As gay marriage terrain changes, shrugs across Patchwork Nation
Dante Chinni
Posted: 04.08.2009 / 7:21 AM PDT
Sometimes issues gain momentum quickly, and the ground under them can move suddenly. So it is with the issue of gay marriage.
On Friday, the Iowa Supreme Court struck down legislation that limited “marriage” to only opposite-sex couples. On Monday, a leader in Iowa’s legislature announced that it would not try to pass a constitutional amendment to override that ruling. And Tuesday, the Vermont legislature voted to override the governor’s veto of a law allowing for same-sex marriages.
That means in less than a week, the number of states where gay marriage is legal has doubled to four. Those are big changes, but thus far anyway, the reaction among Patchwork Nation’s 11 communities seems pretty muted.
Patchwork Nation focused on gay marriage in a piece just two days ago. But we’ve been hearing from our communities on the topic since then, and considering the movement on the subject, we are sharing some of those responses today.
An issue in decline, for now
In Los Alamos, N.M., our wealthy and educated “Monied ’Burb,” there doesn’t seem to be much of a gay marriage “issue.”
“Our legislature introduced a bill allowing gay marriage. It died in committee,” says Bill Enloe, chairman and CEO of Los Alamos National Bank, in an e-mail. But he also writes, “The majority of individuals in the state are in favor of allowing gay marriage. It might pass next year.”
Kevin Holsapple, executive director of the Los Alamos Chamber of Commerce, e-mailed that he had “never perceived it to be an issue” in the city.
In Lincoln City, Ore., our small-town “Service Worker Center,” some in the community are focused on the topic, according to Patchwork Nation blogger Kip Ward, who runs a local hotel. However, “For most of us, we have bigger fish to fry,” he says in an e-mail. “We just don’t bother with it one way or the other.”
In Ann Arbor, Mich., our liberal “Campus and Careers” community, one correspondent succinctly e-mailed, “Gay marriage should be a nonissue.”
And in Nixa, Mo., our socially conservative “Evangelical Epicenter,” local retiree Betty Ann Rogers wrote that she hadn’t really heard about the issue or read about it in the newspaper.
It may be that there are a lot of people like Ms. Rogers across the United States. The shifts on the issue have come very quickly, and the forces for and against are really just beginning to mobilize.
A moving target
In the coming months, it will be interesting to see how some of our more conservative communities respond to this topic. Legalization of gay marriage could become a rallying point for conservatives who are looking for something to organize around. Or it could be lost as America works through other issues, especially economic ones.
One person who can see both those possibilities is Ray San Fratello, president of the South Lake County Chamber of Commerce in Clermont, Fla. Clermont is our aging “Emptying Nest” community, which is quite conservative.
“We have several high-profile openly gay individuals and couples here that are left to ‘live and let live’ mentality by the locals with little fanfare,” he writes in an e-mail. “The institutionalizing of their arrangements through marriage, however, would probably change the attitude of the ‘people’ here, considering the conservatism and religious fervor that exists.” But he adds, “With all the really meaty issues this country has to contend with, to put this one up there with those is the proverbial tempest in a teapot and will distract us from the crucial tasks at hand.”
Clermont, as we noted a few weeks ago, is going through some serious economic struggles right now. The way this issue plays out in that community, where the older population in particular may be opposed to same-sex marriage, will be telling.
And beyond the response in Clermont or any of Patchwork Nation’s communities, there is the question of how the events in Iowa and Vermont will affect the broader picture of the US.
Forty-two states ban same-sex marriages, constitutionally or by law. What will happen in those places as the number of states granting same-sex marriages grows? How will they handle what will probably be a growing number of same-sex couples who married in other states?
All this means that a culture war may be coming over the issue, like it or not. The question is whether a nation focused on other things will engage with it.
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
April 8th, 2009 at 8:19 am PDT
If only Christians would spend more time spreading the message of the love of God and the sacrifice of Jesus for our sins instead of putting energy into messages of hate and intolerance. God is the only judge. Our mission as Christians is to become more Christlike and spread the love of Jesus. He died for our sins… shouldn’t we be telling everyone about that and not worrying about how people love others?
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
April 8th, 2009 at 8:25 am PDT
Bobcat: Those who do not reproduce, whether sterile, celibate, or gay, can nevertheless pass on their genes by contributing to the welfare of their relatives. A maiden aunt can help with child care, for example. A childless uncle can give presents or other support during difficult times. Human survive and evolve as society. The gene or tendency for ‘altruism’ will promote the survival of close relatives and thereby by proxy pass on the genetic material of those who do not reproduce.
Homosexuals throughout history have contributed to civilization. They have the same altruistic feelings and love of family as the rest of us. What purpose can be served by ostracizing, persecuting or outlawing them? Same sex marriage is a small step toward correcting this.
April 8th, 2009 at 8:26 am PDT
Bobcat, your “tolerance” of homosexuality is reminescent of white people who “tolerate” blacks, believing that if the black people are left to their own devices, they will kill themselves off. Considering that homosexuals have existed for millenia, I doubt they are going to “become extinct” anytime soon, and treating these individuals as people who carry a disability is like treating an infertile couple like they have a disability.
Homosexuals are apart of community. They are apart of country. And they are apart of many church congregations across the nation. Using such inflmatory language about homosexuality, even though you are claiming that you support their rights, hurts those who want to be able to live openly as God has made them.
Remember, you are talking about a group of people, not disable or diseased, not with anything wrong with them, just people who have been told that loving who they do is wrong and yet they persist in loving these people anyway (wouldn’t that make that love stronger than those who marry because of an unplanned pregnancy and then divorce within a few years) who just want the same rights that you and I have to be with a loved one in a hospital, to pick our kids up early from school, and to recieve the small tax breaks that the government gives to the married.
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
April 8th, 2009 at 8:28 am PDT
@egd67 - Its almost blissful to read someone admitting that their problems are down to themselves, not to someone elses relationship. I applaud you sir/madam.
April 8th, 2009 at 8:29 am PDT
Since homosexuality as a term (you might find it interesting that it preceded heterosexuality as a term) wasn’t created and defined until the 19th century, we can’t truly say that homosexuality (especially as it’s understood in the 20th-21st centuries) existed in the past, but there’s evidence that men have been sexually attracted to other men and women to women for as long as humans have been around. We (yes, I’m gay) will suffer extinction with the rest of our species. On the other hand, homosexuality is a good natural response to the crisis of overpopulation that were facing.
April 8th, 2009 at 8:31 am PDT
My two cents:
If these two Americans can get married then why can’t these two Americans marry?
We live in a Democracy, yes? A fair and just society that respects the rule of law, yes?
To suggest, and then legislate, that it’s ok for this group of Americans to engage in a state-sanctioned social ritual but this group of Americans cannot participate in that same ritual is antithetical to a representative democracy.
It’s discrimination - period.
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
April 8th, 2009 at 8:35 am PDT
I’m still trying to figure out why this is even an issue. People are peole, good, bad or indifferent. Whether gays are married or simply live together, the fundamentals of teh social equation don’t change, so why not give gays teh same rights as anyone else. The fear and loathing are just silly.
April 8th, 2009 at 8:39 am PDT
Yep Bobcat. By your argument there will only be heterosexuals and bisexuals which will continue to annoy you…
April 8th, 2009 at 8:39 am PDT
I read, a very long time ago, that some cultures of American Indians considered homosexuals blessed and an important part of their communities. Having been touched by both the male and female spirit, they were valued for their ability to see both sides.
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
April 8th, 2009 at 8:43 am PDT
1. Essentially, the anti-marriage forces are saying to gays, “You cannot enter into a civil contract that has the same name as a ceremony in my church, for which you would be ineligible, if you were a member, even though you are not.” It makes no sense.
2. Calling a person a “homosexual” reduces a human being to a sex act. The term is gay.
3. I am old enough to remember when there were two sides to the issue of racial integration. I remember segregationalists claiming that they “truly loved the Negro.” Now I hear that same sort of talk from the genital Christians.
4. My fundamentalist brother used to live in an imaginary universe in which people aren’t born gay and in which sexuality can be changed. He was confounded by the fact that his dog was gay.
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
April 8th, 2009 at 8:45 am PDT
From what I understand, homosexual runs about 10% in humans (give or take). And I believe that there is little or no correlation to how tolerant the particular culture is - you still get roughly 10%. This sort of consistent percentage is also true of other primates, mammals, and even other species. I.e. in any given population there will be some percentage of “gay” indiviuals.
In other words, referring to homosexually as a defect ignores the world as we find it (if we are willing to put aside our dogmas and look).
There is no need to fear that tolerance will lead to an increase in the gay population. But there is certainly hope that many will live happier and less tortured lives.
