A Washington Post article by Deepak Chopra in response to their question: The California Supreme Court has overturned that state’s ban on gay marriage. Is marriage a legal right or a sacred rite? Should the state be involved in marriage? Should religious institutions?
“Let Me Not to the Marriage of True Minds…”
It’s strange to think that America’s view of love might be four hundred years behind the times. In Sonnet 116 (“Let me not to the marriage of true minds admit impediments”) Shakespeare devotes the whole poem to extolling love as immortal. “Love’s not Time’s fool,” he declares, praising its constancy in all ages. We, on the other hand, seem quite eager to throw impediments in the way of marriage. I was struck by a news piece on TV a few weeks ago in which a hidden camera was set up in downtown Atlanta to watch people’s reactions to a romantic couple necking in public.
When the couple was a man and a woman, or even two women, the reactions were overwhelmingly positive. Passers by smiled and even gave encouraging remarks (“How sweet,” “More of us should be like that”). When the couple was two men, the police were called to the scene within five minutes. The most depressing part is that the police actually took the 911 call seriously (Yes, the situation was phoned in as an emergency). When they arrived, the cops were tipped off to the candid camera setup; otherwise, we don’t know what they would have done.
If Shakespeare was right about love’s immortal origins, society’s ideas about love change, and with each change come new ideas about enforcement. Does the state have a right to regulate marriage? It does. Does the state have a right to regulate a sacrament? No. Because modern America puts marriage in a shadow zone somewhere between a civil rite and a sacrament, values keep shifting. It’s significant that the right wing used homophobia very effectively to re-elect George Bush in 2004 whereas this latest ruling from the California Supreme Court has created very little backwash. Which goes to show, as wiser heads have said all along, that it’s only a matter of time before gay marriage becomes a fait accompli, arousing little outrage once the public gets used to it.
Televised pundits point out that gays might actually be saving the institution of marriage, since straight couples have been fleeing from it for thirty years, and soon gay adoption may save the institution of childbirth as well. But the real issue goes back to Shakespeare’s sonnet. To say that love must be constant in order to be true — which is Shakespeare’s whole point – means that one part of human life should be exempt from legalities. When love and non-love are given equal status, then making war and making peace are equally valid options, along with granting freedom and taking it away, hurting others and leaving them alone. It shouldn’t be that way. Love should have absolute priority, and once it does, then war, violence, bigotry, and denial of freedom will be seen for what they are, violations of love and therefore aberrations in human nature.
washingtonpost.com/onfaith/deepak_chopra/
www.intentblog.com
posted May 22, 2008 at 9:26 am
The whole thing of LOVE goes farturer back in time.It goes back to Saddam and Gamora. When the Lord distroied these two cities. They were full of lesbians, whores, unfaithful men&women and gay people. If the
state is a christian state then it has every right to not allow 2 men to get married and the same goes for women. True we except the fact of
two women being together much easier than we except 2 men being together. By GOD’s laws neither should be excepted by a Christian Nation, state or even a county.
The men are now looking for safety under the ‘SAME SEX MARRAGE LAWS’that were given to the women. Biblicly neither should have happened. In this case EVERY STATE SHOULD STOP SAME SEX MARRIAGES
WEATHER THEY ARE MALE OR FEMALE.
posted May 22, 2008 at 10:53 am
Even if gay marriage is condemned everywhere it is always going to exist. Love will always find the way. Let’s be tolerant and accept the sexual orientation of other people. God loves everyone inspite of their acts, and God loves every act that manifests love.
posted May 22, 2008 at 11:41 am
The only drawback I could possibly see to gay marriage being legalized in the United States is if the Fed. Gov’t decided it wanted to force churches to marry couples of same sex, even if it goes against the church’s doctrine. I believe in the Freedom of Religion act in the Constitution applies to Churches as well as People. And that the government should not make any law that could force any church to have to change the Doctrine of their beliefs.
As long as the Government agrees to not force the law on Churches, it should be legal and open to those that choose it.
posted May 22, 2008 at 2:56 pm
There is still way too much fear in America about people who believe differently from us. Love between two people or two peoples is a wonderful thing and should be encouraged. Any two people committed to each other should have the rights and responsibilities of any other two people. The world would be a much poorer place without their love.
Mr. Thompson, I feel has the opinion that will bring us all down if it prevails. We cannot win wars or influence people unless we understand and acknowledge their deepest beliefs. Beware of those preaching hatred!
posted May 23, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Beware of those teaching “tolerance” (a favorite buzzword of the United Nations, NWO, Fascism/Communism).
Either God is true or He’s a liar. Decide. Then get out of the business of calling yourself a Christian if you decide God’s a liar.
God called sodomy is an ABOMINATION (His words!)
Deuteronomy23:17 There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.
What I see here is the Great Falling Away of the Church. The ones the Messiah will spew out of His mouth Rev. 3:16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.”
…the ones whose “gospel” Paul calls accursed.
Galatians 1:6-9
6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: 7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
So which camp are you in?
posted May 23, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Deut. 23:17 There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel. 18 Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the LORD thy God for any vow: for even both these are ABOMINATION unto the LORD thy God. (Capital letters, mine)
posted August 11, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Polly Brown,
“Love thy neighbour”
“Do unto others as you would have others do unto you”
You nor I know the true meaning of the words you spout out.
Both are interputations, after thousands of possibly incorrect, often flawed and closed minded translations.
You are not a messenger of God. Nor are you a judge of what he says or MAY HAVE SAID.
Get off your high horse, live and let live.
If they are damned to hell, let them be, it’s not your problem.