Cato As A Pun
When we see or interpret marriage, what is it that forms in our minds? Do we conjure decadent flowers? Is there a gratuitous cake? Maybe there appears a glistening rented limo in the broad of the day? These things do little in the way of defining marriage. The purpose of marriage should be recalled as a unity of two. A person marries a person ostensibly out of love. The impetus for their unity can be many things, but the idea is that these are people who find each other at a place above intolerant, and can perpetuate that amount of tolerance. With this, they are allowed benefits and reductions by the government for their contributions to society.
A discrepancy often spawns if we include religiosity to marriage. Marriages occur most readily at churches or monasteries, so the point of there being some involvement of a titular religion is obvious. The argument against homosexuals being precluded from marriage is a topical one. If we allow marriage to constitute a theological involvement, then does that not pave the way for any number of interpretations of relevant scripture to dictate the happenings of that marriage? Do we allow a weighty sponsor of said scripture to decide with certainty the classing of marriages? It makes sense that the married, or soon to be married, persons in question should decide what religion invokes its values on to their unity, or if any religion does any invoking at all. That said, marriages are funded by the government. If marriages can be checked by religion, and then also have clout in government, does that not seem to be arching on ‘separation of church and state‘?
Under the clutter of reductions, benefits, papers and policies, marriage is still a beautiful thing. Love for another is still its ineligible motivator. With enough infatuation and years, it should be said any can get married. It falls into the ‘American dream’ bit that most want for themselves. Why then, when two make claim to adoration,...