home > archive > 2004 > this article

Religion and Money: Part II – Morality

By Charles "Trey" Wickwire
web posted March 8, 2004

Last week's article on the issue of marriage has generated a great deal of feedback. I have received both praise and ridicule from a wide variety of sources. Generally, I am thankful for the praise, tolerant of the complaints and I ignore the death threats. This time I received several replies that were universal in their topic: Morality.

Some stated that they were not religious but felt that homosexuality was morally wrong. Some said that it was immoral to expose their families to the gay agenda. Others said that if the majority decided what was moral then that was it, majority rules. I found all of the arguments interesting. Personally, I had not thought of them because for me, they have no political weight.

Morality is the same as religion when it comes to politics. It is not a part of the process; nor can it be legislated. Have we forgotten what freedom is? If someone can honestly tell me that they are justified in limiting the freedoms of American citizens based on moral principles dictated by the Constitution, then that someone has forgotten just why the Constitution was created.

The people who stated "homosexuality is morally wrong" believed that it was ok to create laws against same sex marriages for moralities sake. But who decides what is moral and what is not? Where does this course of action take us? Many people believe that having sex outside of marriage is morally wrong. Will the next set of laws make anyone who has sex out of wedlock a rapist? Will the adulterous again have to wear scarlet letters? Do not laugh at this, it is not far from the agenda of many so called moral groups.

What is morally wrong is the denial of marriage benefits to same sex couples. GLAD, http://www.glad.org/, (Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders) has listed some of the benefits of marriage that are currently denied to those who do not meet the government's definition.

  • Medical Treatment and Hospital Visitation
    When it comes to anything medical the spouse has the first and final say. As the closest person to the patient it is understood that they will know and understand their wishes better than anyone else. Without a State recognized union, the partner of a patient has no say in the treatment and can even be denied visitation by the patient's family.
  • Deceased Bodies
    When a person dies suddenly their spouse normally makes the arrangements for the body. Even if the deceased had outlined their wishes for final arrangements to their partner, the family can choose to ignore these wishes, and again they may also deny the partner attendance at any memorial services.
  • Employee Benefits for Families
    Think of all the benefits your employer provides for married employees; health insurance for a spouse, bereavement leaves and pension protections to name a few. These are all denied to those who do not fit the government's definition of marriage.
  • Economic Certainty
    Married couples are considered an economic unit meaning they can merge their accounts into one, allowing for joint tax returns and insurance policies.
  • Government Benefits
    There is a long list of benefits that the government gives married couples only; joint filing of income taxes, property inheritance, property transfer with out tax consequences, worker's compensation, disability and social security are just a few of them.

This is the gay agenda that is so immoral? What is the real reason behind restricting the freedom of marriage and denying these basic rights to everyone? So far, we have several motivations to choose from.

  • Some religions consider same sex unions of any kind to be evil and should be discouraged as strongly as possible.
  • Some people consider same sex unions to be immoral and believe that the country must be protected from them.
  • The government sees the negative economic impact to the tax base.
  • Corporations see a negative economic impact due to the added amount of benefits they will have to provide.
  • Some groups seek to increase the amount of control the government has over our lives and a moral definition of marriage would be the first step in creating a government sanctioned lifestyle.

Do any of the motivations make sense? They don't to me. I do not want someone else telling me which God I have to worship. I do not want someone telling me what my morals should be. I don't care how much money the government and corporations will lose, and I damn sure don't want the government to start defining an acceptable way of life for me and my children. My religion, my morals and my way of life are all my choice.

Choice is the key; we cannot allow the government to make moral or religious choices for its citizens. Once that is done, we cease to be free.

Charles Wickwire, aka Trey, is a Computer Specialist who likes to share his opinion with those who are interested and even those who are not. He can be contacted at Trey.Wickwire@Wickware.com

Other related articles: (open in a new window)

  • Religion and money by Charles "Trey" Wickwire (March 1, 2004)
    Charles "Trey" Wickwire argues that if you drop religion as an obstacle to the notion of same-sex marriage then the real issue is a question of money
Printer friendly version
Printer friendly version
Send a link to this page!
Send a link to this story

Printer friendly version Send a link to this page!

Get weekly updates about new issues of ESR!



1996-2019, Enter Stage Right and/or its creators. All rights reserved.