Relaunching the Situationalist: Looking at the American Marriage

What a great day to relaunch the Situationalist Blogsite after two years on leave pursuing my masters. Today marks a historic day in American politics as the Supreme Court continues to wow us with their judicial power. The past two week felt like a roller coaster ride with this slightly right leaning bench. We first saw the Affirmative Action case being taken back to the lower courts even though the estimated vote count was 5-3 considering Kennedy's opposition to affirmative action programming. Then it was expected and affirmed that the Voting Rights case would be shut down. Now, we see the court taking a huge milestone in the political debate on same sex marriages. 

Although I would admit that recognizing same sex marriages for benefit reasons is a huge milestone, one should dive deeper for what that means and how will this progress the conversation of homosexuality in this country. On the surface, if a same sex partner were to die and leave an estate to his/her significant other, it is now only up to the states to make regulations on those procedures. This means the Federal Government cannot interfere with same sex couple benefits through such laws like the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). This also meant that Proposition 8 in California that stopped the state from giving out marriage licenses to same sex couples was unconstitutional as well. 

Unfortunately, one could tell these rulings did not seem to end the political divide on homosexuality. Instead, it gave a political point to the left while the religious right are handing out to those supporting the result a ticket to hell. On one end, eventually we will all see the financial and social ramifications for such decision. On another hand, we are still in the middle of the river waiting to get to the other side. So what is a reasonable answer that includes appeasing those who consider marriage a vital and living sacrament in their religious beliefs while allowing free American couples, regardless of religion, to live and make decisions how they want. 

The answer is simple. Take the religious ceremonial responsibilities out of the government. I understand that some people believe I am anti-Christian for saying this, but I truly believe my American Catholic beliefs are not affected by this position. Isn't it not true that conservatives abide religiously to the constitution? Is it also not true that liberals are okay with religious institutions to worship as they please as long as it doesn't violate the laws of the land? 

At the end of the day, it should be recognized that civil unions can support a union between two individuals regardless of who they are and what they believe. Isn't this an example for why our forefathers created this country to begin with? Those of us who are Christians and want to protect the sanctity of Marriage should have the right to do so as a religious organization. If and when this view on Marriage and civil unions eventually takes place, I will only start to protest the government if it starts forcing religious institutions to perform their traditional ceremonies on people they cannot justify to God. One may not agree on a church's justification on denying a marriage, but that is up to God to judge that decision and the couple's freedom to find another church they can get married in if that's what they want. 

Take one situation at a time. 

Mike Lampe