Print This
Email ThisLet me lay my cards out on the table as a Conservative about how I feel about Gay and Lesbian marriage, I am against it. Before you jump down my throat I want to make it clear that I am against the marriage aspect for one reason and one reason only, the lifestyle though, I am completely fine with.
It’s been an interesting road for me the past couple years, my views through research have completely changed my perspectives. When I heard that Hillary was running for the senate I thought, she should just run for president, hell she basically pulled Bill’s strings anyway! Then I ran into one of her former secret service agents and they described her antics behind the scenes calling her female staffers “C*nts”. That was all prior to her running for president. Then Obama steps out on the stage, when rumors arose about his enter for the presidential race I got excited. Here is a young, intelligent, black man that would literally make history. I would make history by actually considering a democrat as a choice, as a top choice to be precise! Then I researched all about him and continue to hear, almost daily, his faults through friendships and policies. Then we come to gay/lesbian marriage, I never thought my position would change on this from being for it to being against it. I am not a homophobic person either, let me say that right away also. I have gone to gay/lesbian clubs with gay/lesbian friends and it was probably more of a blast than the regular clubs I have been to! I even have a couple great outrageous stories about a lap dance from a drag queen….oh man those memories. SO let me explain where this change came from…
My theory has always been and continues to be, let people no matter sexual preference, be happy. I mean, no one is bothering you if you are straight and a couple wants to be together, just let them be and move on if you have a problem with their lifestyle. Hell, most people should be able to find a problem with the lifestyle of any person or couple. It is when I looked into who is involved in the whole ordeal of marriage that changed my mind. I researched and learned the difference between “marriage” and a “civil union”. Basically the couples receive the same rights, benefits and responsibilities in both situations. The difference being the actual ceremony and the religious figure involved. Learn more about civil unions here:
I’m not a Bible “Thumper” and I refuse to push any religion on you here but I beg that you take a step back and see my point. A regular person will find a job, work the days and come home leaving that work behind. When you look at a reverend, pastor, rabbi, monk or whatever other religious leader you can think of, and you look at their job, they “live” their job. They live by the book that gives them their guidance and if they believe that the book says that gay marriage is wrong, then I am sorry but it is VERY unethical to expect that they marry the couple.
Now, I realize that these figures can refuse or “turn down” the opportunity BUT this can create a backlash and lead to unfavorable PR for that person and their church and that is basically unfair. Unfair because we go to these places of worship expecting them to abide by their teachings. The other point would be that, obviously, some churches can choose to do the ceremony while others stand aside. This is the perfect timing for this article because government offices are feeling what churches are sure to feel in the near future in CA if they refuse to wed couples of the same sex as talked about here in this New York Times article:
New York Times “‘I Do’? No. Not here you don’t”
People are quick to argue for or against marriage because they are either talking about what the Bible says or arguing for the happiness of a couple, they don’t take the time to consider, or they just don’t care, about that third party doing the marriage. Really, that is all I am against, not the gay/lesbian lifestyle at all. So I asked (nervously) one of my gay friends what he thought of the whole situation, his response was that he feels that those that refuse a civil union and protest for marriage are attention seekers and just want the spotlight. That is straight from his mouth and frankly I only asked him, one person but I admit that.
So honestly, I am interested, what do you all have to say about what I am pointing out? Is it right to say “screw you” to someone that lives by their religion for the rights of people that can gain the same rights, benefits and responsibilities by going the “civil union” route instead of marriage? I kind of feel like a civil union with a ceremony not involving a religious figure is totally appropriate, I mean, even straight couples do that. Just a thought.
For more timely, relevant, and engaging articles, subscribe to Brazen Careerist.
geez, the name of this post is “Gay/lesbian marriage backlash in California”…but i’ll be in for the comments as it is anyway..
To me this is an issue of semantics in legal terms. To me, my “marriage” license is a piece of paper that legally binds me to my wife (ie- the “civil union”). My real marriage took place in front of family and friends in a religious ceremony. I certainly feel that it should be up to individual religions to choose whether or not they marry same-sex couples. However, why the state would deny people certain rights because of their choice of sexual partner is beyond me.
I don’t understand why you would think it’s your right to judge who can marry whom. I bet your Bible has a few things to say about judging other people.
When two straight people get married in a civil ceremony, it’s not called a civil union. It’s called a marriage. Gays and lesbians are not a subclass of people. They deserve the same rights as everyone else. If your church doesn’t want to marry them, so be it. But yours is not the only church (or religion).
Kyle-Right, I think that is my overall point here. There is no reason to deny the same rights to same sex couples, it would seem that a civil union offers those rights. If I am wrong about that, then that DOES change my mind again. It is basically the religious figure caught in the middle and FORCED against their beliefs that I am most concerned about. Other than that, let the couples be together, why not?
Generation-Did you even take the time to read this or did you just spout out in anger immediately and falsely accuse me as a hate mongerer?
Dear Chris: I’m trying not to be angry, really.
The ceremony of marriage was not based at all in religion when it began - it was a civil contract and handoff of property (the woman). The religious ceremony came much later, when “religious” leaders decided they needed to control their flocks more closely - and generate revenue for their churches.
At one time, in this country, bi-racial marriages were illegal - for ridiculous reasons put forth by ignorant, frightened, bigots. Fortunately, we’ve managed to move past that neanderthal thinking.
Now, the frightened, ignorant bigots are back, cloaking themselves in religious tenets that have no basis in reality - or religion.
As the mother of a beautiful, intelligent, funny, articulate, successful gay woman, I want for her the same things I want for my son. I want her to find love, settle down, get married, raise a family and live a happy, fulfilled life. I want her to be secure in knowing that her marriage is strong, that she is as “married” as all of her straight friends, and that generations will remember her and her spouse as a married couple. That her children and grandchildren will remember her as a “real” part of the family.
I have to ask you, Chris - what are you so afraid of? What do you think will happen if we allow gay and lesbian men and women to marry? The sky will not fall. We’ll get over it and move on. Open your mind just a little - it’s not a religious issue, really - it’s a fear issue.