We should base what unions we sanction on how succesfull they are - how much they provide love, compassion and support. I know so many gay people who clearly add to the net pool of these (and other) positive values that I am convince that tolerance is to all our advantage.
Intolerance is not just ugly, it’s unwise.
April 8th, 2009 at 8:45 am PDT
All, I am so thrilled to read a blog regarding this subject that isn’t filled with hate and intolerance (exception of Bobcat’s post). My partner and I “married” in Hawaii 13 years ago, long before it was legal in any state. Our marriage is like any heterosexual marriage. There are ups and downs, and there is tremendous love for each other. I cannot imagine life without him, and I can’t imagine how anyone could want to deny another human being the opportunity to find that same love.
April 8th, 2009 at 8:46 am PDT
Somebody should tell Newt Gingrich. He’s making his run for 2012 and still uses the term “Activist Judges” to rally his flavor of hate. Someone should show him a copy of the Constitution with the 14th amendment highlighted.
April 8th, 2009 at 8:48 am PDT
Like sand through the hour glass…these are finally the days of OUR lives. It’s ludicrous that this far into the 21st century we are even having this debate. Marriage for everyone or no one. Leave Church out of politics or if they insist on trying to influence law that affects the rest of society, they should be taxed like the rest of us. So sit down and shut-up already.
April 8th, 2009 at 8:48 am PDT
The word of god is open to a tremendous amount of interpretation.
April 8th, 2009 at 8:49 am PDT
If you’re gay, then you’re gay. If you’re not then you’re not. That’s should be the extend of this situation, I don’t understand why people choose to make it more difficult then it is.One idea that I have gotten from the general consesus of those who disaprove of gay people is that there is this “fear” that somehow a heterosexual individual could be turned gay. As far as I know gay people are gay not mind controllers,so I could never understand what the fuzz could be about.
April 8th, 2009 at 8:49 am PDT
egb67 says…[married gays in massachusetts]”just generally help their areas be better places.”
It _has_ been quiet in massachusetts, after the initial fanfare, and predictably gay marriage has done little or nothing to disrupt the social fabric. But neither is there something especially idyllic about a same sex marriage. There are divorces and abuse in gay marriages, too, and nothing about being married determines whether an individual or couple is helping make a “better place.”
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
April 8th, 2009 at 8:53 am PDT
Tex, to everything there is a season and time to every purpose under heaven. Pehaps this is the time for tolerance and the time to stop thinking that people who have a different lifestyle are “lost” or otherwise inferior. I agree with @egd67. My problems was with my marriage (I’m a man)were because of women, not other men.
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
April 8th, 2009 at 8:55 am PDT
Gay marriage isn’t at the forefront of people’s minds right now because it’s not an election year. Rest assured - as the midterms approach, like clockwork the Republican Party will drag it back out… along with abortion and the other social wedge issues that they exploit.
April 8th, 2009 at 9:02 am PDT
To Dennison: I have never heard of a neighborhood that was gentrified (that is, “made a better place”) by heterosexuals. Otherwise you are right.
April 8th, 2009 at 9:03 am PDT
If the issue of marriage is reduced to a “right,” then I hope the sentimentalists commenting here understand that this right may be exercised by anyone at all for any reason, and that affection or “love” is not the only legitimate basis for it, nor is the number “2″ sacrosanct as anything but an arbitrary and oppressive limit on this right.
There’s no good reason why three or four roomies at college couldn’t marry, and enjoy whatever perqs their school offers married students.
Slippery slope to the meaningless of marriage? Um . . . yeah?
April 8th, 2009 at 9:04 am PDT
It is the first time I read this website and I am delighted to see the open minds. When you realize that homosexuality is criminalized and discriminated in highly repressive countries and that countries like Canada just don’t waste time with these issue… you have to wonder what democracy means really. If it is a debate of words, who cares if you call it ‘marriage’ or ‘civil unions’, as long as they have the same rights and obligations before the law, seriously, spend your time on more important issue. In Canada, a marriage is performed in a Church, a civil union at city hall, both have the same legal status. If extremist religious views don’t preach tolerance, then let them marry in their churchs and rule their own repressive states. Jesus teaches tolerance, remember who he was hanging around with anyways…. When people will look at these debates in 20 years, who will you be remembered? As the Jim Crows of our time? It is time to move on people, humans are humans and deserve the same basic rights. It is sad than in the greatest ‘democracy’ of all, some people have less rights in front of the law than others just because of religious beliefs…wait… in many countries women don’t have the right to vote because of these same reasons… let’s show progress for once….
April 8th, 2009 at 9:04 am PDT
Every adult on earth…regardless of age, economic status, religion, race, or nationality….has the right to marry - EXCEPT gay people. You could choose to marry someone of the opposite sex, but you would be living with someone you could never love or be attracted to. No person can choose who they fall in love with. A straight person can not make themselves fall in love with a person of the same sex. A gay person can not make themselves fall in love with the opposite sex. Not too tough to understand!
April 8th, 2009 at 9:07 am PDT
Moreover, if the excuse is that they can’t have children, all ‘marriage’ of sterile couples should be void. At least, let’s be consistent.
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
April 8th, 2009 at 9:08 am PDT
As a Christian however, you are admonished by Christ to turn the other cheek, and by Paul the Apostle to live in the world but not be of it. Therefore, seeking to establish through rule of law anything that hinders the freedom of any other individual is not Christian. It is similar to the kind of behavior that has been practiced against Christians throughout history - the marginalization of worshipers and limits on their freedom is the same type of behavior as the marginalization of social minorities and limits on their freedom. As soon as people realize this, whether they believe it is right or wrong for themselves to be homosexual, they have no right to tell other humans what they can and can’t do. If a particular church chooses not to support or conduct gay marriages, that is the business of that church, but to seek to force other churches and people to bide by their religious ideas is the same kind of religious oppression that caused many to settle in America in the first place. We’re a free country, and freedom is the basis of our democracy. Each person should therefore be free to practice any behavior they wish as long as it does not infringe anyone else’s basic right to freedom from oppression and aggression.
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
April 8th, 2009 at 9:09 am PDT
I have served in the military for nine years now. We are taught to be tolerant of other religions, and lifestyles of other countries. I know a lot of homosexual men and women in the military. I have made it a point to learn all I can about a person, religion and lifestyles of all the places I have been. Keep an open mind and try to understand them. Homosexuals are no different than heterosexuals, they are who they are and we as a nation that is supposed to be free for all people, need to have a clear and open mind. It is not about tolerance, it is knowledge the more you have the better you can understand that person, country or religion and to respect those. Only then can you find true peace and simplicity in your life.
April 8th, 2009 at 9:10 am PDT
To all those who sit in judgment against gay people, especially those rabid fundamentalist Christians who condemn gays, I repeat what a great Man of Peace said “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”
To all those who judge gays as being sinners, I remind you that the lie you told last week will send you to **** just as fast as what you accuse gays of.
I love it when straight people tell gay people that homosexuality is a choice. How in the world would you know? I have yet to hear ONE straight person say that their orientation was a concious choice. Yet your judgmental ways have killed more people than you can imagine.
This is the land of the FREE. That should mean FREEDOM to choose who you marry. To not allow that, or to call it something else, is not the essence of freedom. It’s like the days when African-Americans counted as half a person (historical fact).
I will support the ban of gay marriage when we ban divorce.
I don’t
April 8th, 2009 at 9:10 am PDT
Wow. I usually read the comments of the NY Times, and leave the more provincial periodicals alone. What an amazing difference of readership and response. So this is where all the subversive creatures of conservatism and non-thought hang out…the psychological defectives like ‘Bobcat’ will keep me laughing for days. Extinction, indeed…love and happiness will only ever continue to evolve, my friends, in all their varied forms. Things like cancer, predators of children, sociopaths, serial killers…pray for the extinction of these.
April 8th, 2009 at 9:12 am PDT
A “non-issue”? Yeah, unless you are a person who cannot legally marry, and therefore you are ineligible to receive your partner’s healthcare coverage. Or you want to file your tax return, and you and your partner are unable to receive the same “filing jointly” tax breaks as your neighbors. Or your partner is terminally ill, but the hospital won’t recognize your relationship, with its rights to decision-making and visitation. Otherwise, sure, if this does not PERSONALLY affect you then it’s a non-issue. Kind of like slavery or Jim Crow laws were to many northern whites- a non-issue.
