God and Gay Marriage

Quote: Evenbob

Making marriage genderless is a major
slap in the face for some reason. I don't
see why, it just looks like a blip on the
screen to me.

Exactly. Speaking as a married straight man, it will have zero effect on my life. I'll still be married to a woman, and our marriage will thrive (or fail) on its own merits, regardless of who my lesbian neighbor is married to.

In terms of partisan politics, I can understand intellectually why Republicans are passionately opposed to excessive taxation or burdensome environmental rules or weak national security or socialized medicine. I mostly disagree with Republicans on those issues, but I can at least recognize how each of those issues could (possibly) harm the average citizen. But same sex marriage? It will have zero effect on a heterosexual citizen's life.

In fact, if legalizing same-sex marriage ends up decreasing gay promiscuity, it's bound to reduce the spread of STDs, which benefits everyone.

I suppose I'm fine with FrGamble's assessment of same sex marriage as qualitatively different than opposite sex marriage.

But then many marriages are qualitatively different than another marriage. I guess I failed to show how Mandela might have a qualitatively different marriage than average. In fact, it would differ a whole lot than the average marriage. On many more levels than gay marriage in fact.

He makes too big a deal of one aspect and focuses on that aspect to disqualify it. That's where the reasoning fails.

Quote: reno

In terms of partisan politics, I can understand intellectually why Republicans are passionately opposed to excessive taxation or burdensome environmental rules or weak national security or socialized medicine. I mostly disagree with Republicans on those issues, but I can at least recognize how each of those issues could (possibly) harm the average citizen. But same sex marriage? It will have zero effect on a heterosexual citizen's life.

There's a book called "The Three Languages of Politics." I forget the author. It's rather short, but quite interesting. The author claims political discussions are anchored on "oppression" on the left, "civilization" on the right, and, I think, "liberty" mostly within Libertarian circles. Conservatives, then, tend to interpret developments they dislike as part of a process which will result in the fall of civilization.

I'm not defending this thesis, but it's something to think about.

I see it more simply:

Politics is about power, for the most part, and various parties want to use their power to impose their views, values or even preferences on others.

What some never realize, is they need to make their case as either affecting the pocketbook or personal security. People don't care about much more than that, and rightly so. There are other issues, but those are secondary.

For a while conservatives could indulge their irrational revulsion about homosexuality by associating mostly gay men with child molesters (they still say this, but no one takes them seriously any more). So now they're trying to play the victim, saying their religious liberty is being threatened. I repeat I don't know of any religion which mandates discrimination against LGBTI people. But apparently selling a gay couple a cake or a pizza is a deadly sin.

I pity the adherents of that mystery religion if they run a business. They must take personal histories of all their customers to make sure they don't err, and that must be terribly bad for business.

I too know of no religion that mandates not selling a cake or pizza to a gay person. This is not the issue and you know it.

Quote: FrGamble

I too know of no religion that mandates not selling a cake or pizza to a gay person. This is not the issue and you know it.

What is the issue? how the Catholic church defines marriage? That's not relevant to civil law. How "God" defines marriage? There is no god, so that would make it irrelevant. But even if you believe there is one, that, too, would be irrelevant to civil law. That you're uncomfortable calling a same sex marriage "marriage," even though you claim to favor the same civil rights for all types of couples? If so, I fail to see why you're making such a big deal about it.

I'm not being flippant nor am I dismissing your concerns. I have a BIG problem with how the word "rights" is used. Over half the time, people really mean "entitlements" rather than rights. That's a big, fundamental difference. Granted this did not come about as a result of a Supreme Court decision, but I'm not hell-bent to change it to what I say is right.

If you support equal civil rights for same sex couples, meaning the same as opposite sex couples, then it seems to me you should be happy such rights now have to be recognized by government at all levels in the US, regardless of what the union is called. But that's just my opinion. Obviously I'm not right.

Quote: Nareed

That you're uncomfortable calling a same sex marriage "marriage," even though you claim to favor the same civil rights for all types of couples? If so, I fail to see why you're making such a big deal about it.

I could ask the same question. If you claim to favor the same civil rights fro all types of couples why are you and many others making such a big deal about the word marriage?

This whole thing could have been a big win-win for both the LBGT community and for those who recognize the traditional definition of marriage and its unique and important role for society. Instead we have this big mess with people calling each other bigots and a confusion that, mark my words, will lead to at least the attempt to whittle away religious freedom. I am for trying to find common ground and gentle compromise based on reason it seems like too many others just want blunt force trauma.

Quote: FrGamble

, mark my words, will lead to at least the attempt to whittle away religious freedom.

