Religion and money

By Charles "Trey" Wickwire
Web posted March 1, 2004

It looks as though a major issue this election year will be over the
institution of marriage. President Bush has decided to consider
legislation that will finally define what the United States will allow
to be called a marriage. This of course makes some people
happy and others unhappy. Personally, I find the entire idea
ludicrous.

First let's look at what marriage is. Most people will say that's
easy. Marriage is when a man and a woman form a union in the
eyes of God for the purpose of creating a family to continue the
human race. This sounds reasonable enough, and I am sure that
definition will work for the majority of Americans. But marriage
is not an American institution; it is a global institution that is
practiced by nearly every culture to walk the face of the earth.
Will our "American" definition of marriage work for the rest of
the world?

Many nations would have a problem with our insistence on
considering marriage a religious institution that must be
sanctioned by God. The Muslims believe that it is acceptable for
a man to marry up to four wives and this is still practiced in many
Islamic nations. When a Muslim travels to the US, will he
suddenly be single because our laws do not accept his religious
marriage? What of Buddhist or Hindu marriages? Are they
considered annulled with the simple crossing of a border? Even
in Christianity there is dissension over what a proper marriage is
and what it is not. The Mormons believe they can take multiple
wives while Protestant priests can marry but Catholic priests can
not.

Why am I discussing the religious aspects of marriage you ask?
The United States is a nation with religious freedom. Religion is
separate from the state and has no bearing on the matter, so take
religion out of the equation. Yet if you take religion out, then
what is the reason behind defining marriage at all? Who benefits,
besides the Religious Right, from strictly controlling how people
live their lives and who they live them with?

It comes down to money. If same sex marriages are allowed,
then the benefits of being married will have to be honored. Gay
employees will be able to get health insurance for their spouses
and claim them on their taxes. This is not something many large
companies want to do; nor does the government want to give out
tax breaks that it can avoid. This has nothing to do with people
being gay. The money people could care less; they just don't
want to part with anymore cash than they have to.

If you are against same sex marriages, you have to ask yourself
why. Is it because it goes against your religious principles? Do
you think it is unfair to have your insurance rates raised to
compensate for the additional coverage demands? Do you think
it is a way to cheat Uncle Sam out of taxes? But most of all you
have to ask yourself, are any of these reasons worthy of a
change in the Constitution?

If you disagree with same sex marriages for religious purposes,
you are out of luck. Religion has no place in our government;
therefore it cannot dictate any political issues. This is not
debatable or negotiable. Separation of religion and state is one of
the things that makes us free, and it cannot be revoked without
changing the very essence of what the United States stands for.

So if you take away all the religious objections, what are you left
with? The Money. Could it be that we are on the threshold of
altering the Constitution of the United States to limit the freedom
of its people for the purpose of saving corporations the added
cost of health benefits and the government a few extra tax
dollars? I certainly hope not, but the alternative is that the
Religious Right has finally gained enough power to subject the
nation to its own narrow view of a religiously acceptable form of
marriage and somehow this doesn't sound as feasible. When
looking for motivators, money usually wins out over religion.

The issue of marriage should be an easy one. In the eyes of the
state, it is no more than a contract between individuals who are
combining their efforts towards a successful life into a
partnership. The state does not care what religion, if any,
sanctified the contract. It only cares that the proper forms were
filled out and filed with the state. Instead of amending the
Constitution to define what marriage is, it would be more
beneficial to create a marriage process that produced a real
contract between the participants. In other words, make it
mandatory to sign a pre-nuptial type agreement. This would at
least make the divorce process less messy and would also make
it easier to impose penalties on those who abuse the process
with fake marriages for insurance, tax purposes or citizenship.
 
If we are really going to remain the land of the free and the home
of the brave, we have to stop being afraid to let people be who
they are. Being gay is not an aberration or some deviant life style.
It is a lifestyle that is as old as humanity itself and, like it or not,
will remain with us for as long as we exist. So don't try to change
what you don't agree with. Leave that for the Taliban and other
fascist regimes. We are Americans, free to be different and free
to marry.

Charles Wickwire, aka Trey, is a Computer Specialist who likes
to share his opinion with those who are interested and even those
who are not. He can be contacted at
Trey.Wickwire@Wickware.com

Enter Stage Right -- http://www.enterstageright.com