April 8th, 2009 at 9:14 am PDT
I too am from Massachusetts (born and raised), as were most of my ancestors. Of course I heard the scare tactics, “As soon as one state legalizes gay marriage, more will follow, and ‘traditional marriage’ will cease to exist. Well several years have passed since that historic event, and yes, I have seen “traditional” marriages fall apart during that time. For reasons such as spousal abuse, infidelity, couples falling apart over time…The exact same reasons “traditional” marriages have failed in the first place. Same sex marriage had absolutely NO impact in this state as far as destroying opposite sex marriage. If a marriage is going to fall apart, it’s going to happen regardless of whether or not the respective state/city/country allows same sex marriage. In fact, same sex marriages have the potential to fall apart just the same! Of course, there will always be the bigoted and divisive agenda, doing whatever they can to marginalize any equal rights/recognition that homosexuals deserve (notice I said EQUAL rights, not SPECIAL rights, another scare tactic used frequently). And as for it being a “defect”, or something that can be “overcome”, those of us who have accepted our sexual orientation know that it wasn’t something that we simply chose. Many of us prayed to Jesus, Mary, God/Allah, etc literally begging to have those feelings go away (I did for 12 years myself), and when nothing changed, I nearly became Atheist. I couldn’t understand why God wouldn’t help me to become “normal” (at least in the eyes of many churches/fundamentalists). I was listening to what those preachers were saying and it took a long time for me to believe that perhaps this is just the way I was created, and finally felt an inner peace I hadn’t really ever experienced. I’m very grateful to those who understand, or at least don’t judge, and completely disregard those fundamentalists, who in my opinion, are personally appalled by something they have no clue about, and use their cult mentality to rally the masses.
April 8th, 2009 at 9:16 am PDT
As a very heterosexual, I have absolutely no problem with the union of gays by law into units which enjoy the exact tax, inheritance, and other laws as govern heterosexual “marriage.” I also have no difficulty calling these unions by any other name than “marriage” in order to appease the evangelicals. Or call them marriages. What difference does the name make?
And what should it be to me that gay couples be governed by the laws of married persons? I will listen to any valid and logical reason presented, but over the past few years I have encountered not a single good reason to deny equality of treatment. Most of the time the objection to equality seems to boil down to the Bible, and this cannot stand in light of the separation clause of the US Constitution. Perhaps someone has a valid reason. I’m interested in reading it.
April 8th, 2009 at 9:16 am PDT
Tex, I am assuming that the Leviticus prohibition against homosexuality is he basis of your statement. If you read just a couple of verses further you would find the “word of God” says that divorced heterosexuals who remarry are guilty of adultery and that both participants in the second marriage should be “put to death”. Seem we have an equal oportunity God who hates most people, seeing as about 50% of American marriages end in divorce and most of those remarry. If the statistics are to be believed, somewhere between 5% and 10% of the population is homosexual, that wipes 55% to 65% of Americans off the heaven bound list. Now lets consider that 35% or more of live births in the United states are products of unwed sex, ie: *******, they are condemned to **** not because of anything they did, but because the parents are guilty of “Godless behavior”. And the list goes on! Heaven is going to be the highly exclusive private **** of some seriously sanctimonious people. Christians, don’t bother flaming me, it won’t do any good because I don’t care what you think. I find that most of you only use the Bible as a reference book to find reasons to condemn others.
April 8th, 2009 at 9:18 am PDT
A great thread, mostly expressions of understanding and tolerance and acceptance. Especially when compared to other threads on gay marriage, where extremists rant and rave about their religious convictions. Especially encouraging are the comments accepting homosexuals as what they are, just different, not defective or that way by choice.
Someone suggested that marriage is a religious invention that has been taken ovr by the state. Rather, it is both a religious and a civil institution. The courts that have decided this issue and the Vermont legislature have only addressed civil marriage, deciding that “equal protection” must mean that gay people can have a civil marriage. Note that the Iowa court vote was unanimous and included both Democrat and Republican judges.
No one is forcing any religion to provide religious marriage to gay people, although over time that will happen as well.
RCharles
April 8th, 2009 at 9:19 am PDT
Our forefathers were not devout Christians. That is a silly, silly myth. Stop conflating the Bible and our legal history.
April 8th, 2009 at 9:20 am PDT
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
As long as what you pursue harms no others. The only harm here is from the people against Gay Marriage.
April 8th, 2009 at 9:21 am PDT
******** about it and banning gay marriage isn’t going to stop homosexuality. We can’t force Christian values on an entire nation, that just causes more problems then what we started out with. If anything it is pushing people farther and farther away from Christianity. I agree with Eric. If we actually focus on love instead of hate and condemnation, maybe things will change. This really shouldn’t be an issue of religion. It’s just something that is hard to accept with the way society has always been. Im neither for or against gay marriage. I guess either way I really dont give a s***.
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
April 8th, 2009 at 9:22 am PDT
So, how about a compromise. The state, which is the only entity that can legitimize a marriage, would be limited to simply issuing marriage licenses and recording marriages. Beyond that, the matter would be left to the religious or cultual beliefs of the partners. Christians could have their one-man/one-woman unions. Mormons could have their one-man/several-woman situations. Gays and lesbians have their same-sex unions. Etcetera. As long as marriages involve consenting adults, who should care?
April 8th, 2009 at 9:23 am PDT
Thanks to the “administrator’ for deleting inappropiate comments. I have seen the vicious hatefull postings onother sites and we should not give those people a forum for their hatred and bigotry.
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
April 8th, 2009 at 9:27 am PDT
Is Civil war is around the corner?
Combine the disregard for the voters with a collapsing economy, the conservatives feeling what they think is a slide towards socialism and what they think is a re-treading of and on their Constitution, yes they believe it is theirs,.. personally given to them as a present from both the Founding Fathers and God Almighty.
This is going to be tremendously more divisive viscerally, spiritually and Constitutionally than the issue of racial in-equality ever was. Obama had it right, they will cling to their guns and religion, check out the ammunition stock at your local stores, the munitons factories can’t make enough to keep up with the demand. I am afraid that blood will flow and soon.
April 8th, 2009 at 9:28 am PDT
Oy.
You do not need to get married to procreate or raise a family.
Marriage enjoys correlation with family, but is not causation.
There are plenty of families created by unwed parents.
Therefore the marriage = family argument is false.
Bible thumpers: each and every fundamentalist trots out their own interpretation of the word of god regarding homosexuality. It’s a book, written by many people, with many different agendas. This does not make it the definitive word on the human experience. Every society has a religion and god(s). The question “Which one is right?” is a false question. The question is why societies develop religion in the first place. This has been
studied thoroughly already - it’s called sociology.
Does that sound familiar? It should. This process repeats itself constantly in human evolution with nuance. If one has an open mind and is not bound by rigid ideology then one can understand this.
Homosexuality is simply a statistical biological event, like all biological instances. X number of brown eyes, X number of blue eyes, X number of missing toes, X number of mental retardation, X number of relatively normal, X number of tall, short, wide, skinny, etcetera etcetera.
Who really cares if gays and lesbians want to marry except those that don’t want them to? Really - who is that?
So far it would appear that conservative republicans, religous fundamentalists (Christian, Catholic, Taliban, etc.), rascists and bigots fall into this category. Anyone see a trend?
Rigid ideology = intolerance, mistrust of science, mistrust of education, acceptance of religous dogma and so on. Virgin birth anyone?
April 8th, 2009 at 9:28 am PDT
The gay marriage issue confuses two arguments. On the one hand you have people who define marriage by “Christian” standards, and on the other you simply have the tax benefits etc.
Marriage is not a “Christian” concept. Hindus get married the same way Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Sikhs, and Muslims get married. If you wanted to make a definitive case against gay marriage, you would have to prove that every religion is in agreement that marriage is reserved for man and woman. Even if you were able to do that, what if gays decided to call their marriage something else, but reaped all of the same legal benefits? Would you care then? This whole gay marriage thing seems like an argument over semantics and comes across as a bit outdated for the “leaders of the free world” to still be talking about.
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
April 8th, 2009 at 9:29 am PDT
A great thread, mostly expressions of understanding and tolerance and acceptance. Especially when compared to other threads on gay marriage, where extremists rant and rave about their religious convictions. Especially encouraging are the comments accepting homosexuals as what they are, just different, not defective or that way by choice.
Someone suggested that marriage is a religious invention that has been taken ovr by the state. Rather, it is both a religious and a civil institution. The courts that have decided this issue and the Vermont legislature have only addressed civil marriage, deciding that “equal protection” must mean that gay people can have a civil marriage. Note that the Iowa court vote was unanimous and included both Democrat and Republican judges.
No one is forcing any religion to provide religious marriage to gay people, although over time that will happen as well.
RCharles
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
April 8th, 2009 at 9:31 am PDT
Sex! Don’t let the kids find out! Sex is more intolerable than violence. You can see make believe violence on TV any night of the week, but a naked breast, call the FCC!
Sadly, we live in a culture where bloodshed is more acceptable a subject than sexuality. Sexuality is not evil. I’m not saying I want our kids watching ****. I’m saying that we’ve somehow labeled sex as a necessary evil.
