The intention of my previous post was to propose that a new legal term be used to formally define the union between same-sex couples. As homosexuality became openly acceptable within contemporary society, gay couples sought legal status to enable them the rights and privileges of married couples (i.e. joint tax status, inheritance rights, family privileges when hospitalized, etc.) that seems clearly defensible yet there is strong opposition. I contend the same-sex union needs its own identification. As I see it, the problem has arisen from choosing to define the union as marriage and altering that time-honored institution. Throughout human history there has been universal understanding that marriage is a permanent union between a man and a woman. It is the foundation upon which family is built. Not all marriages are ideal, and children are born out of wedlock but the concept of marriage is fundamental to social order. It is through marriage we trace lineage, identify ancestors, and pursue genealogy.
A respondent to my post said marriage is "just a word" that means join something together (yes, a word has more than one meaning) . . . and quoted that a rose by any other name would smell as sweet . . . But this is not changing the name of a rose, it is calling another flower by the rose's name! My argument is not about "just a word", it is about changing a time-honored institution. A homosexual union IS different from a heterosexual one, just as adopting a child is different than birthing one--but become equal in the eyes of the law.
I suggest legalizing another term for the formal bond of same-sex couples (such as life-partners or whatever unique term is favored) and change the law to include that term rather than change our understanding of marriage.
Saturday, May 31, 2014
Sunday, May 25, 2014
A Word Can Make a Difference
There is turmoil in our society as the result of a small vocal minority imposing its will upon the majority by insisting that same-sex unions be accepted as 'marriage'. For most people the objection is not about allowing gay couples equal rights under the law, but rather about changing the nature and meaning of marriage.
I am neither anti-gay nor homophobic, but I take issue with the drive to legalize same-sex unions as marriage. As far back as history reaches, the permanent union of a man and a woman has been given special regard by name and ceremony--we've known it as marriage. It is the foundation of social order and the bond that creates and supports new life, the next generation. I don't suggest that birthing and raising children are the only functions of marriage, but I do maintain it is its most fundamental purpose and for that reason marriage has acquired prominence in every society, is celebrated with joy and ritual, and regarded was a sacrament in many religions. Even if one is not religious, one can still recognize that throughout time, humanity/society has 'sacralized' marriage as a dedicated state between a man and a woman and worthy of special respect.
Could not the polarization around this issue be mitigated were same-sex unions to be identified by new terminology which incorporates all legal right of partnership and inheritance? Such terms as 'life-partner' or 'confirmed bond' already exist; or creative minds could devise an identifiable new legal category to cover same-sex partnerships with the inclusive rights afforded marriage.
I point to another family-centered legal category that is "same but different". When a couple welcomes into their life a child to whom they did not give birth, the child is adopted through a legal process giving them permanent status in the family unit. By law that status carries the same rights as a birth child. In creating such an identifiable legal category for same-sex partnering (other than 'marriage') which guarantees legal rights, we give acknowledgement to the newly-emerging social change without altering the historical uniqueness of the institution of marriage. I contend that changing the nature and meaning of the time-honored universal institution of marriage is unwise, damaging, unjust and unreasonable.
I am neither anti-gay nor homophobic, but I take issue with the drive to legalize same-sex unions as marriage. As far back as history reaches, the permanent union of a man and a woman has been given special regard by name and ceremony--we've known it as marriage. It is the foundation of social order and the bond that creates and supports new life, the next generation. I don't suggest that birthing and raising children are the only functions of marriage, but I do maintain it is its most fundamental purpose and for that reason marriage has acquired prominence in every society, is celebrated with joy and ritual, and regarded was a sacrament in many religions. Even if one is not religious, one can still recognize that throughout time, humanity/society has 'sacralized' marriage as a dedicated state between a man and a woman and worthy of special respect.
