|
October 23, 2006
No issue this
year looms larger than marriage and the fight to define what marriage
will be for the next generation.
All sorts of
arguments fly through the air. What is fair? Who is going to get or
lose health insurance? Who won’t be able to get married? Who will?
Why should government care who gets married?
There are lots
of questions and lots of arguments. But there is really only one
agenda pushing them all. This is about certifying same-sex marriage
as an equivalent to traditional marriage.
Will I get to
wear a wedding ring? Will I get health insurance? Will my
relationship be validated as special by the government? Why does it
matter who or what I am when I get married?
There are lots
of questions and lots of arguments. But they are only branches of the
same tree. Marriage…what’s in this for me?
My, myself and
I…will I be allowed to get all the “stuff” that belongs to marriage?
But wait. Since
when did marriage focus on “getting”? This is a modern invention.
Since when did
marriage focus on “me, myself, and I?” This is a modern concoction.
If this is only
about me, and if it’s only about what I get out of it, then I am the
only tree in the forest.
This is an odd
way to think about a relationship that only survives out of a desire
to be a sacrificial servant to another person. Foundationally,
marriage is about giving up my right to be the only tree in the
forest.
When we marry,
with our attention focused outwards, looking at the other trees in the
forest, it is our interest in the future of the forest that lets us
see the seedlings just pushing up out of the soil and beginning to
grow. If this is about me, myself, and I…then seedlings don’t
matter.
If this is about
me, myself, and I, then…when I am gone, the forest will be gone. But
that won’t matter. Who needs seedlings? I won’t be around to see
it. And because the forest was only about me anyway, that will be
just fine.
At the heart of
the heated arguments about marriage, we need to step back from the
trees and see the forest. Are we building a society of individual
trees? Or are we building a society that nurtures seedlings?
Marriage, when
properly focused, is about a larger society that flourishes because it
nurtures the smaller family society that is raising the next
generation. It is not an arbitrary definition contrived to allow me
to qualify for wedding rings and insurance.
Marriage is
focused on the sacrificial relationship between a man and a woman for
a logical reason. This is the relationship out of which children are
born and raised. If children don’t flourish under the care of their
parents, they will lose… we will all lose.
Government
defines marriage and sets it aside as a unique relationship because of
its significance for our children…for our future. Marriage is not a
random definition created by legislators. It is a relationship of
importance, a relationship that matters for the sake of the
preservation of the forest.
If we are going
to build a forest, then our laws best be about what is good for our
children. Marriage matters. Mothers and fathers united in stable
relationships defined by a focus on creating a nurturing environment
for their children…this has always been the focus of a society that
cares about the future.
Me, myself, and
I will never create a seedling. I may be a very pretty tree. But I
won’t live forever. And I will never be more than a forest of one
tree.
Copyright © 2006 Jane Jimenez
September 3, 2004
We're Not in Kansas Anymore
June 13, 2005
A Recipe for Families
See Archives
for past editorials.
_____________________ |