@Chris’s comment - not necessarily.
I was ready to be angry, given the title. After reading your argument, though, I can see your position. However, I have to counter with this:
If a culture believes that stoning a woman to death for being raped is perfectly a-okay, does that mean that that culture’s religious figures - who instituted and approve of this punishment in keeping with their religious text - should not change their views?
Sometimes, a cultural norm - and a religious tenet - should be changed to better suit humanity. Religion should never trump compassion.
It’s the same thing with allowing pharmacies to decline to sell birth control because of certain peoples’ religious views.
When two philosophical outlooks come into conflict, the government should always favor the one that has the least long-term negative impact.
For that reason, I support California’s decision, and believe that certain religions should carefully consider whether reinterpretation of their religious text is in order.
It’s happen many times before, and it will happen again.
In reading the comments, I can certainly see why people are upset about the semantics of the issue. It occurs to me now that while I think of marriage as a religious ceremony- the very word “marriage” implies something more. Those joined together at a courthouse are considered married- not civilly unioned. The very word marriage carries with it a whole set of feelings and characteristics. While I still say it is up to religious groups to determine who they marry in their churches, I agree that a marriage license should be offered to same sex couples.
Chris, I agree with Generation. What about people like me (married for 11 years) who are not religious and chose not to get married in a place of worship? Am I not married? Am I simply in a union?
I do see your point, but wonder why there is a differentiation between a so-called “civil union” and a marriage? If the legal rights are the same, why not call them both marriages?
As someone who couldn’t care less either way, I think the entire idea of the state having a say in who I decide to share a home and my taxable income with is absurd. The state shouldn’t have any say in marriage whatsoever, gay, straight, or otherwise. If I want whatever god I may or may not believe in to recognize me and my wife, that’s my business, not the governments. By attaching a set of rules to marriage, they are by default accepting that particular religion’s view of it.
In other countries, civil unions are the norm. In Italy, for example, many men have one with their own mothers, since they are taking care of them in their old age and it affords them the rights that are required in certain situations.
Let’s face it: we’re still a country of racists and homophobes, regardless of how many “gay and black friends” we all claim to have when trying to justify our prejudice.
@ Ben- I agree that certain aspects of religion should be trumped when human rights are at risk or being violated (think forced marriage, sexual consent in marriage, etc.). However, it would be difficult to for the state to step in and say that a religion would have to perform a ceremony for something it didn’t believe in. I agree that religion in many aspects is far behind modern society, and I certainly think that religion has evolved and will continue to evolve over the years to meet the changes in society.
I’m not convinced that the religious figure would be forced or pressured into performing ceremonies that don’t abide by their teachings. There are plenty of religious leaders that have requisites for marrying people. Many priests rabbis and pastors require church membership or a statement of beliefs before agreeing to marry people (which may include all sorts of taboo subjects).
And there are several officiates (some religious) who advertise that they will perform gay marriages. Most of my gay friends would only want to be married by someone who will openly support their decision.
Gays should have the right to choose the preferred union in our culture: marriage. They just won’t be able to get married in my church or by my pastor. I try to help people see the truth in my belifs, not force them to obey its rules. I think a lot of religious people (conservatives, moderates, and liberals) feel the same way.
@YMBoomers - Excellent point, and I agree totally. Who would ever wanted to be married by someone who believed you were evil, or propagating evil?
It’s separate-but-not-equal all over again.
I don’t think I should be denied full equality because a clergyman might feel “pressured” to do something he or she does not want to do.
The crux of your argument seems to suggest we should be unfair to GLBT people in their personal lives because that’s better than being unfair to religious officials in their professional lives? Am I missing something?
I was looking forward to a really good one reason, and was disappointed that the best you could come up with was PR. Religious leaders will feel compelled to do it because of the possibility of bad PR? Really?
I think the Catholic Church’s molestation of young boys over a period of decades shows that religious institutions can recover from any PR disaster, and on the disaster scale, a backlash by the gay/lesbian community would be small by comparison.
Question for everyone - I am trying to decipher several of these comments… Do the majority of people think a priest (all Jewish, Christian, Muslim, etc… religious figures included) should be forced (or obligated) to perform a marriage for a gay couple if gay marriage is legal?
Marriage is the union of man and woman. A man can no more marry a man than a horse. Marriage is the building block of western society. Destroy or redefine it - (as with polygamy) and the west will be destroyed with it. That, of course, is the point.
PS, In sweden, ministers have been jailed for saying homosexuality is immoral. In Canada, as we speak, Mark Styen is on trial for saying Islam is a threat to the West. It is only a matter of time before the constitution is so muddled that so called hate speech will be illegal here - as it already is on many campuses
What is hate speech? Our groovy globalist society says all religions, ‘orientations’ and peoples are equal and anyone who deviates from that view is a modern heretic.
Gays will use this law to push and cajole groups into accepting their lifestyle. So rather than bring more ‘tolerance’ as main stream media claims it will, it will require more and more conformity to multiculti orthodoxy.
Of course we all know the trinity of exceptions: white, christian male.
@Elaine- Excellent history lesson, I love when I learn new things. I hope for the best for your daughter, that she lives a full life of happiness.
@Ben- You are completely right! I got cornered (technically) on this one because I am one of the very people that believe we should be getting involved in Iran because of the abuse of women and their culture. I will explain what I was truly trying to get across after I respond to everyone.
@Kyle & Kimberly- MY POINT EXACTLY! The whole purpose of this conversation and post was to say that basically we should just call a civil union a marriage also. The government should not have their hands in all the cookie jars. They should not be able to say that gays/lesbians can’t be together but they also shouldn’t have control over other subtle things, like let’s say, controlling the temperature in your home remotely. That’s why I am for smaller government. Call a civil union a marriage and let’s just be good with it.
@YMBoomers, Ben & Mark- The PR thing was a bad way of putting it, I get it. What I was trying to say is, if you let churches freely decide whether they want to or not, there are going to be protests and potential violence if it is legal at the churches that refuse. There was a good point made that in a lot of churches you have to be a member, I realize that first hand in my search for a church for my marriage next month and had run into that very problem.
