Post by Rev. Jim Cunningham on Dec 10, 2008 15:38:24 GMT -5
Hi family,
The last episode of BOSTON LEGAL involved two straight men that wanted to get married in order to protect the property of one of them who was fading from Alzheimers. The argument was that they should be allowed to marry each other because they did love each other PLATONICALLY, though not romantically; and THAT, they claimed, was all that should be valid for marriage.
Today on YAHOO ANSWERS someone asked this question:
Would you support same-sex unions between heterosexual men....? Like on "Boston Legal" this week, where Denny Crane (William Shatner) and Alan Shore (James Spader) got married for all kinds of reasons: transfer of property, spousal privacy, medical decision making; even just genuine affection and companionship? Or do you think same-sex unions should be reserved for homosexual couples only?
Here is my response to him:
A couple of things need to be understood here.
First, what they did on Boston Legal wasn't just a same-sex civil union. It was a marriage. It is vital to understand that they are not the same. Massachusetts (where the show is set) allows MARRIAGE, not UNIONS. I'll explain why the destinction is important in regard to your question shortly.
Second, although the show makes some great points, remember that it is still fiction.
Third, what most people don't understand is that a marriage license is specifically a government license to have lawful SEX (which is why any child produced from an unmarried couple is called "illigitimate", i.e. illegal). If a couple does not sexually consummate their marriage within a certain length of time after signing the marriage license, their marriage is void and can be disannulled.
Believe it or not, "love" is not now, nor has ever been, legitimate grounds for legal marriage in any country on the planet. The law of contracts is blind to matters of love, because the point of contracts is to overrule and supercede and guard against the irregularities of human emotions. A marriage license is a contract with the State saying that you will become one person through the sex act and that you therefore have right to legally represent one another, and that all property owned by either member of the married party will belong to both of them, and the surviving member of the marriage in the event of a death has full rights to the properties. THAT is what a marriage contract is and THAT is why the right wing has fought so hard against gay MARRIAGE - because it legally sanctions SEX between members of the same gender, thereby calling two men or two women "one flesh".
While Boston Legal tried to appeal to our sentiments and emotions, the fact is that, even if homosexuals have full marriage rights, two heterosexual men or women cannot enter into a legal marriage, because there will be no sexual consummation (which is the very function of a marriage license).
And if you're thinking, "well, all that is required by the license is the original sexual consummation, but there is no requirement of the Law that a married couple continue to have sex after that; so, what if the two guys, even though they are straight, agree to consummate the marriage sexually for the sake of the license, but then never have sex again?"
It doesn't work, because the court cannot trust the heterosexual couple's word on this matter. Who in their right mind is going to believe a couple of straight guys who say they'll have sex? And the law protects the privacy of the bedroom, so there is no way to have someone from the court witness and verify that they actually did the deed. And furthermore it is known by the court already that the couple is heterosexual and will not use the marriage license as intended - sexual union. And therefore the marriage is a fraud.
The fact that Denny and Alan on the show "loved" each other was irrellevant - firstly because their love was not of a romantic nature, and secondly because the marriage license is a license to engage in sexual activity without regard to love.
Whether we like those facts or not is not the point. If more Americans knew and understood the purpose and function of the marriage license they would have a better understanding of the gay marriage debate.
Before I say the following, I want you to know that I am a Fundamentalist Evangelical Christian GAY man who believes totally in gay marriage. That being said....
What everyone has to understand about the Right Wingers is that they are not being bigots. While they are incorrect to denounce homosexual marriage, they are CORRECT in their fears about the threat of undermining the foundations of marriage. Our national laws only acknowledge the right to engage in sex among MARRIED people. Sex outside of marriage (fornication) is unsanctioned by law, because sex makes two people "one" and implies a host of authorities and powers and protections and rights between the two people. People who like to jump in and out of different people's beds are totally ignorant of the havoc they are causing in society just because they can't control their lust. It is not a right wing agenda to stop fornication. It is not the right wingers who are trying to tell you what you can and can't do in the privacy of your bed. The MARRIAGE LICENSE itself dictates sexual activity. If you must have a license to engage in sex, then you are breaking the law if you engage in sex without a license.
And you may think this is stupid, and some stupid anarchists will go so far as to say we should just totally get rid of licenses then, so that they can live out their lust. But understand that if we do away with the marriage license, over 1001 federal and local rights for married couples will VANISH, including the right to visit your spouse in the hospital, the right to property inheritance, lower tax rates, and the right of representation.
Not only could the straight couple in Boston Legal NOT get married in real life, but marriage itself was not necessary for them to accomplish what they were striving for. That is what we have wills and other contracts for. I agree with the lawyer from the gay group on the show who was fighting against their marriage: unlike gay marriage, same gender heterosexual marriage would totally defeat the entire purpose and function of legal marriage.
The right wingers are right to fear that one day it will be acceptable and legal to marry your pet. Fornication has NEVER been acceptable in society until the last few generations, and in the Bible and in most places of the world it incurred death or other punishment. But now that fornication is rampant and considered commonplace and a private RIGHT, the biblical prophecy will soon come true which says, "In that day they shall call that which is good evil, and that which is evil good."