We actually agree on something. They Gay
activists openly admit that's their goal. Even
George Takai, of Star Trek fame, said on Friday
that the new law just is another step in their
eventual goal of being accepted by mainline
religion. They won't be completely equal until
they can be married in their own church by
their own priest or minister. And he's right.

Bigotry is no longer legal in schools or the
military or in business. It shouldn't be allowed
in churches either.

Quote: FrGamble

I could ask the same question. If you claim to favor the same civil rights fro all types of couples why are you and many others making such a big deal about the word marriage?

Do you laugh when you hear the commentaries about how "fast" the issue turned? I do. It took decades. I suppose that's fast compared to other issues, but it's not fast when measured against the thousands of same sex couples who had to work hard at their unrecognized marriages (that's what they were) without any legal recognition or protections. The many who had children taken away, access to their hospitalized spouses restricted or forbidden, not to mention many additional financial and legal burdens.

I point this out, because the time to debate the appropriate use of the word "marriage" was long, long before last week's Court decision.

I first took the matter seriously around 1993 or 94, when a court in Hawaii ruled on the issue. But the fight's been going on longer.

I don't claim you had an obligation to fight or even to weigh-in for equal rights. But if you didn't take part, then you shouldn't complain much about the outcome. You should also know the folly and futility involved in trying to change something which has been established legally already. It's like the Obamacare battle. The GOP never offered an alternative, nor tried hard to amend the bill before it was voted on. Repealing it has not proven to be easy for that reason.

But you asked a question.

I am making a big deal in defense f the word "marriage" because, as I pointed out before, its what makes or real full equality. Not for its meaning, but for the existing legal and civil infrastructure regarding it.

Several states did institute civil unions. But even if these were equal to marriage, this was so only within the state. Other states wouldn't recognize it. For that legislation would be needed in each state. The federal government didn't recognize it, either. So federal taxes could not be filled jointly. A foreign-born spouse could not immigrate legally, etc.

But by recognizing same sex marriage as marriage because it just happens to be marriage, then there's equality.

Quote: Nareed

Do you laugh when you hear the commentaries about how "fast" the issue turned?

FYI a couple in Minnesota filed for a marriage license in 1971. The Hawaii case involved three couples and goes back to 1990.

Quote: FrGamble

This whole thing could have been a big win-win for both the LBGT community and for those who recognize the traditional definition of marriage and its unique and important role for society.

I don't think so. Read what I said about civil unions in a state-by-state approach, for starters.

But consider DOMA, too. There was a prohibition for the Federal government to recognize any same sex unions. That's not only discriminatory, it's downright oppressive. That particular provision fell two years ago, but it hung on for a very long time. It also "allowed" states not to recognize same sex unions registered in other states. That should have fallen, too, as there does exist a full faith and credit clause in the Constitution. Again, downright oppressive.

Lincoln warned of a nation divided against itself, half free and half slave. The differences in the degree and kind of oppression are vast, but oppression they both were. That's what we would eventually get: states with equality and states without it. The analogy is quite suitable. African Americans had greater rights in some states than others, too, until things reached the Federal level. Even then bigotry like laws against miscegenation remained in the books for years. Do you suppose a Supreme Court decision recognizing full equal rights for all citizens regardless of race in the 1940s would have been a bad thing?

Quote:

[..], mark my words, will lead to at least the attempt to whittle away religious freedom.

That depends on your definition of religious freedom. You may not believe it, but I regard freedom of religion as a most important right, more important even than free speech.

For many on the right, "religious freedom" means having their way all the time. Do you recall how they brayed and carried on after the 1990s decision declaring all laws criminalizing "sodomy" as unconstitutional? Before the Windsor decision, whether a state voted for same sex marriage or a state court established it, people on the right went insane with rage and wounded "religious freedom."

If that's what you mean, then damn right you'll loose it. And you'll deserve to.

If you mean something sensible, then I don't think there is any danger. I'm rather upset at idiots climbing onto the same sex marriage decision to advocate doing away with tax-exempt status for churches. If they win that battle they'll kill off all non-profit organizations, including charities, support groups, political advocacy organizations, etc. And it's plain wrong and, yes, downright oppressive.

Since you don't ask, yes, I do believe churches should be tax-exempt, as long as the status is equally granted to all religions without distinction (and this means pagan religions as well).

Surprised?

If you're afraid you'll have to perform a same sex marriage with someone pointing a gun at your head, I don't think that can ever happen. no doubt some morons will attempt to make it, but there's ample precedent against them. You'd know better than me, so I ask, under what conditions does a Catholic parish accept or decline to perform a marriage for any given couple? I know synagogues do and some vague standards.