@A.J.-Basically all the responses I give lead up to answering your question about what you are missing.#1-call a civil union a marriage, people get married without a religious figure anyway sometimes and that is fine (I am NOT making an argument in any way that says that a marriage MUST take place with a religious figure)#2-It would seem when the government gets involved in anything at least one set of people are going to be screwed, here it is either the couples or the churches, leave government bans or laws out of the equation.
I wanted an open conversation because I am not closed minded here, I asked for opinions because I see room to learn and grow no matter how old or young you are. In this instance I just think that the issue I brought forth is being construed to project hatred at an issue that I wanted to openly discuss. If civil unions are called marriage and everyone gets the same right and churches are not forced to do the marriages, without violence or protests, then I am all for this. The next question would be, do you really have that much faith in humanity to think that there wouldn’t be protests or violence at those churches??
@me- That may be your point, but it certainly was not mine. I actually found your comments to be extremely out in left field
@”me” - Grow some balls and tell us your real name, troll.
@BrandonA - No, that’s not the point. Religious figures are allowed by law to choose whether or not to marry a couple. What we’re arguing for is simply the government-enforced ABILITY for gays and lesbians to enter into marriage. Who officiates is another matter entirely.
Thanks Ben, I agree, I just was confused if that was the point of some commenter’s.
you’ve only proven my point. No one addresses my point, but simply calls me a troll, or ‘out in left field’.
Even the sheepishness in which the original poster presents his views reflects this atmosphere of fear, (well gosh, I don’t want to offend anyone, I asked a gay friend, and i am not a bible thumper( - in other words, pejorative name for a traditional Christian is ok))
I imagine that most younger people who have gone through years of it in schools, are all but conditioned to behave like this, and find it perfectly ‘normal’.
Chris,
There are a couple of important points that you are missing in your argument:
1. You are mixing up civil marriage with religious marriage. Civil marriage is the legal documentation that you need to prove that you are married. Even if you are “married” within a church, if you don’t have the legal document, you are not married in this country.
2. A state-sponsored civil union - like the ones they have in CT - does not come with all the rights and responsibilities of marriage. The federal government does not recognize civil unions on any level, therefore all of the federal obligations (marriage penalty) and right (avoidance of estate tax) are NOT covered.
3. Civil marriage in no way would obligate officiants to perform gay marriages. It is, and will continue to be, up to each church to determine who can get married within their religious tenets. The legal status is a completely separate issue.
4. I think that you are right that no one expects a religious leader to change their position because of popularity or P.R. But I think that you are wrong that anyone would feel the pressure to do so. I have spoken with several religious leaders who pray and study on these matters often, and they do NOT feel pressured by P.R. concerns - they are interested in the correct way of living, as seen through their religion.
5. Your gay friend who thinks that people who demand marriage are attention seekers is not alone. There is a lot of diversity of thought within the gay community about whether gays should get married.
But, so what if they are attention seekers? That does not negate the valid legal claims that they have on their right to get married.
This is a classical logical fallacy (petitio principii - begging the question - to be specific).
Your friend says: “Because gays who want to get married are attention seekers, they do not deserve to marry”.
But the real question should be: “Do gays deserve to marry, whether or not they are attention seekers?”.
Finally, one suggestion for your writing style: talking about the “gay lifestyle” is difficult, because so many different gays live so many different ways.
@”me” - Still not brave enough to state your name, aye? Well, since you have no name, I guess you don’t exist.
@Jamie - You should have a read through the comments, we’ve got a discussion that addresses a number of your points here.
“3. Civil marriage in no way would obligate officiants to perform gay marriages. It is, and will continue to be, up to each church to determine who can get married within their religious tenets. The legal status is a completely separate issue.”
Simply not true. It will lead to forced indoctrination…
“Christian foster couple forced to give up son over gay equality laws”
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/christian.foster.couple.forced.to.give.up.son.over.gay.equality.laws/14224.htm
Catholic adaption services in MA had to stop because they would seek hetrosexual couples for adaption. The state gave them a choice, accept our orthodoxy or lose your adaption license …i can easily see the same thing happening with a minister who refuses to perform a gay marriage.
@ben still not brave enough to actually address my points, and now, in true orwellian fashion simply claim I don’t exist.
@Jamie- If what you say is true, that the government does not recognize through the tax system and other rights, a civil union, then I agree with you that something needs to change.
A civil union, or if it was also called a marriage, held all the same rights and responsibilities like tax breaks then that would be the best route to take.
I agree with the secondary argument about my friend and his “attention seeker” argument, no where in my arguments did I say I am against same gender couples being together. I also agree that it is not fair to generalize about their lifestyle when they can lead so many different types just as any straight couple can, it would have maybe made a lot longer of a post though.
@me-If I am sheepish for laying my cards on the table, openly saying what I am for and against AND attaching a name a picture to the post, then I think you have a few problems going on of your own.
@Ben-
Yes, I should have read the comments more completely.
@me-
I don’t understand the correlation that you are making between civil marriage and gay couples not being allowed to foster children.
Each person has the right to practice what they believe. The couple in your referenced article is practicing their belief system. They are taking a stand on principal. That is their right. No one is forcibly indoctrinating them to do anything.
@me-
Also, the couple had a problem with homosexual acts because of the bible’s condemnation of sex outside of marriage. Therefore, it would seem that allowing gay marriage would resolve this concern for them.
@elaine you at once speak of being ‘tolerant’ while labeling people who disagree with you as bigots and attaching sinister motives to anything they did.
And no marriage was not making a woman ‘property’ do you have proof of this ? Please provide a link showing that Christian texts (or even Islam which gave high status to women) made women property. Did Isabel of Spain become King Ferdinand’s ‘property’ when she married him?
Marriage in the Christian view, was union of souls.
