RSS Feed
"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.
By
Deepak Chopra
|
May 22, 2008; 1:42 PM ET
Share This: 
Technorati
| Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook
Previous: Equal Rights for All Includes Marital Rights |
Next: Remember War
Posted by: Paganplace | May 24, 2008 11:33 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Marriage to a lot of people is a joke. And many view it as a business agreement. It should be about love, and commitment; To be there for each other no matter what, through good times, and bad. Too many people think of marriage as a temporary arrangement. It is not.
Now, who is to say that that kind of love and commitment can't be between two people of the same sex? I don't think that matters at all. If they want to enter into marriage, to show that they belong to each other, and to protect themselves as a couple, then let them. Let them have all the privileges as two people should enjoy in a marriage. Why not? Maybe they will show the rest of us what marriage really is.
I also believe that the "No fault" divorce should be changed. It is too easy to just break up these days. Marriage isn't "going steady"...it is a sanctuary for two people to commit their lives to each other, and if you can just step out of it, then why even have marriage at all. No one can feel safe in this arrangement. People should think real hard before getting married, and then stay married. It's not a joke.
Posted by: Oceans_sun@yahoo.com | May 23, 2008 4:55 PM
Report Offensive Comment
== patrick@onlyjesussaves.com:
No deviance should be legitimized by any law. To do so is tantamount to the establishment of another Sodom and Gomorrah society. The last time those communities existed they were wiped off the face of the map by Yahweh Himself for legalizing deviance. It has not been, since then, until now.
ANOTHER sign of the times and the nearness of the End.
"Unless you repent you will likewise perish." Y'Shua the Messiah. ==
No deviance? Really? What about people with blonde hair? Blue eyes? People who are left-handed? Or people who are musically or intellectually gifted? Those traits all deviate from the human norm, just as homosexuality is a regularly occuring variation of normal human sexual orientation.
I don’t believe the Bible to be the literal word of God, so why should my life be constrained by it? You can believe anything you wish, patrick; no one is trying to abridge your right to freedom of religion.
What you may not, do, however, is to use the government and its laws as a vehicle to require everyone, even those who vehemently disagree with your dogma, to conform to its laws, customs, myths, allegory or tradition. A government that bases civil law on one religious dogma, to the exclusion of all others, is called a theocracy. I don’t want that for my country, and I will fight to the death to prevent it.
If that is what you desire, however, might I suggest you and those who agree with you find yourselves an island somewhere and create your own country and government. I’ll gladly attend your bon voyage party.
Posted by: Patriot | May 23, 2008 1:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment
No deviance should be legitimized by any law. To do so is tantamount to the establishment of another Sodom and Gomorrah society. The last time those communities existed they were wiped off the face of the map by Yahweh Himself for legalizing deviance. It has not been, since then, until now.
ANOTHER sign of the times and the nearness of the End.
"Unless you repent you will likewise perish." Y'Shua the Messiah.
Posted by: patrick@onlyjesussaves.com | May 23, 2008 9:56 AM
Report Offensive Comment
LOVE IS MY RELIGION
Posted by: (^_^) | May 22, 2008 7:27 PM
Report Offensive Comment
States should be involved in legal unions and not sacraments. All citizens wanting to get married should be required to have a civil ceremony, but have the choice of a religious ceremony. I believe they do this in parts of Europe (France). I don't believe in gay marriage, but I also don't believe in separate but equal. So we should all have to comply with the law of the land, while still giving clergy the right to refuse to marry same sex couples.
Posted by: Peachykeen | May 22, 2008 3:54 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Thank you for highlighting this subject, my cousin and his partner had to maintain a charade, to please the family!!
My aunt although a wonderful, kind, loving woman could not accept her son was gay, and had a happy relationship with his partner. Infact I found out from another relative they had a civil ceremony 2 years earlier!! I then sent them a congratulary card with my love and congratulations. Yesterday my sister got married, it was the first time I had seen them, and I am thrilled to say they were both relaxed, totally happy and we could at last be honest with each other.
They are a great example of a happy couple!!
Blessings, peace!!
ITS ALL ABOUT LOVE!!!
Posted by: musicladyakagill | May 21, 2008 6:36 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Thank you for highlighting this subject, my cousin and his partner had to maintain a charade, to please the family!!
My aunt although a wonderful, kind, loving woman could not accept her son was gay, and had a happy relationship with his partner. Infact I found out from another relative they had a civil ceremony 2 years earlier!! I then sent them a congratulary card with my love and congratulations. Yesterday my sister got married, it was the first time I had seen them, and I am thrilled to say they were both relaxed, totally happy and we could at last be honest with each other.
They are a great example of a happy couple!!
Blessings, peace!!
ITS ALL ABOUT LOVE!!!
Posted by: musicladyakagill | May 21, 2008 6:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Thank you for highlighting this subject, my cousin and his partner had to maintain a charade, to please the family!!
My aunt although a wonderful, kind, loving woman could not accept her son was gay, and had a happy relationship with his partner. Infact I found out from another relative they had a civil ceremony 2 years earlier!! I then sent them a congratulary card with my love and congratulations. Yesterday my sister got married, it was the first time I had seen them, and I am thrilled to say they were both relaxed, totally happy and we could at last be honest with each other.
They are a great example of a happy couple!!
Blessings, peace!!
ITS ALL ABOUT LOVE!!!
Posted by: musicladyakagill | May 21, 2008 6:33 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I believe that marriage should be treated as a
sacrament, and the state should get out of the marriage business entirely.
Marriage as a sacrament would be as transparent to the government as baptism or other sacraments. The government would never ask marital status any more than they would ask baptism status.
Civil unions should exist, but they should not be modeled on marriage, but rather corporations, LLCs, and that whole body of law and precedent.
People should be able to join together to create a new legal entity - civil union, corporation, LLC, etc. - in order to protect assets, share benefits, and own property jointly.
Posted by: Les | May 21, 2008 5:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
It's important to point out that civil marriage *is* a civil contract, even if sometimes clergy perform a religious ceremony at the same time.
This seems to unduly-confuse some people, though. Maybe they prefer to be confused.