want to interfere with an individual’s freedom, but when the demands go beyond the sphere of the individual and impacts an others’ freedom then it becomes an infringement. One can only hope that this problem is resolved in an equitable manner.