@Chris
Unfortunately in the real world civil unions do not carry the same legal weight as marriages. I personally think gov’t should give civil unions to all couples (straight and gay), but until they do I want the exact same rights as straight.
However, what I think is even more important than marriage rights is the fact that in many states it is perfectly legal to fire an employee for being GBLT. We need nondiscrimination protections for sexual orientation and gender identity.
@Jamie, “That is their right. No one is forcibly indoctrinating them to do anything.” - the state (in this case the UK) is saying if they do not teach their foster children the state’s stand on homosexuality, the children will be taken away. your second post is distracting sophistry, and you well know it, as the church (Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican et al) has maintained homosexuality is immoral.
@AJ - have you ever heard of the right of free association? It is one of the mainstays of a truly free society, one which is rapidly diminishing along with out freedoms. Should the boy scouts be forced to accept gays? Should a christian publisher be forced to accept LBTG or whatever the term is? If this conversation that we’re having were at a workplace would i be fired for creating a ‘hostile’ environment?
@A.J.- Wow, I am completely floored by that. I mean if we have laws in place for not discriminating against skin color, disabilities and other things, I just can’t imagine why we wouldn’t have it in place for GBLTs. I honestly did not know that and it is pretty sad.
@Chris
For more info, check out the Wikipedia page on the proposed Employment Non-Discrimination Act.
@Chris Ford. Yeah its funny how these ‘equality’ laws have worked out. It means that white males are openly discriminated against for almost every government job and university they apply to.
It means a billionaire Gujariti Indian with and MBA can come here and get a low interest SBA loan for ‘asians’ (Even though Gujarti are clearly Caucasian) , financed by taxes paid by blue collar workers in Kentucky.
Recently there was a ruling in california that said if minorities don’t score high enough on civil service examinations the results are bias. New York City recently dramatically lowered its standards for firefighters, and favors minorities with lower scores, guess that was a ‘thank you’ to all those blue collar irish families that lost loved ones on sept 11.
all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others….
@AJ
Oh yes, just what we need, another ‘equality’ law to provide a never ending stream of revenue for trial lawyers, more extortion rackets, and arbitrary enforcement….maybe someone gay could team up with AL sharpton.
I’m a little confused as to how someone can force a priest/rabbi/whatever to marry them… I was raised Catholic and you cannot be married in the Catholic church unless you have completed catechism through Confirmation. I suppose if you and your partner have done this, they would still refuse because it’s not a part of that religion’s tenets.
I agree with Ben in a sense. Because of the nature of most religions, rooted & archaic traditions must be challenged by secular society to bring it along. Otherwise we’d all still be in arranged marriages determined by the number of oxen in her dowery.
I think society will bring this around anyway, naturally, by a migration of people away from the stricter religions to more open ones. I left Catholicism at age 15 because I knew in my heart there was nothing wrong with being gay and I didn’t want anything to do with bigoted belief system.
While I’m uncomfortable with any argument against gay marriage, I applaud the opportunity for a dialogue.
Btw, there’s more to gay people than gay dance clubs and cross-dressing lap dances. Most of my gay friends don’t have frequent experience with either. They just don’t want to be seen as any different, and they want the same opportunity to love and worship that you and I have.
@me-
The state is looking out for the best interests of the foster child. That is the role of the foster care system. Foster parents, in every foster care situation, are not the concern of the system. The children are the concern.
The state is not discriminating against these parents. The state is standing up for these children. The foster care system is obligated to provide the best possible home for foster children if they cannot live with their biological parents.
The foster parents have the right to believe and practice what they want, but this necessarily must affect their foster parent status. In this situation, they have to live with the consequences of their belief system.
Also, I think your blanket statement that “the church (Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican et al) has maintained homosexuality is immoral”. There are plently of Christian and non-Christian sects that have maintained that homosexuality is moral and consistent with their religious teachings.
It is always dangerous to create a false monolith of “the church”. There are many different churches within Christianity. And yours doesn’t have a monopoly on morality.
@jamie, so you do believe that foster parents who think homosexuality is immoral, and who refuse to teach (again this proactively teaching) that gay behavior is normal should have the children taken away from them. Thank you for clarifying. BTW, you say that I don’t have a monopoly on morality while you support the state forced monopoly on morality, when, of course, it suits your needs.
as for a false monolith, you obviously don’t understand what the expression ‘the church’ means. I suggest you read something beyond Dan Brown about Christian theology.
@holly
you said “I agree with Ben in a sense. Because of the nature of most religions, rooted & archaic traditions must be challenged by secular society to bring it along. Otherwise we’d all still be in arranged marriages determined by the number of oxen in her dowery.”
these blanket sweeping statements about religion reflect, I think, the multicultural indoctrination that most of you have grown up with.
Holly, has it occurred to you that it is perhaps the opposite? The American Revolution, The Glorious Revolution of 1688 both were based on the idea that our rights are given from God, not Kings (we are endowed by our creator, with certain inalienable rights) the slave trade, despite Steven Speilberg’s fantasies, was eliminated by “Fundementalists” Christian abolitionists- Wilberfloos, John Newton (who wrote amazing grace) Stowe, et al.
Again, I see the posters here accusing ‘my side’ of being inherently bigoted…I can see you having this point of view, since you probably have never seriously been challenged or read a contrarian viewpoint. Its kind of sad.
oxen, sheep??? In romeo and juliet, who is it that marries the couple in a LOVE marriage? Yes it is a play but it reflected norms of the times.
“The state is looking out for the best interests of the foster child.”
Of all the inaccurate and naive statements I have read here, this is probably the saddest.
@Holly- The only problem I have with your comment is that you reference me as saying that either all GLBT are the same or that they all do those situations I talked about. I figured it would be acceptable to mention that I put myself in those situations so that I was not close minded and to move past the old society belief that such behavior is wrong. By going to that club with my friends I became a lot more comfortable and open with them about the discussion. I think those of you who believe I talk about that situation and referring to a gay friend believe that I am shielding myself but to the contrary I am showing that the lifestyles that people live have no effect on the outcome of my decision here and that I, unlike extremists, actually open myself to the opportunities to learn instead of just sitting back and critisizing. My point about being forced is the exact opposite of the situation in California, I am saying that if it becomes legal that is one thing, but if LAW becomes that churches MUST marry, I don’t think that is right.