Could not the polarization around this issue be mitigated were same-sex unions to be identified by new terminology which incorporates all legal right of partnership and inheritance? Such terms as 'life-partner' or 'confirmed bond' already exist; or creative minds could devise an identifiable new legal category to cover same-sex partnerships with the inclusive rights afforded marriage.
I point to another family-centered legal category that is "same but different". When a couple welcomes into their life a child to whom they did not give birth, the child is adopted through a legal process giving them permanent status in the family unit. By law that status carries the same rights as a birth child. In creating such an identifiable legal category for same-sex partnering (other than 'marriage') which guarantees legal rights, we give acknowledgement to the newly-emerging social change without altering the historical uniqueness of the institution of marriage. I contend that changing the nature and meaning of the time-honored universal institution of marriage is unwise, damaging, unjust and unreasonable.
Wednesday, April 30, 2014
Welcome Saint Pope John XXIII
I am so glad to embrace Pope John XXIII as a saint of the Catholic Church. Our saints are, after all, people who live exemplary lives with wisdom that helps expand our human understanding. They are models for us to emulate--our heroes.
In the 1960's I read Journal of a Soul, Pope John's spiritual diaries--his humility, sincerity and devotion are clearly in evidence. I believed then that he was an exceptional person who would one day be declared a saint. Though he was steeped in the religious thinking of the past, he was able to see ahead to needed changes for the Church to remain relevant in the changing world. He was aware of the evolutionary views of Teilhard de Chardin and did not condemn them but recognized that at that time the Church was not yet ready for so great a leap forward, there were more fundamental changes needed first. He convened the Second Vatican Council in 1962 to review and revise all documents of the Church. The 'windows were opened' but the work begun was impacted by his death in 1963 and in the 50 years since then, conservative elements arose to curtail the forward movement.
When Pope Benedict fast-tracked Pope John Paul II (1978 - 2005) for beatification ahead of John XXIII (1958 - 1963) it seemed to be a vote to highlight the conservative position of the Church. A balance was regained when Pope Francis intervened to complete the process for both John XXIII and John Paul II to be officially sainted together, thus favoring neither conservatives nor progressives but acknowledging that each has a place in this struggle to move forward as we once again seriously face the task of bringing the Church into the modern world--a task fraught with many complex issues.
Pope Francis has already called for an Extraordinary Synod to address issues of the family, thus he seems well suited to take up the mantle of these two influential new saints.
In the 1960's I read Journal of a Soul, Pope John's spiritual diaries--his humility, sincerity and devotion are clearly in evidence. I believed then that he was an exceptional person who would one day be declared a saint. Though he was steeped in the religious thinking of the past, he was able to see ahead to needed changes for the Church to remain relevant in the changing world. He was aware of the evolutionary views of Teilhard de Chardin and did not condemn them but recognized that at that time the Church was not yet ready for so great a leap forward, there were more fundamental changes needed first. He convened the Second Vatican Council in 1962 to review and revise all documents of the Church. The 'windows were opened' but the work begun was impacted by his death in 1963 and in the 50 years since then, conservative elements arose to curtail the forward movement.
When Pope Benedict fast-tracked Pope John Paul II (1978 - 2005) for beatification ahead of John XXIII (1958 - 1963) it seemed to be a vote to highlight the conservative position of the Church. A balance was regained when Pope Francis intervened to complete the process for both John XXIII and John Paul II to be officially sainted together, thus favoring neither conservatives nor progressives but acknowledging that each has a place in this struggle to move forward as we once again seriously face the task of bringing the Church into the modern world--a task fraught with many complex issues.
Pope Francis has already called for an Extraordinary Synod to address issues of the family, thus he seems well suited to take up the mantle of these two influential new saints.
Sunday, April 13, 2014
Easter Week 2014
He looked to be a man--
cruelly treated, he forgave
He died, yet resurrected
How can it be?
I was once a child . . . a baby
now an adult, no earlier cell remains,
completely changed yet the same 'me'
How can it be?
