A Politically Incorrect Rant about Marriage Equality

The Supreme Court of the United States has been reviewing the constitutional validity of California's Proposition 8 for the better part of today.

Proposition 8 declared that only marriage between a man and woman was to be recognized and validated in the state of California. Just over half of voters in the state agreed to this definition of marriage. I was not one of them. 

I do not regret my decision to vote for the definition of marriage to remain between a man and a woman in the mere fact that my personal beliefs about biology, culture and religion stand behind this agreement. However, I do sincerely regret that I voted against the happiness of many who dwell in my state. And, at the core of it, my own beliefs are not honored in the state's definition of marriage as well.

I believe that marriage is a promise between man, wife and God, a life-long commitment and partnership between two people to uphold a set of ideals in a community, to unite in personal decisions, and to pass these ideas on to another generation - their children. 

What makes me regret my vote? My definition of marriage has nothing to do with the state. It has to do with community and interpersonal relationships, the keeping of vows, the raising of children. But not a bit of it has to do with the state of California or the Unites States of America. I see marriage as a personal decision to unite my life with someone else, and that the binding of that tie is the will of God. 

I fully believe in the separation of Church and State, and in that, I feel like the State should not have a definition of the word "marriage" as it pertains to personal and religious agreements. 

Unfortunately, what I want requires a redefinition of culture. The argument for marriage as an historical institution that honors the union between man and wife is valid up until people bring the word "love" into the argument. While Americans have been marrying "for love", marriage is truly a business, and the institution of it as a business is the real history of its millenia-long establishment. 

Women were not people; they were commodities that produced more commodities. Women were bought from their fathers and sold to other men to continue life as was known. A father got rid of his burden, giving her to another man who promised to take care of her in exchange that she properly service his needs. Marriage was not about love. It was about money.

That's not today, right? Hahahahaha! What's the number one reason people get divorced? What's on a single woman's criteria for a husband? Money. Marriage by law is honest to goodness about money. 

Separate marriage from money. Separate the Church from the state. Get rid of entitled bigots from either side. Make a vow genuine. Love truly.

Get the state out of my marriage, get the church out of the government. 

A Papal Follow-up

English 306

Editorial Piece

There is a New Pope Today! 

Cardinal Bergoglio of Argentina elected as 266th pope of the Catholic Church

About 11am PST, or about seven o'clock in the evening in Rome, the last vote in the Papal Conclave was cast, and white smoke drifted from the chimney at the Sistine Chapel.

Pope Francis, or Cardinal Bergoglio of Argentina

Source: Paul Owen's Newsfeed from UK's The Guardian
Source: National Catholic Reporter's profile of Cardinal Bergoglio

"Modest and upright, [Cardinal Bergoglio] is also considered an intellectual heavyweight. He has also been very critical with corruption in his home country . He has also accused Argentina's government of not doing enough to eradicate poverty." - Giles Tremlett, The Guardian

Pope Francis, formerly Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio of Argentina, addressed the crowd at St. Peter's Basillica for about ten minutes in the hour following his election. He called for prayer for Pope Benedict, prayer for the leaders of the church, and then asked the crowd to pray that he might be a blessed leader to them. And, at last, he blessed the crowd and vanished into the chapel again. 

The short conclave comes as a blessed surprised for some of the church, though not for the cardinals and bishops who took part in the papal conclave. According to the National Catholic Reporter, Cardinal Bergoglia was the second runner-up in the vote that elected Pope Benedict XVI in 2005. 

Pope Francis is the first Jesuit, or member of the Society of Jesus, elected to pontificate; which means his focus is pastoral mission work, building schools and ministering to the needy. He has been very involved in the politics of Argentina, often criticizing political leaders for ignoring the needs of the poor. Cardinal Francis Arinze of Nigeria is optimistic for this pope who seeks social justice for his flock. In Nigeria, Arinze faces similar problems, calling focus to the impoverished people of Africa. 

As the pope, Francis inherits not only the many benefits of being pope, but all the burdens of governing the Church. The Catholic Church is not only a major seat of religion but happens to be a business responsible for people, history and art. The Church will depend on Pope Francis to guide the church through bumpy financial deficits as she struggles to hold on to parishioners - the major source of income. In South America, the Church is shrinking. In Africa the church is growing, but poor. 

Already there are voices who criticize Pope Francis' history as conservative in Argentina; he spoke against homosexuality and adoption by homosexual couples. He's also in opposition of abortion and euthanasia. However, something unusual - he is not against contraception in the cases of preventing the spread of sexually transmitted infections. This is evidence that while he represents the ideals of the Catholic Church, he's not afraid to be practical - probably a credit to his Jesuit ideals of practical, not luxuriant, living. 

God Bless Pope Francis, already known as a champion for the people.  

Heir Not-so Apparent - Who will be the next pope?

English 306

Assignment: Press Release

Today, March 5th, 2013, after the recent retirement of Pope Benedict XVI, the process of the papal conclave has begun. Nearly all the cardinals who will vote for the next pope have gathered in Rome to be locked in the Sistine Chapel for this election. With the Holy Days fast approaching, the Church both breathes a sigh of relief and kneels in prayer as the search for their next leader begins.

What is the papal conclave? It is the gathering of the College of Cardinals, a select number of prominent Catholic leaders who are chosen to choose the Church's next pontiff. What makes this gathering unusual is the nature of the call. Pope Benedict XVI has chosen to retire instead of doing what popes usually do at the end of their reign as church sovereign - they usually die before the next pope is chosen. None in six hundred years had chosen to step down from the role while alive.