Marriage is an economic state. I think the government should recognize all marriages (gay or straight) and let the religions decide to accept them or not. That’s why we have a separation of church and state.
I was married last year in a secular ceremony performed by my brother in law, with no religion mentioned at all. Why should my marriage be recognized but a gay couple be given the second class status of “civil union.” Maybe we should just get rid of the legal term marriage and replace them all with civil unions.
I can’t see using religion as a legal basis because not everyone follows the same religion. If we lived in a monarchy ruled by an Evangelical Christian Queen and she wanted to outlaw marriage for everyone she didn’t recognize, that would be one thing.
I’m very proud to live in the first state to allow gay marriage. I support it because it’s the fair thing to do.
Many churches require you to be a certain religion if you want to be married there. And some churches require you to be a member. Some churches are racist. Some churches are sexist. And it is ok, because of freedome of speech. Churches have a lot of freedom on all topics. I’ll use employment, my personal “specialty”: Church organizations are allowed to limit those they employ to members of a particular relgion, and are allowed to restrict the beahvior of their employees significantly in ways that are forbidden to non-religious employers. Believe it or not, a church organization can require its employees to abstain from use of alcohol, pre-maritial sex, or even to dress a certain way (women wearing skirts come to mind). So this argument doesn’t hold that much weight. There are churches that I, as a heterosexual Black female, could not marry my heterosexual Black male boyfriend in. And I cannot do anything about it. The state has never forced any relgious group to, quite frankly, do anything but not abuse illegal chemical substances during their services. So this argument, my dear, has very little weight in the legal sense.
And I also cannot buy the backlash argument, because a church that will not marry a homosexual couple could not be very inviting to begin with. Christian religions, in general, embrace the tenents of the scripture which include a prohibition of same sex relationships. So this would not be a suprise. The Catholic church will not ordain women are priest. Very little backlash. When you join a particular church, you get an idea of its tenents and you decide if you want to accept them. That is how religion works.
Why not let everyone who is of consenting age get married? We let 40 year old men marry 16 year old women. Why not let two consenting people of the same sex commit their lives to one another. In the forum that allows it, as we have always done this with hetero-sexual couples.
And FYI, marriage is a creation of the state. If you read in the Bible, a man and woman were married when they had sex. The idea of a marriage license, and etc. was a creation of a time period when marriages were seen as a source of revenue for the church.
@chris, as i have demonstrated from my links, that is already the case with adaption, and even calling homosexuality immoral.
The ‘tactics’ of the ‘gay lobby’, has been to smear anyone who disagrees with them as bigots (as demonstrated here) and stifle discussion - which is exactly what most of you have done here.
“he’s a bigot, just listen to his homophobic statements”
If the ‘law’ becomes more widespread they will resort to more of the same.
This article is vague, meandering, and unkind, as well as obviously un-researched. A perfect example of the worst kinds of blogs. Stupidist post I’ve ever seen on this otherwise very good website.
@me - do you think you could provide a detailed breakdown of *how* exactly gay marriage is going to destroy western civilization? I mean, up until now I’ve been worried about the sputtering economy, the over-reliance on fossil fuels for energy, and the ever-present threat of terrorism. Please let me know why I should add gay marriage to that list.
Yvette - Have some class maybe support your argument here. It appears that Chris made an opinion peace, from his own experience and observations. He never tried to come of as more. If you want well researched pieces on topics try your traditional news sites.. then again..
To everyone again - What about the slippery slope arguement… In particular polygamy. You can take out the word “gay” and in its place put polygamy in most situations. I.e. we not should discriminate against the polygamy lifestyle etc… Will that be the next path in 20 years?
@ Brandon - in regards to replacing “gay” with “polygamy” 2 points pop in my head:
1 - Marriage is between 2 consenting adults, gay marriage is between 2 consenting adults that happen to be of the same sex. Polygamy seems to often involve young women who haven’t reached the age of consent yet and thus are pressured into being a wife. At least that’s what I understand from watching “Big Love” on HBO, I’m sure that’s a definitive treatise on the topic.
-Tax considerations - a gay marriage can still use all of the tax considerations that a “typical” marriage would. How would that apply to polygamy? Do you get bonus exemptions for multiple wives?
I don’t think that you can compel Catholic priests to perform a gay marriage anymore than you can compel a Catholic hospital to perform abortions. That being said I don’t think forbidding gay marriage can be upheld. There are plenty of religious figures that would like to perform the ceremony just as there were religious figures that wanted to officiate interracial marriages when those were illegal.
@me The word you are looking for is adoption. As for your assertion that marriage is a building block of society, that misconstrues the historical intent of marriage. Marriage, both in history and the eyes of the law, is a legal contract. As such, the law as the power to define it and redefine it. The cultural meaning attached to marriage is independent of this contract. The cultural meaning of marriage in Western society at least has changed over time. Check out <ahref=”http://www.amazon.com/Marriage-History-How-Love-Conquered/dp/014303667X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1213811921&sr=8-1″ Marriage, a History. It’s supposed to be a good resource.
Gays want the same rights and privileges associated with marriage that blacks did before the Court legalized interracial marriage. Surely there were religious figures that were opposed to interracial marriages then and now. The state does not force them to perform marriages because marriage is a legal contract that must be recognized by the state and has nothing to do with the religious ceremony that you can choose to participate in.
As for your argument regarding free association, I think that it works both ways. The same way that you view homosexuality as being forced upon you is likely the same way that gays feel that the state is forcing heterosexuality as the only union to be recognized by the state. (I personally dispute that perspective.) As gays are the ones suffering the legal harm (being that they are being deprived of the rights and privileges associated with marriage), their case does have legal merit. Please explain to me legally why gay marriage infringes upon your rights as a citizen.
