A Simple Solution to the same sex marriage war
from the Daily Bell
- - -
A breath of fresh air. Thanks. I felt prompted to mention civil partnership and some observations about 'marriage'.
In Uk a 'civil partnership' is denied opposite sex couples. (Some obligations and rights accrue from "Living Together as Husband and Wife" even though not married).
However, neither the state - nor any other institution in our case - has anything to do with the consecration of our relationship in Life. Nor has mere material mechanism any sight of it excepting to note or quantify behaviours from which to 'reverse engineer' in theories that simply embody their starting point. If we should ritually witness and declare our willingness for love within a group or community it would be the extension of such a gift within a larger willingness and capacity to share in its blessing. For that which touches the many as one without coercion is reflected in our relationship together but not defined by it or any part of it alone. Ritual sanctification cannot make the untrue, true, but witnessing strengthens by sharing.
A civil partnership operates a legal framework of agreement that provides for the civil rights, duties and protections of a relational entity and leaves the nature of that relationship open. It is not pretending to deal with spirituality nor presuming to sanctify. That aspect retains the freedom of the relationship - within its larger relational context. It doesn't presume to exercise 'moral' power. Nor have power to disqualify or invalidate moral integrity.
Definitions are our primary currency. The 'gold standard' of definitions is tangible and demonstrable - shareable - meaning and value. You know who you are in the act of extending and sharing it in act of thought word and deed. Adulteration of currency with the mere forms derived from presumed, believed or expected meanings, leads to trading in debt - where something is gotten without extension of shared worth. What is gotten without an extending of appreciation can hardly be recognized or shared as value, and so a 'materialism' of transactional getting substitutes for a living communication, and if this is accepted currency then the form of relationship serves to actively substitute for intimacy of being - and becomes a defence against it!
The wealth of meaning and value that shared life (lived relationship) opens is beyond measure - but can be covered over by a sense of unworthiness and fear of loss, which immediately project onto the other and thus triggers attempts to coerce and control which necessarily deceives by hiding the act of self-hatred or fear in strategic presentations that deny or try overcome what is made fearful by hiding it.
Marriage can mean many things to many people. But what makes a marriage alive is what that relationship is consecrated to or founded upon, and thus brought to the relationship in free willingness. The forms of marriage by themselves do not constitute a living commitment of sharing life, but they may reflect evolving patterns of personal and social need.
Truth is not a matter of fixing down definitions so as to mutually agree, but of accepting and living what is true for oneself without imposing upon others. The idea of determining truth has been subordinated to the 'divide and rule' that limits to form based set of meanings, which can then be manipulated. But discerning truth is a matter of listening and speaking in truly shared willingness. That is, it is itself a real relationship to which what is untrue is brought to light and resolved at the level of current willingness. The act of withholding or withdrawing from willingness for communication is of an wilful but often unconscious identification within a fear or unworthiness that effectively operates in lieu of choice. There is a timing for the free willingness to accept that cannot be forced. At times the most loving act is to effect a form of separation, but not in denial of the others innate capacity to seek and find the awareness of love in a way they can accept and understand.
In attempting to articulate, I offer a framework of reflection. It is not asserting 'truth' upon anyone but extending willingness to whoever it should resonate and be relevant.
What anything is, may be acknowledged or denied by how we define it in usage - regardless of lip-service.