Gay Marriage Once Again

On the question of State sanction for same-sex marriages: On one side, there are those defending homosexual unions should enjoy the same legal status of a heterosexual union for the sake of equality. On another, there are religious groups concerned about the legal repercussions of this parity as regards the ceremonies and sacraments they cherish according to traditional values that oppose gay marriage. Thirdly, there are groups merely interested in preserving the more long-established sociological, anthropological and legal meaning of marriage for the sake of maintaining social relationships intact and the basis of our societies the family unit a solid institution. This is the proverbial omelette requiring eggs to be broken, so I ask myself if this should not be a case where the State remains neutral? After all, what has the State to do with how a man and a woman, or two men or two women decide to pursue their personal relationships? What stake has the State in how two people go about their romantic pursuits? Why would the State see fit to dispute what a religion or a social science has held as the definition of marriage for ages? Aren't these all questions of conscience and free-will? If equal rights were truly the only issue at the heart of the matter, a proposal would have surfaced by now that gives state-sponsored unions an altogether different name than marriage, and this new name could eventually apply to both gay and straight couples, ensuring equivalent rights to either that would not impose upon religious and anthropologic understanding of marriage or the basic unit of Society, as understood by Sociology and Anthropology, which is a conventional family. Yet no such proposal has been put forth, and we are forced to wonder why. If the blessing of religions is overtly unimportant to same-sex couples and if it won't indeed be attainable, why should the State mediate in favour of promoting an affront to religious citizens? Where is the benefit? What’s more, what rights are these that the State claims it has to ensure that could not be ensured otherwise, in a public notary, universally and without incurring the controversy that has been built around the issue? And if a large portion of Society opposes the change in meaning, how can it be imposed on them with any degree of legitimacy? Should the State really be the herald of this violation? Should not the Sate offer an alternative that would appease all of the sides involved instead of dividing Society and polarising it? Should the Sate not do everything in its power to promote social harmony instead of division and controversy? Here’s a question deserving of pause. Semantics notwithstanding and rhetoric being honest, anyone can agree that a traditional understanding of a family is indeed a social unit composed of a man and a woman and their progeny. The licentiousness with which the word family has been applied to other arrangements does not in fact change the original meaning, but instead propose a new one to replace it. This is the "freedom fries" of Anthropology and Sociology. Likewise, misapplying the word marriage so that it would incur an understanding embracing any romantic arrangement of any kind does not change its original meaning as much as it would defile that meaning to generate confusion. Shall a paedophile that joins a minor be regarded as "married" and constituting a "family"? Of course not. At least for now, this would be regarded as unacceptable. In the legal sense, and imagining that the rule of precedence would have any bearing, has not the word "marriage" been in use by Religion and Society long before than by the State? Has it not meant the union of a man and a woman long before it was used to mean the union between two men or two women? Why then would anyone mean to change it for the sake of the convenience of the State in promoting equal rights? Could not the Sate, without much controversy, decide to call a state sanction of a romantic union a "joining in affection", and then, having made the thing its own, apply it to whatever condition it sees fit without interfering, or causing further distaste, to any who oppose the use of the word "marriage" for unions other than heterosexual ones? It would then be the case that a person would get "married" in a church, mosque or synagogue, by a cleric, according to religious doctrine and "joined" by a judge of peace, naval captain or notary, according to the legal parameters of the State. This would further the concept of separation of the State and Religion, which is something professed to be desirable by a fair portion of the world. Let conservative minds and consciences have the word "marriage" for themselves and let liberal, legal and relativist minds have another that they can call their own and use as they see fit.