In his official statement, the pontiff cited the reasoning behind his retirement:

I am well aware that this ministry, due to its essential spiritual nature, must be carried out not only with words and deeds, but no less with prayer and suffering. However, in today’s world, subject to so many rapid changes and shaken by questions of deep relevance for the life of faith, in order to govern the bark of Saint Peter and proclaim the Gospel, both strength of mind and body are necessary, strength which in the last few months, has deteriorated in me to the extent that I have had to recognise my incapacity to adequately fulfil the ministry entrusted to me.

Mental and physical health, a none too scandalous reason for retirement, however, it stirs the memory of watching the health of Pope John Paul VI deteriorate during the last several years of his papacy. It seems that his holiness seeks to ensure the strength of the church as his own strength fails.

The question remains: who is the one suited to face the rapid changes and questions of faith that shake the church? Forty countries from around the world are represented in the 2013 conclave, each carrying the burden of their flock. In the wake of revelations of abuse and scandal the additional problems of poverty, of ethics and morality, of doctrine and theology will need to be addressed by the new Vicar of Christ.

The sole candidate from Ghana, Cardinal Peter Turkson, is the top prospect to fit the billing. While a proponent of traditional Catholic views on sex and marriage, clergy in his diocese have been known to hand out condoms (a forbidden birth control by the church) to quell the spread of AIDS. Sources confirm the cardinal's opinion that abstinence until marriage is the true end to the virus, but his realistic practicality is refreshing.

Another favorite from the Philippines, Archbishop Luis Antonio Tagle, represents a huge population of the Catholic faith, with more than 70% of the entire country to be part of the church. In the Philippines and other parts of the world, the Church competes against other faiths for parishioners . In Africa and South East Asia, Islam gathers hundreds and thousands to the faith. In South America, Pentecostal churches are spreading with popularity.


Sources:

http://pope-election-2013.com/start-of-conclave-decision-expected-on-wednesday/#more-521

http://pope-election-2013.com/bookmakers-odds-on-the-new-pope/#more-481

http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2013/02/27/ghanas-cardinal-peter-turkson-is-irish-bookmakers-favorite-for-new-pope/

http://www.voanews.com/content/ghanaian-cardinal-seen-as-humble-candidate-for-pope/1603513.html

http://www.wjla.com/articles/2013/03/conclave-2013-vatican-waiting-for-cardinals--85917.html

http://www.nation.co.ke/News/africa/Let-Gods-will-be-done-says-Pope-candidate/-/1066/1693562/-/w2naly/-/index.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/11/pope-resigns-live-reaction

Since I have a platform...

It was just another day in class, destroying brain cells by endlessly scrolling through the friend-stalker known as Facebook. I went my merry way, liking, commenting and complimenting... and then there it was... the dreaded soap box post. And I couldn't scroll past it. It ate at my mind. I needed to put my two cents in. My valuable two cents that I hoard to myself because it's mine to have. And I put it in the pot. I ended up putting in more than I bargained for, but I think I won something in the end.

In the original post, a Facebook status, the poster was very much angered by a hypocrisy seen in the church. As she sees it, the debate over whether the American dollar should continue to bear the motto "In God We Trust" takes precedence over caring for the poor and helpless in the community. And, as a believer, I agree with her on that count. I care less about what is printed on my countries currency and more about what I choose to do with the money I earn. It's fair point, even in the words of Jesus -- what is Caesar's belongs to Caesar's, and what is God's belongs to God.

While I would be highly disappointed that "In God We Trust" is removed from my money -- the symbolic meaning of its removal being that the country no longer honors God -- the money isn't me. The money does not define my faith. The slogan removed is neither detrimental nor beneficial to American society - her nations leaders will glorify or damn the name of God in whichever ways they humanly choose. And they can do that with the currency because that is theirs to do so. They, however, cannot shake my personal faith or dictate my personal choices (yet). I give myself to God, and the best way to show that is to give to other people, for in giving to them we are giving it all to Him.

At this point, the conversation deviated from simple separation of church and state into whether evolution, science, religion and intelligent design should be taught in public classrooms. Party One (the original poster) insisted that religion should be shoved into an all-encompassing, while the second party (a Christian angered by those who are stubbornly ignorant and brusque to her about her beliefs) desired that both theories be taught in a classroom, especially from the Christian point of view. The posts were laced with personal attacks, and the debate was turning into an ugly rant at this point, instead of an intelligent and enlightening discussion with the original poster scoffing at assumed resistance to evolution being taught in a church.

I interjected at this point that I, personally, would allow evolution to be taught in my church. I'd rather give people a choice, an informed choice, before choosing to follow. It makes the choice more genuine, more faithful. And here I laughed because the original poster felt it appropriate to tell me that there are those who unite the idea of creation and evolution.

I am one of those people. I have seen that there's enough proof to make an argument for creation in what we already know and have seen in this universe. Whether it's a good argument is up to the hearer. I've seen legitimate arguments with reasonable proof go both ways. Belief is faith and choice, even when it comes to observable science.  Religion might less be science, but it's viable human history and completely human right. Keeping either from connecting to the other produces crass, biased and unrounded elitists with closed minds and hardened hearts.

I walked away from this conversation having been told that I will go unblessed by God because I choose to let the gay agenda persecute the church with their removal of "In God We Trust" from the dollar bill. That, I can assure you, is the least of my worries. The other hand holds me in a place where someone's mind has opened up to the fact that there are faithful and educated Christians who are logical and not blinded by this petty war of words that keeps us from ministering to those in need to God's love.