We put seeds into the ground
cover them over and wait . . .
flowers and food to sustain us
How can it be?
I step into a mammoth machine
it rises above the earth
carrying me through the clouds
How can it be?
We look at a picture
of a tiny blue ball in space
taken from the moon
How can it be?
I think of this self that I am,
myriads of happenstances necessary
to have called me into being
How can it be?
Billions of people inhabit the earth
each individual unique
yet sharing a relentless sameness
How can it be?
Wonder upon wonder upon wonder
if we but remember to look . . .
How can it be?
Yet it is so!
Friday, March 28, 2014
Psalm 29 revised
Although our great country was founded upon trust in God, in my lifetime I have witnesses the relentless elimination of God from public commerce.
In the past decade I have seen unprecedented natural disasters: droughts, earthquakes, fires, floods, hurricanes, mud slides, tornados, tsunamis, and winter storms of mammoth proportions!
With these facts in mind I turned to Psalm 29; this is my version.
_ _ _
We have not kept your precepts, Lord!
We have not shepherded the earth by your formulation;
we have plundered for private gain
and trampled the lowly to amass profits.
Ascribe to the Lord, O mighty ones
ascribe to the Lord glory and strength
Ascribe to the Lord the reverence due his name
and take heed of the splendor of his holiness!
The voice of the Lord is over the waters
the God of glory thunders
The Lord gives warning as we despoil the earth
the voice of the Lord breaks the cedar
and howls the winds
The voice of the Lord shakes the mountains
and strikes with flashes of lightening
The voice of the Lord twists the oaks
and strips forests bare
Look, listen and know!
The Lord sits enthroned over the waters and land
The Lord reigns King forever
The Lord gives warning to his people:
heed his precepts and principles
lest man's choices bring destruction
to this wondrous earth and all its inhabitants!
In the past decade I have seen unprecedented natural disasters: droughts, earthquakes, fires, floods, hurricanes, mud slides, tornados, tsunamis, and winter storms of mammoth proportions!
With these facts in mind I turned to Psalm 29; this is my version.
_ _ _
We have not kept your precepts, Lord!
We have not shepherded the earth by your formulation;
we have plundered for private gain
and trampled the lowly to amass profits.
Ascribe to the Lord, O mighty ones
ascribe to the Lord glory and strength
Ascribe to the Lord the reverence due his name
and take heed of the splendor of his holiness!
The voice of the Lord is over the waters
the God of glory thunders
The Lord gives warning as we despoil the earth
the voice of the Lord breaks the cedar
and howls the winds
The voice of the Lord shakes the mountains
and strikes with flashes of lightening
The voice of the Lord twists the oaks
and strips forests bare
Look, listen and know!
The Lord sits enthroned over the waters and land
The Lord reigns King forever
The Lord gives warning to his people:
heed his precepts and principles
lest man's choices bring destruction
to this wondrous earth and all its inhabitants!
Tuesday, March 18, 2014
A New Story
There is a new consciousness evolving . . . it will take centuries to fully emerge, but signs of it can be seen if we look for it . . . the new consciousness is the realization that all of life is interdependent.
Once our awareness was limited to what our senses could perceive so our 'knowledge' of the world was that earth (WE) were central and the sun, moon and stars revolved around US. Those who first pointed out our collective misunderstanding (that we weren't the center of all that is) were hated and condemned, tried and imprisoned . . . (we humans don't take kindly to a requirement to change our way of thinking).
We now know our world is but a tiny speck in a minor galaxy in a vast universe of billions of galaxies balanced and ordered in breathtaking harmony and we gaze upon what the Hubble telescope has revealed with awe and wonder!
There are more collective misunderstandings yet to be addressed; just as we once saw our earth as the center of everything with 'other' (sun, moon, stars) merely revolving around US, in the same manner (1) we have seen our self-interest as central, OUR wants and needs the only consideration. Accompanying this attitude was the assumption (2) that resources were unlimited . . . (there seemed to be a lot of world out there) and we could (3) take what we wanted--all we had to do was lay claim and (4) fight off others who wanted what WE wanted (i.e. invade, plunder, subdue, conquer, hire clever lawyers, etc.)