-Rev. Jim Cunningham
King James Bible Ministries
GayChristianSurvivors.com
The last episode of BOSTON LEGAL involved two straight men that wanted to get married in order to protect the property of one of them who was fading from Alzheimers. The argument was that they should be allowed to marry each other because they did love each other PLATONICALLY, though not romantically; and THAT, they claimed, was all that should be valid for marriage.
Today on YAHOO ANSWERS someone asked this question:
Would you support same-sex unions between heterosexual men....? Like on "Boston Legal" this week, where Denny Crane (William Shatner) and Alan Shore (James Spader) got married for all kinds of reasons: transfer of property, spousal privacy, medical decision making; even just genuine affection and companionship? Or do you think same-sex unions should be reserved for homosexual couples only?
Here is my response to him:
A couple of things need to be understood here.
First, what they did on Boston Legal wasn't just a same-sex civil union. It was a marriage. It is vital to understand that they are not the same. Massachusetts (where the show is set) allows MARRIAGE, not UNIONS. I'll explain why the destinction is important in regard to your question shortly.
Second, although the show makes some great points, remember that it is still fiction.
Third, what most people don't understand is that a marriage license is specifically a government license to have lawful SEX (which is why any child produced from an unmarried couple is called "illigitimate", i.e. illegal). If a couple does not sexually consummate their marriage within a certain length of time after signing the marriage license, their marriage is void and can be disannulled.
Believe it or not, "love" is not now, nor has ever been, legitimate grounds for legal marriage in any country on the planet. The law of contracts is blind to matters of love, because the point of contracts is to overrule and supercede and guard against the irregularities of human emotions. A marriage license is a contract with the State saying that you will become one person through the sex act and that you therefore have right to legally represent one another, and that all property owned by either member of the married party will belong to both of them, and the surviving member of the marriage in the event of a death has full rights to the properties. THAT is what a marriage contract is and THAT is why the right wing has fought so hard against gay MARRIAGE - because it legally sanctions SEX between members of the same gender, thereby calling two men or two women "one flesh".
While Boston Legal tried to appeal to our sentiments and emotions, the fact is that, even if homosexuals have full marriage rights, two heterosexual men or women cannot enter into a legal marriage, because there will be no sexual consummation (which is the very function of a marriage license).
And if you're thinking, "well, all that is required by the license is the original sexual consummation, but there is no requirement of the Law that a married couple continue to have sex after that; so, what if the two guys, even though they are straight, agree to consummate the marriage sexually for the sake of the license, but then never have sex again?"
It doesn't work, because the court cannot trust the heterosexual couple's word on this matter. Who in their right mind is going to believe a couple of straight guys who say they'll have sex? And the law protects the privacy of the bedroom, so there is no way to have someone from the court witness and verify that they actually did the deed. And furthermore it is known by the court already that the couple is heterosexual and will not use the marriage license as intended - sexual union. And therefore the marriage is a fraud.
The fact that Denny and Alan on the show "loved" each other was irrellevant - firstly because their love was not of a romantic nature, and secondly because the marriage license is a license to engage in sexual activity without regard to love.
Whether we like those facts or not is not the point. If more Americans knew and understood the purpose and function of the marriage license they would have a better understanding of the gay marriage debate.
Before I say the following, I want you to know that I am a Fundamentalist Evangelical Christian GAY man who believes totally in gay marriage. That being said....
What everyone has to understand about the Right Wingers is that they are not being bigots. While they are incorrect to denounce homosexual marriage, they are CORRECT in their fears about the threat of undermining the foundations of marriage. Our national laws only acknowledge the right to engage in sex among MARRIED people. Sex outside of marriage (fornication) is unsanctioned by law, because sex makes two people "one" and implies a host of authorities and powers and protections and rights between the two people. People who like to jump in and out of different people's beds are totally ignorant of the havoc they are causing in society just because they can't control their lust. It is not a right wing agenda to stop fornication. It is not the right wingers who are trying to tell you what you can and can't do in the privacy of your bed. The MARRIAGE LICENSE itself dictates sexual activity. If you must have a license to engage in sex, then you are breaking the law if you engage in sex without a license.
And you may think this is stupid, and some stupid anarchists will go so far as to say we should just totally get rid of licenses then, so that they can live out their lust. But understand that if we do away with the marriage license, over 1001 federal and local rights for married couples will VANISH, including the right to visit your spouse in the hospital, the right to property inheritance, lower tax rates, and the right of representation.
Not only could the straight couple in Boston Legal NOT get married in real life, but marriage itself was not necessary for them to accomplish what they were striving for. That is what we have wills and other contracts for. I agree with the lawyer from the gay group on the show who was fighting against their marriage: unlike gay marriage, same gender heterosexual marriage would totally defeat the entire purpose and function of legal marriage.
The right wingers are right to fear that one day it will be acceptable and legal to marry your pet. Fornication has NEVER been acceptable in society until the last few generations, and in the Bible and in most places of the world it incurred death or other punishment. But now that fornication is rampant and considered commonplace and a private RIGHT, the biblical prophecy will soon come true which says, "In that day they shall call that which is good evil, and that which is evil good."
-Rev. Jim Cunningham
King James Bible Ministries
GayChristianSurvivors.com