I don’t want to see the couple at the table next to me in a restaurant making out (whether gay or straight). But I really couldn’t care less what they do in private.
Sex and sexuality are positive, fun, beautiful, even holy. I hope that sentiment will eventually come to be the norm in our nation. In the mean time, I’m sorry that homosexuals have to bare the brunt of our cultural phobia.
April 8th, 2009 at 9:32 am PDT
To Bobcat:
You might want to be careful with your references to homosexuality as a “disability.” If it were to be considered a disability (which I think would be absurd), homosexuals would become a protected class in employment contexts under the Americans with Disabilities Act, which would entitle them to reasonable accommodation with regard to essential job functions. I’m not sure what it is you think homosexuals can’t do, but businesses (meeting certain criteria) would have to accommodate those disabilities. Under the ADA, homosexual people could also litigate against employers with regard to all employment-related decisions (e.g., selection, promotion, compensation, firing, etc.).
Is that really the can of worms you intended to open?
Of course, you might just want to start with your apparent misapprehensions regarding biology and the current lack of information (and likely, lack of relevance) of the role of genetics in homosexuality. Just a thought.
April 8th, 2009 at 9:33 am PDT
The three dead giveaways to an intolerant, abusive or racist mind are:
We need to do this for our CHILDREN…
This is against what GOD wants…
This is not the AMERICAN way…
For those of you who hysterically shout, ‘gay marriage cheapens my marriage’, you can select the above category that fits you best.
New Commandments for living together:
Shut up about your RELIGION.
Shut up about your SEXUALITY.
Shut up about your POLITICS.
Have a fun day.
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
April 8th, 2009 at 9:35 am PDT
The exit polls in California over Proposition 8 were very interesting. People below approximately 30 years old were pretty overwhelmingly against the Constitutional ban. So it is truly only a matter of time. That it is a matter of such a large amount of time is the hard part. “Marriage” is just a word. And for all of you conservatives out there that say a civil union as it stands is just fine, why don’t you get one then, and see for yourself? The truth is that most of the rights granted in a marriage are not granted in a civil union. I also have to wonder why American Christians point to the “word of God” as being against homosexuals, but European Christians do not? America loves to pretend that it’s so sophisticated and edgy, but it’s really the most conservative industrialized nation in the world. @Jacob: America’s founders wanted a country built on reason and rationality. Many of them were not even Christians, but Deists. Go read the Jefferson Bible and see for yourself before you talk about America’s founders.
April 8th, 2009 at 9:36 am PDT
I don’t believe that anyone is 100 percent gay or straight. We’re all on a continuum somewhere. If you can unwrap your mind from that one, then you’ll realize that to be afraid of gay people is to be afraid of yourself. Know that being any part gay is perfectly natural and absolutely the way Spirit intends and you won’t be afraid of yourself or anyone else anymore. When people quote from the Bible, why do they always choose that nasty stuff? What if we all used our God-given brains and actually, really THOUGHT about these things instead of regurgitating old, SUPERSTITIOUS ways of thinking. Not using your brains is an insult to the Creator. We’re not a bunch of rocks. THINK! Then go hug someone and pay your bills, clean your house, mow your lawn, spend time with your kids or cousins or friends and neighbors. Go create something beautiful and help to make your part of the world a nicer place to live.
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
April 8th, 2009 at 9:38 am PDT
In response to Bobcat: There are mechanisms proposed for the survival of genetic traits in a population, even when those trait lower (or eliminate) the reproductive chances of the individual. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinship_selection). Thus, it would be possible to have a steady state homosexual population as long as they assisted in the survival of relatives.
April 8th, 2009 at 9:40 am PDT
“What has Christian America come to? Read Romans chapter one in the bible. Homosexuality is an abomination to God. All those that support it and are part of it will surely not stand in front of God almighty buy spend eternity with Satan. That’s what the Bible says.”
Since when has America been a “Christian Nation” Have you no sense of history, this nation was founded on the concept of freedom of religion and the separation of Church and State. Because the government got into the marriage business, it now has the responsibility to provide equal protection under the law. If marriage was still strictly provided only by the church, then you might have an argument against gay marriage. But as a legal contract entered into by two people sanctioned by the government, marriage is just that, a contract which must be available to all.
We are not a christian America, we are just America. Your labels do not make it so.
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
April 8th, 2009 at 9:42 am PDT
Martin is very close to a potential reality. And it’s not even going to be caused by things as abstract as “gay marriage” — because, please, who outside of direct family members, is affected by the marriage of anyone? It’s going to be caused by local issues — read the small local papers around the country if you want to get really scared — that blow up into “them-and-us” symbolic issues.
April 8th, 2009 at 9:42 am PDT
Maybe the government should not be in the marriage business and just grant legal contracts. If a “marriage” is desired, it may be performed by a church or private organization. This would preserve the social institution of marriage.
April 8th, 2009 at 9:43 am PDT
I’m another yawner in Massachusetts.
The thing which broke my heart, before gay marriage passed, was that the gay partner wasn’t allowed into the hospital room of someone in serious condition, even when they had been lifelong companions. How can this happen in a compassionate society? When I look at my wife, and think that some law could separate us like that, we’ll it changed my whole view.
Here in New England, with 3 out of 6 states with gay marriage, and at least another one (the most conservative of all, New Hampshire) with civil unions, we all seem to get along just fine. I forget about gay marriage, until another country or state passes it.
That is how it should be. Interracial marriage was legally banned, a few years ago, and now, no one looks twice. Gays have always been an active part of every community, since they are a substantial part of the population everywhere. Why should they have to hide, or be ashamed, or live lonely lives as pariahs, or be taxed unfairly, when they are contributing to society like everyone else?
It is what is in peoples’ hearts, not what is on the surface, whether it is gender or race or anything else. The gay people are made in God’s image, as well as the straight people. If Ellen’s marriage to Portia turns your stomach, you need to take a good look in the mirror, and wonder what is in your heart, love or bigotry.
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
April 8th, 2009 at 9:45 am PDT
You can predict a culture war. Or you can predict a smooth and easy transition. What kind of world are you creating with your thoughts and your words? Do you have some knowledge of the traditions that Christian Science is a part of?
April 8th, 2009 at 9:46 am PDT
I am I so tired of religious fundamentalists pushing their religious beliefs on other people. Jesus taught love and tolerance. Why not PRACTICE this belief??
April 8th, 2009 at 9:50 am PDT
“God created Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve.”
You probably believe that the earth is only 6000 years old too.
April 8th, 2009 at 9:53 am PDT
How long will we go on before Christian stories and teachings move from the Religion departments to the Mythology ones? When will the world wake up and realize that a world governed by Christian teachings is a hopeless one, without objective morality or equality? How many more crusades and inquisitions will it take? How many more Popes will tell Africans to not use condoms? When will every immoral act someone commits be forgiven by eating a wafer and drinking grape juice on a Sunday morning?
The charade will end I think, someday.
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
April 8th, 2009 at 9:55 am PDT
As Jesse Ventura (ex-wrestler and ex-governor) said,
“Love is bigger than government,” Ventura, taking a break from his studies as a fellow at the Institute of Politics at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, said at a State House news conference yesterday. “Government should not have the right to tell you who you fall in love with and who you want to spend your life with.”
“I’m a tough guy, I chew on cigars, I live life to the fullest,” Ventura said. “But I don’t like it when I see human rights violated. . . . We are not the Hetero States of America. America should be inclusive, not separating.”
“How is my marriage under attack if two gays or lesbians down the street want to make a lifelong commitment to themselves?”
Here in Massachusetts, we get along without the implied bigotry of putting marriage in quotes, when it is a gay marriage, or saying it “just leads to the further degradation of our society. No big deal.” These are cheap shots. These gay people have been working next to you, worshiping in your churches, teaching your kids, doctoring your ill people, and building your societies for years.
Why should they have to pay more taxes that you, or stay out of the hospital room when their loved one is dying?
Guess what. We’ve had gay marriage for years. Nothing happened. It’s boring to the rest of us, and a real joy to gay people. God has not smote any of us. Life goes on.
April 8th, 2009 at 9:56 am PDT
Its funny that people find such offense at the concept of other citizens of this country and planet not being allowed to share the same basic rights that all people do. While there is no evidence at all to state that my getting the right to marry the partner of my choice, whether of the same sex or not, causes others marriages any harm it is an argument that continues to prevail. Lets state it clear, we are all part of the same communities, and we are all citizens of this world deserving of the same equalities.
Until this basic concept is seen we will not reach past this debate and be the better nation.
April 8th, 2009 at 9:57 am PDT
I think this trend was inevitable.