-- or (5) war if need be!
It's taken a long time to gather the knowledge and skills to realize the need to dramatically readjust how we see the world and ourselves.
There's a new consciousness evolving that clearly sees we are not isolated autonomous monads needing to 'do what it takes to get what we want', but rather we are part of an interacting wholeness that is intrinsically relational (*a complicated way of saying "We're in this together, and together we succeed or we fail")
This consciousness tells a new story of life and being.
Once our awareness was limited to what our senses could perceive so our 'knowledge' of the world was that earth (WE) were central and the sun, moon and stars revolved around US. Those who first pointed out our collective misunderstanding (that we weren't the center of all that is) were hated and condemned, tried and imprisoned . . . (we humans don't take kindly to a requirement to change our way of thinking).
We now know our world is but a tiny speck in a minor galaxy in a vast universe of billions of galaxies balanced and ordered in breathtaking harmony and we gaze upon what the Hubble telescope has revealed with awe and wonder!
There are more collective misunderstandings yet to be addressed; just as we once saw our earth as the center of everything with 'other' (sun, moon, stars) merely revolving around US, in the same manner (1) we have seen our self-interest as central, OUR wants and needs the only consideration. Accompanying this attitude was the assumption (2) that resources were unlimited . . . (there seemed to be a lot of world out there) and we could (3) take what we wanted--all we had to do was lay claim and (4) fight off others who wanted what WE wanted (i.e. invade, plunder, subdue, conquer, hire clever lawyers, etc.)
-- or (5) war if need be!
It's taken a long time to gather the knowledge and skills to realize the need to dramatically readjust how we see the world and ourselves.
There's a new consciousness evolving that clearly sees we are not isolated autonomous monads needing to 'do what it takes to get what we want', but rather we are part of an interacting wholeness that is intrinsically relational (*a complicated way of saying "We're in this together, and together we succeed or we fail")
This consciousness tells a new story of life and being.
Thursday, February 27, 2014
An Intriguing Pattern
Following a conversation about the many denominations within Christianity, a friend loaned me a wall chart of 'Denominations Comparison'. Studying this gave rise to many thoughts about religion and I turned to a Bible time-line; I noted a most intriguing pattern. Major events that have changed the direction of, first the Jewish then the Christian religious development, have occurred roughly in 500 year intervals.
Here is the pattern, beginning 2000BC (allowing that these are centuries and the dates are approximate)
2000 BC: Abraham called by God to become father of a great nation
1500 BC: Moses is called to lead God's people to the Promised Land
1000 BC: Solomon's Temple built in Jerusalem (home for Torah)
500 BC: Temple destroyed, Jews exiled then returned
0 AD: (New calendar dating) Jesus the Christ enters history; followers persecuted
500 AD: Christian doctrines unified and solidified (Age of Faith)
1000 AD: Great Schism = Catholic/Orthodox
1500 AD: Protestant Reformation (unity splintered to thousands of denominations)
If there is a pattern ??? --we are in the 2000 ???
Here is the pattern, beginning 2000BC (allowing that these are centuries and the dates are approximate)
2000 BC: Abraham called by God to become father of a great nation
1500 BC: Moses is called to lead God's people to the Promised Land
1000 BC: Solomon's Temple built in Jerusalem (home for Torah)
500 BC: Temple destroyed, Jews exiled then returned
0 AD: (New calendar dating) Jesus the Christ enters history; followers persecuted
500 AD: Christian doctrines unified and solidified (Age of Faith)
1000 AD: Great Schism = Catholic/Orthodox
1500 AD: Protestant Reformation (unity splintered to thousands of denominations)
If there is a pattern ??? --we are in the 2000 ???
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)