@Brandon:
Re: “The slippery slope”
I think that Jonathan Rauch says it more succinctly than I could:
“All gay people are asking for now is the one thing that we lack but that all straight people already have - they don’t need to give themselves anything more. And that’s the opportunity to marry some person - one person - that we love. Right now, we can’t marry anybody. The set is the null set for us. That’s not true of straight people who want multiple husbands or multiple wives. That’s not true of people who want to marry their mother; they can have 4 billion marriage partners except their mother. So, ultimately, I think those arguments, although well intended, are primarily a red herring.”
Source:
http://pewforum.org/events/?EventID=179
haha, I love getting info fromfictional TV shows! Good points though. I agree with you but I think the solution to stopping that would be strong and deliberate wording in whatever amendment was made.
But knowing lawmakers they never want anything to be forever or deliberate because they never know how public opinion will change. Then again this keeps them busy and gives us something to talk about when we should be working!
I think the devil is likely to be in the details. Civil Unions basically being the same as marriage essentially admits inequality on some level. My counter-question would be, why bother?
I understand the concern of imposing the right for same sex couples to marry on a church, but I don’t think we’ve had any cases like that yet (could be wrong though), and should be addressed when a case like that comes up.
So in short, why go to the trouble of having two separate institutions if you only need one?
On the mother jones blog this morning, blame it on the gays
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rixkck8QnjY
Chris,
Sexual “preference/lifestyle” implies choice. The evidence is increasingly showing the “gayness” is in a person’s genes; it’s not a psychological condition.
This week, reports on a study that shows that brains of gays are similar to those of the opposite heterosexual sex.
Kate,
I agree that religion and marriage are/and should be different issues because of separation of church and state (a condition I’m thankful for as a pro-choice woman)
According, no one who works for the government should be allowed to discriminate against any individual because of race, gender, sexual orientation, or age.
In California, two counties have decided to refuse marriage ceremonies to all couples, gay or straight, which many see as a way of getting around refusing to marry gay couples. It’s absurd!
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/10/MN2V1172KL.DTL
To all against gay marriage:
How does the marriage of 2 gay men or women damage your marriage or prospects of marriage? 7% of Americans admit to being someone/knowing someone who has married for health insurance benefits. Doesn’t that reason bastardize marriage more than two homosexuals in love?
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-health29apr29,1,7911757.story
You’re wrong. You’re wrong because you’re a discriminatory homophobe.
Anyways, to be truly fair, all marriage should be illegal–for straight people too. It’s discrimination to give one set of people benefits for taking an action that is legally closed to a whole block of people. Civil unions for all should be the law of the land. If people want a religious/spiritual marital commitment, that’s between them and their religion.
@vanessa, actually here in NY the state IS going to compel catholic hospitals to perform abortions. Which again, only proves my point. Are any of you willing to at least recognize the draconian measures already in place to enforce ‘equality’ between the ethnic groups? And that ‘equality’ has resulted in gross discrimination and indoctrination.
@andyw, its a long complicated subject, I sincerely doubt most of you here have are really as ‘open minded’ as you like to think of yourselves, in fact you’re quite close minded to any view that challenges your orthodoxy, which is PC.. i suggest you read up on the Entruscans, Moorish Spain, Late Roman Empire and Weimer Republic. Libertine societies don’t remain free or societies for long.
Anyways, to be truly fair, all marriage should be illegal–
Why do all of you think that the United States and the West has always taken a strong stand against polygamy?
I am curious to hear your answers, at least you can’t play the race card on this one.
1) Homosexuality was only declassified as a mental disease because of protest, not science
2) People afflicted with mental diseases often protest the diagnosis
3) Significant funding is allocated towards a cure for schizophrenia, despite the fact that many of those afflicted believe they’re “ok”
4) Homosexuality itself is a risk factor for many other diseases; in this respect it’s like AIDS itself, in that it increases disease susceptibility
5) We have altered sexual behavior deterministically in complex metazoans (namely flies).
6) Flies are a model organism for many neurological diseases and the conclusions are often extensible to mammals
7) Research on even more closely related sheep has occasioned protests by gays. Andrew Sullivan thinks it is “right” to pass laws against fetal treatments for homosexuality, and Navratilova and co. want the research to be ended. Many portray a cure for homosexuality as “genocide”.
Point: due to the results of activism rather than science, research into possible cures for homosexuality has been diverted and attacked. One can calculate the numbers, but we’re talking at least 3-4 orders of magnitude and likely more in terms of funding for AIDS cures (= distal symptoms) rather than funding for whole genome and biochemical studies of homosexuality *as a curable disease* and proximal cause.
@me
Call me diseased to my face.
It’s easy when you’re anonymous, isn’t it?
Chris:
Your blog post says:
“So honestly, I am interested, what do you all have to say about what I am pointing out?”
I don’t think you really are interested, or you wouldn’t be so defensive with everyone who disagrees with you.
@Gen & anyone else assuming things- Actually the only thing I am defensive on is when people are pointing out things about me by “assuming” I feel a certain way. You have Joselle up above who just said “You’re wrong because you’re a discriminatory homophobe.”, well if you think that is implied then you can’t read right or you are reading too far into the issue, especially since my stance is not on being a GLBT but the third party involved in the act of marriage. I think the majority of people with a negative attitude toward me on here did not take the time to read the blog and then follow up with the discussions between me and others WHERE I actually pointed out that I learned a couple things about law.
@zak-As for you, you would be one of the types that assumes things immediately about me and obviously did not read what I wrote. By “lifestyle” I certainly did not point out anywhere that it was a choice, I actually agree that it is in the genes, If I think about why I am attracted to women, it just is, I don’t say “well I think I will chose to go for women”. So please ask before you assume my position on things. And the same goes for you Joselle.
@AJ, or what? what exactly would you do? You’re only proving my point - rational discussion, facts, scientific studies, are met with threats and intimidation.
@chris
Now you’re learning just how ‘intolerant’ the people who want to lecture and legislate tolerance are
Chris, I have the same word choice issues when I post. Words have connotations, not just denotations. We can’t ever assume everyone is going to interpret our words the same way because we all bring a different background to the table.