As more friends come out we get to know their partners and they become integrated into our social circles as a couple. It becomes very difficult to tell your friends that you don’t think they deserve to get married. Even if you never actually have to say it to their faces, it’s hard to have personal integrity and say that you don’t believe they should have the same rights as a gay couple as you do in your straight relationship. I can’t do it; it doesn’t feel right.
April 8th, 2009 at 9:59 am PDT
“Read Romans chapter one in the bible. Homosexuality is an abomination to God. All those that support it and are part of it will surely not stand in front of God almighty buy spend eternity with Satan.”
The bible also states to stone the adulterer (only the woman), are you stating the Nuwt’s wife should be stoned as she was in an affair prior to his divorce.
April 8th, 2009 at 10:00 am PDT
A majority of the opposition statements are from those who are christian. But we don’t live in a theocracy, we live in a democratic republic, which means I don’t have to live by your religious dogma’s rules - I get to live by my own beliefs. It also means, you should not be allowed to legislate your religous beliefs through secular law to make me submit to your religious dogma. So no matter what the topic is, no ONE religion gets to have the say. Citizens should be treated as citizens no matter their differences. And if two adult citizens want to join in marriage with all the burdens, honors, and responsibilities, then who is anyone else to deny them that right of happiness?
April 8th, 2009 at 10:04 am PDT
“Civil unions and equal rights to benefits are issues not equal to or defined by marriage, there’s your angle for social equality,”
Fair enough, as long as everyone; heterosexual, homosexual, polyamorous etc. gets equal civil unions. Leave the term “marriage” to religion.
“because no matter what the letter of liberal law says traditional perspectives will never recognize gay marriage”
Ignore it all you want, but equality and justice is on its way.
“it would be a contradiction in nature that those without the defect cannot perceive.”
Not sure what “defect” you mean. I’m a middle-aged white, married, non-college-educated male living in Minnesota, so I’m not some mythical elitist, but I can see that fairness is fairness, and to discriminate against someone under the law is unacceptable, unconstitutional, and flat-out wrong. Justice, fairness, and freedom are coming, and all you can do is fight a rearguard action.
April 8th, 2009 at 10:05 am PDT
There’s a lot of talk about “voter’s will” and “democracy” circling around this issue. As much as I believe in democracy, I don’t want my basic human rights to be dictated by a 50%+1 vote. Rule of law and fundamental liberties are the foundation of our democracy. It’s not the other way around. The courts are the last line of defense for the rights of the individual. The Third Reich began as a democracy. The people chose to take away the rights of others by majority vote.
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
April 8th, 2009 at 10:07 am PDT
I have a humble and simple idea:
Currently marriage is a tangle of religious sacrament, and governmentally controlled legal contract that grants many legal privileges and rights to couples that are married that unmarried couples do not enjoy.
If we continue to untangle religion and government and separate marriage from governmental control, we can allow marriage to be a religious sacrament, and leave it to the religious institution to be as inclusive or exclusive as they see fit. If a particular religion wishes to withhold the sacrament of marriage from same-sex couples, so be it. If other religions wish to be inclusive allow same sex couple to participate in the sacrament of marriage, then so be it. People are free to choose their religion, or free to choose no religion.
The government should not have any saw whatsoever in dispensing of religious sacraments by
The government should continue to recognize and enforce the legal contract and grant the legal privileges and rights, but without religious consideration. This could be called a domestic contract, or domestic partnership.
So we would be left with two fully separate institutions, a religious sacrament, and a governmentally enforced legally binding contract.
April 8th, 2009 at 10:11 am PDT
As a minister, I welcome the decision of the Iowa Supreme Court and the vote of the Vermont legislature. For too long religion has been used to build barriers when it should have been breaking them. In this season of rebirth I pray that those of us spiritually inclined heed the call to repent (metanoyata in Greek, the language of the Gospels, which means to go beyond the mind you have) and live with awareness of and as witnesses for the boundless love of God to the benefit of all people. Happy Passover and Easter. Blessing to all!
And to GenniferRules:
We live in a republic with a representative form of government (i.e. you elect leaders -legislators and governors, etc.- who then appoint and confirm judges - some states elect their judges) so your populist style outrage seems to be directed against the legal system working the way it was designed to in a republic. By your logic we should just hold popular elections for every issue. Then even less will get done than it does now; I’m sure few of us want that.
April 8th, 2009 at 10:13 am PDT
OK, this thing ate part of my post. Reposting…
hross78 Says:
“I don’t believe people are created equal”
So you’re not American? “We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal…”
“No one sees mentally retarded people fighting for fairness in court,”
Perhaps you need to get out more; never heard of the ADA?
“why do we have to entertain homosexuality, because it’s a growing social norm?”
Because it’s right and fair to do so?
“Not even fifty years ago it was still against society’s belief to be gay, so what happened?”
A hundred years ago people of different races couldn’t marry. Two hundred years ago, people could keep slaves. What happened is that we as a society are growing up.
April 8th, 2009 at 10:15 am PDT
If you don’t like homosexuals your forum to voice your disapproval is your church. Don’t let your church marry them, but to tell a man or woman that they must marry someone of the opposite sex in order to get government benefits is amoral. Every American has a right to those benefits and other benefits. Did you ever think the backlash that could come if you get your way. Tons of homosexuals in hetero relationships so they can live your ideal of a life, talk about a dysfunctional family, society and system; there is no positive outcome from your argument…. on that point I don’t think you bible thumpers know what you want, you just want to be heard..
April 8th, 2009 at 10:15 am PDT
Dustin:
As I understand it, you have asserted that marriage is a religious concept that has been borrowed by government and that you would be fine with government recognizing only civil unions for both heterosexual and homosexual couples, but that it would still not make sense (to you) to refer to homosexual unions as “marriages.”
I assume you mean that the use and recognition of the term would be merely a function of individual decisions regarding recognition. If that is the case, it seems your personal disapproval (or that of your church) would be as inconsequential to those homosexual couples as is the disapproval some people have for mixed-race couples, mixed-religion couples, etc. I think that is as it should be.
I do wonder, though, if you are as adamantly opposed to the recognition of mixed-religion or atheistic marriages, given that those are surely greater abominations in the eyes of your god (i.e., because at least one of the couple denies the existence or relevance of your god… let alone one of his/her tenets).
Of course, if you’re opposed to the term “marriage” for same-sex couples because you find it “icky.” Get over it. I find yellow squash icky, but I don’t want to deny other people the ability to grow it or eat it.
Then again, maybe you worry that other people wearing rings on their left ring-fingers, being able to visit each other in the hospital, enjoy certain testate rights, and so forth would endanger your marriage. In that case, rest assured your life won’t change; other people will just be happier.
Or perhaps, you are a fan of “tradition.” In that case, I invite you to renounce all things modern and go sling feces against the walls of caves. Not all old ideas are worth keeping.
April 8th, 2009 at 10:17 am PDT
lvis Says:
“What was it that the men of the city wanted to “do” to the 2 angels that came into lot’s house?”
And ol’ Lot was such a nice guy that he said he’d hand over his two virgin daughters to the mob instead. A great example to all of us…
“America, the judgement has begun on you for turning your back on the Lord God Almighty. You have deified yourself, you have worshipped animals,”
Who worships animals?
“You were warned over and over again by God’s Word but you didn’t listen.”
Or we don’t care: not everyone follows your branch of Abrahamic religion. Follow the strictures of your god, by all means, but don’t think that in this free society you get to force everyone else to.
April 8th, 2009 at 10:21 am PDT
A few questions come to mind after reading:
1. Who is “redefining” marriage? Hasn’t marriage been a constantly evolving term? Didn’t it used to, and in some places still represent a form of property exchange? Wasn’t it used as a means of making and breaking political alliances throughout world history? Wasn’t it practiced long before the birth of Christ? How is it that Christians have come to view their current incarnation as “the natural” version?
2. What exactly makes a judge “activist”? Are they not constitutionally bound to issue rulings based on the laws of their state, district or country? Does not an accurate reading of our nation’s founding documents (the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist Papers - all of which are available to view for free at the very machines we all currently sit at and type on and which many of the readers may do well to check out before posting here) demonstrate the judiciary is and was always intented to be a co-equal branch of our government? Isn’t our whole process for placing them on the bench to remove them from the political pressures and heated emotions of debates such as these? How have we become so comfortable criticizing them as undemocratic?
3. For those quoting scripture or those moved by such quotes, I wonder if you would indulge me; look in your own Bible and I’ll bet that the chapters and verses quoted here do not match, word for word, the same verses in your Bible at home. Could this be, perhaps, because the Bible was not written by English speakers? How is it that American Christians are so focused on the words of God and yet do not take the time to learn His language the way the Jewish religion encourages an understanding of Hebrew or the way Islam encourages the learning of Arabic? Do we not lose an incredible amount of understanding and nuance in this willful ignorance? Does it also say “King James” on your Bible? Have you ever wondered who King James was and how his Bible differed from that of those before the 1600s? Even if we were to accept that political arguments could fairly be framed in religious dialogue or supported by religious texts, how can we take those arguments seriously from a group that amounts illiterates?