Why would i be “one of the types” that assumes things about you. Can you define these types? You chose to use the words “lifestyle” and “preference” when writing your post. Words that connote choice in a person’s sexual orientation, when science is increasing proving that homosexuality is genetically based.
me: if you’re so strongly behind your convictions, you’d have trouble telling us exactly who you are, because you’d have nothing to hide.
Also, homosexuality is actually a regular enough occurence across the kingdom that it’s not a freak abnomaly, but a regular variation in the gene pool
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/05/duh-of-day.html
looks like shakesville’s news link died
here’s a direct link to the story via FOX of all places
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,356639,00.html
@me
Stop talking out your ass. First, you make unsupported assertions about us being more “disease prone”, then you pretend that your argument was any more factual than AJ’s. I hope someone puts you down like a diseased animal!
@TYwest
Homosexuals are far more likely to contract aids and other STDs do you disagree with this?! And once more, my rational posts are met with insults and name calling from the ‘tolerance’ police.
@zak: hey, why don’t you provide your social security number if you’re so proud of your views?
on a fairly regular basis both here and in Europe people are fired and harassed out of jobs by the very thought police calling me names here. I have already had one latent threat of violence. If you are at all aware of the militancy of homosexual activists and the leniency shown them by liberal judges (like the 9th circuit) then you would understand - I am not afraid to say my views in public or put myself harms way, but I would no more needlessly expose them on a message board then i would needlessly post my ssn.
and, zak, if you were at all familiar with anglo american poltiical tradition you would know anonymous pens go back to the 18th and 19th century (like the federalist papers)
Again, just look at the posts here and tell me who the intolerant ones are…
In fact, if it were not for the gay thought police anal intercourse would probably be declared and extremely dangerous act- it is one of the easiest ways to transmit disease - the easy access to the blood stream is why suppositories are so effective. But of course the gay police don’t want those facts to be known.
@me Don’t try to use science to support your discriminatory and specious arguments. AIDS is not an STD; HIV is. AIDS is spreading fastest in what demographic? Heterosexuals. Stop spreading the myth that HIV is a disease restricted to homosexuals.
The reason that homosexuality was removed from the DSM is that there was no scientific basis for it being harmful or included in the first place. Don’t use the claim that schizophrenics think they are ok as a way to determine that the condition is not a condition. Disorders are included in the DSM when they are found to interfere with a person’s ability to meet their basic needs.
You still haven’t answered my original question in my first post. How does gay marriage infringe upon YOUR rights?
@chris
Wow. I didn’t expect to get blasted by the author of the post, seeing as I was admiring (past tense) your ability not to snipe back. All I wanted to point out was that I’m not comfortable with “us-them” rhetoric. It only further serves to separate people when we’re trying to bring them together. I think it’s our duty as bloggers to show what we do know - in this case, that there is more to being gay than “gay culture.”
Besides, why would I go after you when there’s that “me” posting on here. Where is that guy from anyways? Remind me to never visit.
me,
Funny, I don’t read about homophobics being killed in anti-gay bashing incidents, but young gay men are still turning up dead periodically aroudn the country because of they choose to be open about their sexuality.
your rhetoric isn’t going to win anyone over here. Move on.
Vanessa,
To further your stat — the fast growing demographic for HIV infection are heterosexual women under 30 years of age; African-American and Hispanic women are especially at risk.
@me - anal sex is not restricted to homosexuals, all kinds of people do it. What are you going to do, invade everyone’s bedroom on a nightly basis? And AIDS is not a “gay” disease. I just watched a great BBC special hosted by Stephen Fry on AIDS around the world and how many people are infected heterosexually, or through birth transmission, and so forth.
Really, if you want to not support homosexuality, if it’s against your religion, that is fine. But if we are to create an ECONOMIC institution (my favorite part of marriage has been the tax rebates) it should apply equally to all couples. Religion is free to discriminate, the state is not.
@everyone - I’m guessing you’ve never argued w/ a libertarian before? Heheh.
While I don’t agree w/ “me” by any stretch - s/he is still free to think whatever s/he wants about the immorality of homosexuality or gay marriage. “Me” is testing the limits of our tolerance. As long as “me” isn’t infringing on others, advocating bans on gay marriage, or otherwise attempting to limit the freedoms of gay or straight people, s/he is free to think whatever even if we don’t like it.
@me - am I right? You mention “truly free society” in an early comment. Even though you hold certain views, you wouldn’t advocate amending the federal constitution to ban gay marriage, for example? That would be an obvious infringement of individual rights.
I personally think it’s an issue for states and religious leaders.
The one thing I can’t stand about discussing Gay marriage is that nobody acts more civil than a tween on a sugar rush. That’s why I don’t even bother.
Wait- you liked Hillary for president, and then completely changed your opinion because a Secret Service agent (man) didn’t like her “antics” and said that she swore? Who is this guy? It is that easy to change your opinion? And, what does Obama has “faults through friendships and policies” mean? I get the feelling that you make your mind up about people and issues and then find someone or something to justify it.
The comments have shifted to a totally new subject, but what struck me was that many of you believe that religion should conform to the changes of society. I really think that is the biggest problem with our society. We want everything to change with our reality, but how could you stake your eternal faith in something that is constantly changing and evolving? Logically and Philosophically, that doesn’t make sense to me.
I think the debate is between Traditionalism vs. Progressivism. Traditionalists look to the past and the founding fathers or a country or a religion for guidance. Progressivist believe that society will shape the values and principles of a religion, country, or organization. I guess I’m a traditionalist. I don’t think this country is that bad off so Obama’s “change” campaign doesn’t appeal to me. I don’t think Christianity needs to change either. The principles, morals, and values are not time sensitive.