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
April 8th, 2009 at 10:25 am PDT
shoshana posted verses from Leviticus…
April 8th, 2009 at 9:21 am EDT
-1Flag this post as inappropriate
Leviticus 20:13
If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable.
Leviticus 18:22
Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
response: Gay men do not lie with women, so this doesn’t refer to them. it’s refering to straight men who have sex with other men. And if you think of the time when the Bible was written, the audience was straight men (they’re the ones who were in power). Gay men and all women were not thought of as important enough to be educated.
But if you ignore that, how do you ignore that we shouldn’t wear clothing made from different fabrics? Detestable as well? No, that’s punishable by death. Be more afraid of your cotton-poly blend than people’s sexual practices.
Romans 1:2
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones
Response: Does that mean that naturally homosexual people will turn unnaturally straight and naturally straight people will turn unnaturally gay?
April 8th, 2009 at 10:26 am PDT
Telum wrote:
“All arguments for gay marriage apply to polygamy, man-animal, virtual partners, etc. For those of you that are for gay marriage, are you also for polygamy? For marriage between man and dog? Your arguments allow for these kinds of partnerships, do you not see this?”
Telum, do the dogs in your community vote and pay taxes? Are they mentioned in the Contitution? I think you might want to reconsider your analogy.
As for polygamy, remind me again what the arguments are against that?
I find it amusing that you are so concerned about the dangerous potential consequences of living by our Constitutional tenets. I’m OK with ensuring life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness of others… and it’s not at all scary to me.
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
April 8th, 2009 at 10:30 am PDT
Folks, the thing is, give the way the economy is right now, having two guys marry is trivial. Look at Vermont, gays marry there and what happens? Nothing, the world doesn’t stop turning, america didn’t collapse, and all that happened is two americans exericised their rights. The same arguments against gay marraige are, word for word, the same ones argued in Loving Vs. Virginia. Further more, you claim your religion is one of peace and love yet all I see is hatred toward your fellow man. As for the defense of marraige act, its violates the Constitution, namely article 4, section 1 which states “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.” which means that new york money must be reconized in new jersery and a marraige in texas must be reconized in cali. The defense of marraige act violates the supreme law of the land, don’t be surprised if another loving Vs virginia case pops up about this.
April 8th, 2009 at 10:35 am PDT
Tex says — “But as a Christian you cannot support a way of life that goes against the word of God.”
But the word of God tells us that eating pork is an abomination, as is wearing garments made of more than one material (poly-cotton blends, for example), having a close haircut and eating shrimp.
Unless Tex is an extremely unusual looking (and behaving) man, he does not live a live in accordance with the word of God. On the other hand, if he looks like a Taliban member, and his robes are of cotton alone, and he keeps either a kosher or halal diet, he could be living according to the word of God.
(“And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be cloven footed, yet he cheweth
not the cud; he is unclean to you”.
“Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcass shall ye not touch,
they are unclean to you.” [Leviticus 11:7-8]
“Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together.” — Deuteronomy 22:11
“Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.” (Leviticus 19:27)
“But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you.” (Leviticus 11:10)
If he violates these rules of God, but participates in hatred against homosexuals, he’s just a ‘cafeteria Christian’ — taking what he likes, and leaving the rest.
April 8th, 2009 at 10:36 am PDT
Poor Jacob, he seems to worship Paul. I’ll bet he also demands that women keep their heads covered in church OR ELSE.
No, Paul had his opinions. Jesus has his own.
April 8th, 2009 at 10:37 am PDT
Let’s not forget that we are all god’s creatures, gay, straight, black, white, etc. When you have a large population of one mind and they are ignored, it’s called discrimination. God loves us all. If in fact this is a sin, god will forgive. Why can’t we. We should go about our lives proud that we are becoming a tolerant nation—one under god you might say. Whatever is right or wrong, like all other sins we commit should be between you and your god. No one else has the right to judge.
April 8th, 2009 at 10:41 am PDT
“and a marraige in texas must be reconized in cali. The defense of marraige act violates the supreme law of the land, don’t be surprised if another loving Vs virginia case pops up about this.”
And don’t be surprised if given the choice of being forced to do so or succeeding from the Union, some states choose the latter. I know, for a fact, that there has been discussion of such things in several states recently (for reasons other than the one here, but if you add this it may push some to do so even more).
April 8th, 2009 at 10:43 am PDT
MinisterinCT - I’m sorry to hear you feal that way. I will agree with you on one side “the boundless love of God”. But don’t go and equate boundless love with boundless forgiveness. Homosexual marriage is clearly not part of the biblical design. Homosexuality, in the Christian faith, is sin. I am not going to (nor am I able to) force acceptance of Christ or the Christian standard on others, but I am going to stand firm on what is considered a sin.
God’s love is for all His creation, as is God’s judgment for all mankind.
Additionally, our government’s laws do not change my Lord’s laws. I will abide by my government’s laws as long as they don’t infringe on my ability to follow my Lord’s laws. If our government allows gay marriage, so be it.
April 8th, 2009 at 10:46 am PDT
Devil’s Advocate, the word you’re looking for is “seceding.”
And there’s been discussion of this forever, but most people are too sensible to try it, especially over something like this. Besides, look what happened the last time states tried to secede…
April 8th, 2009 at 10:47 am PDT
Drake- That was extreemly well put. Thank you.
Anthony- I am an athiest. Why should your opinion be referenced by a governemnt that represents both of us?
Telum- Since when is a consenting adult comparable to a dog?
Kelly- Gay and Lesbian rights groups ask only for the same treatment as their peers. Their “agenda” does not concern your children.
April 8th, 2009 at 10:51 am PDT
something to ponder wrote: “I suppose that since no one has the right to impose their beliefs on another then I should be able to marry my sister if we both really love each other. I should also be allowed to marry as many people as I feel like. And if love is all that matters, my dog loves me and I love my dog, maybe I will marry my dog too. If any of you that are for gay marriage are against ANY of what I just said then you don’t really believe that no one has the right to impose their views on anyone else, just that no one has the right to impose their views on you, because you are so much better than anyone else.”
I don’t think the advocacy is that no one should be able to impose their views on someone else. Rather, I think the advocacy is that restricting the liberties of other people should be based on certain restrictions. In our country, we have a negatively defined social contract, which means that you can do whatever you want unless it is expressly deemed illegal. We determine which liberties should be curtailed by establishing the extent to which exercising those liberties would infringe on the life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, or property of others. If you apply that principle in a reasonable manner to your questions, you will have your answers.
However, I should note that your dog - however loving - is not Constitutionally protected and I think many people would find it offensive to compare homosexual citizens (who are protected by the Constitution, pay taxes, vote, hold public offices, and otherwise participate as citizens) to dogs (which are not citizens, do not have legal standing, and tend to have low voter turnout). Thus, I would argue that dogs are not analogous to citizens.
As for you sister, I’m sure she’s wonderful, but you would have to deal with some slightly different arguments for that marriage than for same-sex marriage. Laws against adult incestual marriage tend to be based on health-related arguments that are predicated on the notion that the couple will bear offspring (not just “have children”, which would include adoption). The more closely related you are to a sexual partner, the more likely it is that your kids will die in infancy or have birth defects that can be quite substantial. Why not let some guy marry his cousin and just make having those kids a crime? What if at least one of the individuals is sterile or infertile? Good questions, but far afield from the questions relevant to same-sex marriages to which you drew what I think is an improper analogy.
Finally, the question of liberties always comes down to “slippery slope” rebuttals. The argument seems to go: “If we allow THIS liberty, what will stop us from allowing ALL liberties?! (Gasp.) Surely we are all safer only to allow the liberties that I enjoy.” Of course, the alternative is that we will have to think through each one individually. Dang it.
April 8th, 2009 at 11:04 am PDT
A right to marry is a right to marry whomever you want to, provided the individual is a consenting adult. Would those of us who are against gay marriage prefer that gay people had their partners undergo sex change operations before getting married? And if so, why would undergoing a reversal of the sex change operation after getting married effect the validity of a binding legal contract? The whole idea that person’s right to marry should depend upon the anatomy of the individual they wish to marry is ridiculous.
April 8th, 2009 at 11:05 am PDT
“I am an athiest. Why should your opinion be referenced by a governemnt that represents both of us?”
Where do laws come from? Someone has to decide that something is “right” and something else is “wrong”. Typically there is some religious backing to said laws, be it Christian, Muslim, polytheistic, Hindu, Wikian, ect. Our country happened to be founded by Christians, so our laws have that “moral fiber” woven into them. If no one can push their religion or moral values on anyone else then we might as well fall into anarchy because those who choose to follow LaVeyan Satanism (which according to religioustolerance.org is a “small religious group that is unrelated to any other faith, and whose members feel free to satisfy their urges responsibly, exhibit kindness to their friends, and attack their enemies”) then telling them that they can’t attack or kill someone is pushing your moral values on them.
April 8th, 2009 at 11:08 am PDT
Banjo, I was very sorry to read that you are suffering as a member of the “silent majority” I hear so much about. I empathize with the pain you must feel at being unable to curtail the liberties of people you don’t know based on your knowledge of absolute truth. Obviously, we all need to write to our representatives demanding that a simple majority should be sufficient to override the Constitutional protections of a minority group… oh, and that those silly justices ought to stop “interpretting” state and federal laws instead of simply quoting scripture in their opinions. I sincerely wish you great comfort in this painful moment of your life and hope that you will soon be able to return to glorifying your family name by degrading others. Peace be with you.
April 8th, 2009 at 11:22 am PDT
Something to Ponder- Anarchy is not synonymous with chaos and many people believe that it could result in a functional, productive society. Irrelevant.
It is true that many (all?) religions share moral similar standards but the religions did not invent morality and an unreligious body like our government has an equal ability to exercise morality without having stolen the concept from world faiths. The separation of church and state is fundamental to our national identity and I hope that the majority does not confuse self evident truths with religious dictations.
April 8th, 2009 at 11:23 am PDT
I’m curious about the flaging going on here. Please tell me how my comments from an earlier post shown below are in anyway inappropriate?
“I have to agree with Tex’s comment about Bobcat’s post being flagged and subsequently deleted. I consider this censorship. As an adult individual I should be allowed to decide for myself if it is relevent to the discussion and ignore it should I deem it irrelevent. I rarely find myself defending religious conservatives and while I reject his reasoning (what I can surmise of it though reading subsequent posts),I believe all opinions should be heard. It is important to know and understand the opposition.
In time, gay marriage acceptence will most likely encompass a majority patchwork of states with a handful of religious/conservative hold outs. Myself, while not interested in being married, am grateful to live in Massachusetts where I have the same rights/privilages that heterosexuals enjoy instead of being treated as a second class citizen.”
April 8th, 2009 at 11:23 am PDT
Matthew 5:32 - “Whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.” Sounds like God is just as down on second marriages as homosexuality. Where are the street protests for a constitutional amendment on that? (And you really don’t want to hear what Jesus said about rich people!)
I agree with Masquer08er that the solution that should satisfy everyone would be to have the government get out of the marriage business entirely. That is a violation of the separation of church and state, and this whole mess is an object lesson in why separation is needed. The state should be in charge of civil unions, which govern things like tax law and who can visit you and speak for you if you’re in the hospital; each church should be in charge of the religious ritual of marriage for its congregants according to their own understanding of God’s will. Most people would choose both (gays would no doubt swell the ranks of the Unitarian and other liberal churches). But widows and widowers who now are forced to live “in sin” because of tax and inheritance concerns could get married under God but not form a civil union. Long-time platonic roommates (like the two straight women I know who have lived together for more than twenty years and would like to be each other’s legal “nearest relative”) could form a civil union but not get married.
April 8th, 2009 at 11:33 am PDT
“What if at least one of the individuals is sterile or infertile? Good questions, but far afield from the questions relevant to same-sex marriages to which you drew what I think is an improper analogy.”
Actually, it is a perfectly proper analogy, as you stated, the laws against it as all health related, and if that is no longer a problem, say by me getting a vasectomy, then the laws against it are no longer valid.
“However, I should note that your dog - however loving - is not Constitutionally protected and I think many people would find it offensive to compare homosexual citizens (who are protected by the Constitution, pay taxes, vote, hold public offices, and otherwise participate as citizens) to dogs (which are not citizens, do not have legal standing, and tend to have low voter turnout). Thus, I would argue that dogs are not analogous to citizens.”
I don’t know, unborn Bald Eagles have more rights than an unborn human. And if everything is evolved from some primordial ooze and happened by chance, then it is just chance that they are human to begin with and therefor are really no better than any other animal if you want to think of it that way, and why shouldn’t I be able to think that way if I want? Sure, I’ll be labeled all kinds of things, but I’m already labeled all kinds of things (homophobe, intolerant, Bible banger, narrow minded, the list can go on forever) so what do I care if you decide to add another label to me?
If we are going to use legal standing as a clause, then I can’t marry a German, or Mexican, or South African, or Iraqi, because they aren’t. If voter turn out is a clause then half the “citizens” of the U.S. are ineligible to be married. If paying taxes is a clause, again foreign citizenships are out and we can add the homeless/jobless to the list as well.
“We determine which liberties should be curtailed by establishing the extent to which exercising those liberties would infringe on the life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, or property of others. If you apply that principle in a reasonable manner to your questions, you will have your answers.”
By your own definition, I should freely be allowed to marry anyone/anything I choose, and as many of them as I choose. Because absolutely nothing about it infringes in the life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, or property of others.
April 8th, 2009 at 11:36 am PDT
Some of the assertions made by conservatives, in response to the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision in Varnum v. Brien, are utterly ludicrous.
Several conservatives have stated that the prohibition of gay marriages does not violate the rights of gay people, because just as a heterosexual man cannot marry another man, neither can a gay man marry another man (hence, there is no equal protection violation). This is analogous to arguing that the old “anti-miscegenation” statutes that prohibited interracial marriage should not have been found unconstitutional, because just as a white person could not marry a black person, so a black person could not marry a white person. Such a circular and tautological argument can be laughed out of court.
Social conservatives are now really in a pickle. Their cries of “judicial activism” have been somewhat muted by the fact that the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision was UNANIMOUS (seven to zero); the court spoke with one voice, delivering a forceful, well-argued opinion that was the model of clarity.
The Vermont decision was a decision made by the STATE LEGISLATURE as opposed to a court of law — thus, the old cries of “judicial usurpation of the will of the people” and “judicial tyranny” just won’t cut it this time. As I write this, New Hampshire and Maine are considering bills that would legalize gay marriage in those states. One or both of these bills is likely to succeed, if not this year then certainly next year. What will social conservatives have to say once this happens?
There is currently no real support for the federal “marriage protection amendment” — and with President Obama occupying the bully pulpit, with a Democrat-controlled legislature, this measure is doomed for the foreseeable future. So how are social conservatives likely to respond?
There will be pressure to amend the state constitutions of those states that legalized gay marriage – but the Iowa constitution cannot be amended until 2012 at the very earliest, and the leader of the Iowa state senate is on record as stating that the legislature will not push for such an amendment. Social conservatives will doubtless try to amend the Vermont constitution, but again, their efforts will be blocked by unsympathetic state lawmakers. With a sudden rush of support for the legalization of gay marriage, many social conservatives will insist that lawmakers who vote for gay marriage have been “duped” by “hateful activists” promoting the “gay agenda”. Sadly, I believe that there will be an increase in hate crimes against gay persons, particularly in those states that legalize gay marriage. The hard right will also frame the people of such states as “Godless people” who have turned their back on “centuries of history and tradition”.
I am confident that, with the passage of time, the hard right will become increasingly irrelevant as a political force – but I know from painful experience that they will not go quietly into the night. Wounded animals can be particularly dangerous, and the gay community should be hyper-vigilant. It is likely that the hard right will step up efforts to portray gay persons as immoral deviants, and as a threat to children. The “work” of “researchers” such as Paul Cameron will doubtless surface and be circulated once again, as the right tries to portray gay people as filthy and disease-ridden.
Vigilance is indeed the price of liberty…
PHILIP CHANDLER
April 8th, 2009 at 11:37 am PDT
Some of the assertions made by conservatives, in response to the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision in Varnum v. Brien, are utterly ludicrous.
Several conservatives have stated that the prohibition of gay marriages does not violate the rights of gay people, because just as a heterosexual man cannot marry another man, neither can a gay man marry another man (hence, there is no equal protection violation). This is analogous to arguing that the old “anti-miscegenation” statutes that prohibited interracial marriage should not have been found unconstitutional, because just as a white person could not marry a black person, so a black person could not marry a white person. Such a circular and tautological argument can be laughed out of court.
Social conservatives are now really in a pickle. Their cries of “judicial activism” have been somewhat muted by the fact that the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision was UNANIMOUS (seven to zero); the court spoke with one voice, delivering a forceful, well-argued opinion that was the model of clarity.