Also, speaking as a Christian, I just want to add one thing. I think that one of the biggest problems with the media is that they portray Christians as haters just because we disagree with gay marriage. Just because I disagree with the gay/lesbian lifestyle, doesn’t mean I hate gays and lesbians. That is an extremely lazy way to think. Just because my wife hates guns doesn’t mean she hates everyone who owns a gun. Granted, I understand there are idiots out there that parade around stupid picket signs full of hate speech against gays, but those are not sincere Christians and they represent about 1/10 of 1% of the people out there that disagree with gay marriage. I disagree with gay marriage, because my belief is that marriage is a divine institution ordained and created by God to establish a covenant relationship between a man and a woman. He created Eve to be a partner for Adam. Giving them governmental “rights” is not the reason that sincere Christians oppose gay marriage. What’s the big deal about giving them tax advantages? it’s not a big deal, and they should get it if they truly want to be with each other. But, sincere Christians oppose it because they feel that it is undermining the role of the traditional family. I understand that many of you say that tradition has changed, but I’m just trying to explain where the Bible-belt type Christians are coming from. It’s not that we hate gays or lesbians or think they are so dirty and vile that we can’t be in contact with them. We just think that a family should be one man and one woman, because that’s how we think humanity started.
I’m not sure why it’s the government’s business at all either way. Domestic relationships should be between the individuals involved only, and they should NOT require governments’, or businesses’, or other individuals’ recognition or approval. If one individual wants to spend the rest of their life with another of the same sex, one of the opposite sex or a mixed bag, I could care less. Likewise, it should not be expected that an employer or government accomodate your lifestyle be it a traditional marraige or otherwise. I think we should remove any economic benefits associated with marriage so this argument becomes moot. If voluntary organizations want to extend benefits using their privately owned resources, let them be their own arbiters.
@Angela-Not that I should have to explain this but the secret service person I met was a woman, she was protecting Hillary during her husband’s term. I did not get a name because I was too interested in the stories she was telling AND her Hillary comment was in passing among all the other stories about the White House not even involving the Clintons but her experiences. As for Obama, I have written other blogs that extensively break down who he is and what he stands for, you can read them if you want. I can actually update those with his newest incidents with Jim Johnson, the slumlord references and his newest stunt with not allowing muslim women and asking for MORE white people behind his podium for the camera views….I’m just saying.
@Holly-I didn’t blast you, I just wanted to clear something up…and yes, this “me” character is pretty extreme and out there, that being said, I do have to agree that even if this subject was completely different it is astounding that the very people that spout free speech rhetoric and open mindedness are the same people that during an open discussion will use name calling and negative blasting toward people with different opinions, in that sense “me” is right, but that is about where our agreement ends.
I’m not sure why it’s the government’s business at all either way.
Government is a result of culture, not visa versa, that’s what libertarians and others don’t seem to get. Government, unfortunately, can be used to break down society - which is what’s been going on in the US and Europe….Change the culture or demographic and the government will change. Create a chaotic society and you will have a chaotic government.
I would think that the Iraq war was at least good for teaching that lesson.
@ me - you asked how a woman is perceived as “property” - Picture a traditional wedding: the bride is “given away” by her father - the priest (officiator) pronounces them “man and wife” - she then forgoes her name and takes her husband’s name (indicating that her identity is directly linked to either her father or husband, not herself). Also - again in tradition - the bride’s family pays a dowry to the groom’s family.
Also @ me - by your reasoning, the only people with AIDS would be gay. So, again by your reasoning, a huge percentage of Africans would therefore be gay. I don’t follow your logic since everyone that I have met who is HIV positive is heterosexual. Plus, the segment of the population in North America with the highest rate of STD’s and HIV is actually girls aged 18 - 24.
Religion aside, I view marriage as a right. A basic human right in fact. I don’t believe that a government, church, or other religion has any right to deny basic human rights to anyone. If someone chooses to get married - gay or straight - in what way will that affect you in a negative way? It won’t.
Obviously since I apparently am in a civil union not a “marriage” (I did not have a religious wedding) I agree that there should not be a distinction. Both should be referred to as marriages.
“Government is a result of culture, not visa versa…”
While I’m inclined, in spirit, to agree with you, I’m not entirely convinced that your argument is necessarily true. You seem to present a false dichotomy, that a) government is a result of culture -or- b)culture is a result of government. In both cases, you assert the premise that government and culture are intimately and necessarily linked. I don’t believe this to be the case. I would think that the history of democratic governance from Rome to Britain to the US would dispel the idea that a state’s form is necessarily dependant upon a particular idiosyncratic demographic. A proper theory of government, like a proper theory of science, should follow natural law, not cultural law.
In a nutshell, your following statement, “Change the culture or demographic and the government will change.” may be the case, but it needn’t be.
Anyway, back to the topic, the reason I don’t think it’s the government’s business is because I don’t believe that culture is substantially informed by laws. Nor do I think it should be.
Kimberley,
“Both should be referred to as marriages.”
By whom? Your rights don’t include dictating other’s terminology.
Testudo,
You’re right, I wouldn’t dream of dictating anyone’s terminology. But, why should any couple in a civil union be considered by some to be “less married” because their ceremony was not overseen by a religious leader?
What I was saying is why the distinction at all?
I think what you’re speaking of already largely exists - in Canada.
The Canadian approach to this issue is that all couples, regardless of their gender makeup, have the legal recognitions of marriage.
However, and this is important, NO spiritual group, religion or church is forced to perform weddings. This was implemented for exactly the reasons you describe - it allows that religious group to decide what its level of participation (or lack thereof) is.
This is mindnumbingly simple, and yet the US seems reluctant to adopt it.
Kimberely,
“But, why should any couple in a civil union be considered by some to be “less married” because their ceremony was not overseen by a religious leader?”
Again, considered by whom? The government should be indifferent. Anyone else can think what they want. I think we’re on the same page.
Patrick,
What is the extent of legal recognition? Does the Canadian system limit it’s legal recognition to couples, or is polygamy accepted? Also, why do domestic relationships need to be legally recognized?
“This is mindnumbingly simple, and yet the US seems reluctant to adopt it.”
Funny, I feel the same way about Canada and freedom of speech.