The Vermont decision was a decision made by the STATE LEGISLATURE as opposed to a court of law — thus, the old cries of “judicial usurpation of the will of the people” and “judicial tyranny” just won’t cut it this time. As I write this, New Hampshire and Maine are considering bills that would legalize gay marriage in those states. One or both of these bills is likely to succeed, if not this year then certainly next year. What will social conservatives have to say once this happens?
There is currently no real support for the federal “marriage protection amendment” — and with President Obama occupying the bully pulpit, with a Democrat-controlled legislature, this measure is doomed for the foreseeable future. So how are social conservatives likely to respond?
There will be pressure to amend the state constitutions of those states that legalized gay marriage – but the Iowa constitution cannot be amended until 2012 at the very earliest, and the leader of the Iowa state senate is on record as stating that the legislature will not push for such an amendment. Social conservatives will doubtless try to amend the Vermont constitution, but again, their efforts will be blocked by unsympathetic state lawmakers. With a sudden rush of support for the legalization of gay marriage, many social conservatives will insist that lawmakers who vote for gay marriage have been “duped” by “hateful activists” promoting the “gay agenda”. Sadly, I believe that there will be an increase in hate crimes against gay persons, particularly in those states that legalize gay marriage. The hard right will also frame the people of such states as “Godless people” who have turned their back on “centuries of history and tradition”.
I am confident that, with the passage of time, the hard right will become increasingly irrelevant as a political force – but I know from painful experience that they will not go quietly into the night. Wounded animals can be particularly dangerous, and the gay community should be hyper-vigilant. It is likely that the hard right will step up efforts to portray gay persons as immoral deviants, and as a threat to children. The “work” of “researchers” such as Paul Cameron will doubtless surface and be circulated once again, as the right tries to portray gay people as filthy and disease-ridden.
Vigilance is indeed the price of liberty…
PHILIP CHANDLER
April 8th, 2009 at 12:30 pm PDT
“And don’t be surprised if given the choice of being forced to do so or succeeding [sic] from the Union, some states choose the latter. I know, for a fact, that there has been discussion of such things in several states recently (for reasons other than the one here, but if you add this it may push some to do so even more).”
Please! Leave the rest of us in peace and go quickly!
April 8th, 2009 at 1:53 pm PDT
I’m seeing a lot of “separation of church and state” being thrown about in this discussion, which, is completely irrelevant. I don’t believe that 99% of the people that use the term “separation of church and state”, either on the “state” side of the argument or the “church” side of the argument really know what they are talking about.
Article Six of the United States Constitution provides that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States”. Prior to the inclusion of the Bill of Rights, this was the only mention of religious freedom in the Constitution. And, even when you get into the Bill of Rights, the first amendment to the US Constitution states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. Nowhere in the Constitution does it state that the government must be completely separate from “the church”, and if you want to go farther, banning the 10 Commandments or other religious texts from government institutions (courthouses, schools, ect) directly violates the last half (”or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”) of that part of the first amendment. So, for the record, the “separation of church and state” is not valid either way in this discussion.
April 8th, 2009 at 2:01 pm PDT
“I’m curious about the flaging going on here. Please tell me how my comments from an earlier post shown below are in anyway inappropriate?”
What it seems is that anyone who differs from the views of those who are pro-homosexual marriage are flagged because they won’t sacrifice what they believe to be “new and hip” (yes yes, I realize I will get several flags for this, so go ahead and flag me until my views are removed).
April 8th, 2009 at 2:12 pm PDT
I know that every religious person gets painted very poorly because of debates like this where the VERY vocal minority uses the Bible as their reason for their bigitry. Please keep in mind that there are A LOT of religious people who very much are for gay marriage. You won’t find those type of people in churches where you are not allowed to think for yourself and must except what the pope, or some other supreme authorty says as the final word on everything. There are other religions that allow people to read the Bible and intrepret it for themseleves. Most of these people tend much more towards an inclusive world where gay marriage would be excepted. Just please stop paining ALL religious people as the same as these LOUD voices.
April 8th, 2009 at 2:52 pm PDT
church & state Says:
“(T)he first amendment to the US Constitution states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. Nowhere in the Constitution does it state that the government must be completely separate from “the church”,”
True, but the courts have wisely recognized that if the State acts on behalf or religion, it is de facto endorsing that religion by legal action, thereby making a law respecting an establishment of religion. Any religion that can’t stand on its own, without State support, has a pretty shaky base anyway.
“and if you want to go farther, banning the 10 Commandments or other religious texts from government institutions (courthouses, schools, ect) directly violates the last half (”or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”) of that part of the first amendment.”
Sorry, but that’s flagrant nonsense. Your religion does not require that its texts be posted in government buildings in order for it to be practiced. Christians can still exercise their religion without the Decalogue in the courthouse, Muslims don’t need the Qur’an in the Senate, Buddhists don’t need the Sutras in the State House, Asatruar don’t need the Eddas in the Town Hall, and so on. People who want their particular holy texts in government facilities (and have you noticed they seldom want that extended to other faiths? “I believe in freedom of religion. You’re free to be my religion…”) don’t want freedom, they want State endorsement.
“So, for the record, the “separation of church and state” is not valid either way in this discussion.”
It is when someone wants the government to write laws purely on a religious basis.
April 8th, 2009 at 9:29 pm PDT
This just cracks me up. I love it. Thank you for heralding the change happening in this country and the world. Twenty some years ago I was kicked out of a Christian Science college for being gay. Of course, drinking would have gotten me kicked out, too. Still all attempts by gay alumni to add their pictures and stories to the alumni magazine have been foiled by overactive editors. Maybe if our marriages are legal the magazine will have to print them? Who knows. Either way, it’s really fun to watch the way I love becoming more and more accepted in the world.
April 8th, 2009 at 11:55 pm PDT
You know, I’m really tired of reading the people who just want to do away with marriage as a government institution. If you want to attack the foundations of marriage, that’s how you do it. Because that’s what marriage is, and has been, for a very long time. Guess when marriage became a christian institution? In the formation of the Holy Roman Empire - the quintessential merger of Church and State. Marriage is not really defined in the bible per se - it came to be a religious act later. Besides, it’s not like gay people are asking to get married in a baptist church any more than divorcés are asking to get married in catholic churches. But rather than come to grips with this simple reality, we’re going to follow along with this conservative myth about the sanctity of an essentially civic act and destroy an entire institution? You think people are still going to bother with the actual marriages in every circumstances… I think actual marriages go down at least 15% when this happens. And then decline slowly thereafter, just like church membership. Don’t throw out the baby with the bath water. Just let us get married already.
April 9th, 2009 at 1:52 am PDT
One thing that interests me is the hyper focus many Christians have on this subject. Homosexuality isn’t listed in the 10 commandments, though it is in Lev. with a lot of other stuff we ignore. Aren’t the 10 commandments the most important laws? And yet, people aren’t thrown out of church for adultery, for stealing, not keeping the Sabbath holy by not working, for swearing or even having other gods like power, money, and so forth. If you can be a murderer or spouse beater and be a church member, what’s the focus on being gay all about? It sounds like just another excuse to create a group that someone can feel superior to and justify it by saying it’s inthe Bible, it’s Christian, and God doesn’t like it. Seems to me God doesn’t care. Flowers grow in your garden, people have jobs, are successful, get educations, and God isn’t striking them down. And He answers their prayers. If He didn’t like them, He wouldn’t be listening, would He!
April 13th, 2009 at 12:31 pm PDT
Greetings NavyJo.
I’m glad we can at least agree on the love of God.
There’s not enough time or space to go into it extensively here, but I’m sure you’re aware that the Hebrew bible is the work of various sources/writer (Elohist, Yahwist, Priestly, etc.) The Priestly strain shows a discernable concern for order – they wrote the more orderly of the two creation stories in Genesis as well as the purity code in Leviticus. Writing at the time of the Babylonian Exile (6th C. BC) when they were trying to make sense out of a world in which they found themselves captives in a foreign land, their creation account is especially important if you examine it in light of the Babylonian creation accounts.
The earliest of the canonical gospels (Mark) was recorded around 65-70AD several decades after Jesus’ execution and right around the time of the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. The gospels are written in Greek and, like the Hebrew Bible, were preceded by a long oral tradition before being written down. Anyone who has read the gospel accounts know they do not agree with one another on all the events nor do they include all the same events. They were writing for particular communities.
The long and short of it is you can’t take the Bible literally if you wish to take it seriously. The Bible is a rich collection of stories, accounts of various people’s experiences of God as well as expressions of their frustrations, sorrow, and hope. It is a mistake, I think, to attempt to use it as a map to heaven. That was not the intent of those who contributed to it. Look to your heart to hear what is true, then test it in the fires of compassion and wisdom. The Bible can be a vehicle to help us transcend our habitual tribal mindset or it can reinforce it. I pray for transcendence. Peace be with you.
April 13th, 2009 at 5:35 pm PDT