Why is marriage important in America today?

[Corraleno]

The Bible defines marriage as a covenant between one man, one woman and God so it would not include two same-gender people.

Guess what? We are not a theocracy. In fact, separation of church and state is a pretty fundamental concept in American law, specifically to prevent people from imposing their religious beliefs on others.

 

Anyone who wants to can be legally married by simply marrying someone of the opposite gender. Everyone can do this. Nobody is excluded from doing this. A gay person could marry a straight person of the opposite gender and a gay person could also marry another gay person of the opposite gender. A straight person also cannot marry someone of the same gender. They all have the same rights. Everyone has a right to marry someone of the opposite gender, which is our current definition of marriage.

Straight people have the right to marry the person they love. Gay people do not have that right. To claim that it's not discrimination because a gay person could just marry someone of the opposite gender, whom they do not love, is absurd and ignores the most basic reason people get married — because they are in love.

 

Of course, you already knew that. :001_rolleyes:

 

Jackie

[VeritasMama]

When we lived in Europe the couples would go to the courthouse, get married and then have a BIG caravan over to the church.

 

Churches are not charged with discrimination NOW if they refuse to marry a particular couple for various reasons. My uncle had to do RE classes before he could marry his wife in the Catholic church. Some churches only marry a certain denomination. Some churches only marry members of their congregations. To my knowledge, no church has been sued over any of those decisions.

 

The problem is, individuals who refuse to participate in gay marriages because of their religious beliefs are being sued. Also, organizations run by churches that have refused to host gay marriage celebrations have been sued. There have also been legal repurcussions, such as the Methodist youth camp that lost it's tax exempt status because it wouldn't rent out it's facilities to a gay couple:

 

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2007/sep/07091902

 

These are older stories, but these types of situations are still happening:

 

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/how-will-gay-marriage-hurt-us-heres-how/

 

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2007/aug/07082104

 

I'm not trying to argue for or against anything, I'm just saying that religious freedom for those who disagree with gay marriage needs to be preserved, regardless of whether gay marriage is legalized or not. Religious freedom is no more or no less important than "marriage equality."

[Mrs Mungo]

The problem is, individuals who refuse to participate in gay marriages because of their religious beliefs are being sued. Also, organizations run by churches that have refused to host gay marriage celebrations have been sued. There have also been legal repurcussions, such as the Methodist youth camp that lost it's tax exempt status because it wouldn't rent out it's facilities to a gay couple:

 

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2007/sep/07091902

 

A youth camp is not a church, even if it is affiliated with a church. That tax-exempt status had requirements:

Until recently the camp held tax-exempt status on its entire boardwalk property under a New Jersey program that gives tax-breaks to organizations that open up their property to the general public.

 

The point of the tax-exempt status was to encourage groups to open up their property *to the public*, not SOME of the public. They had a choice-don't open it up to the public or don't receive the tax-exemption. They chose to lose their tax exempt status (well, PART of their tax-exempt status, not all of it).

 

Like I said in my post you responded to, churches have choices. They can restrict wedding ceremonies to members of their congregation, require classes, etc. They don't get sued for discrimination for any of that in the US.

 

These are older stories, but these types of situations are still happening:

 

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/how-will-gay-marriage-hurt-us-heres-how/

That one is about Canada, which does *not* have the same sorts of laws that the US does.

 

Your last link was the same story as your first link.

[Spy Car]

Not only is America not a theocracy, but in the Hebrew Bible polygamy is a matter of course. The model is not exclusively one man and one woman by a long shot. And men are entitled to have sex with their slaves and concubines. Hardly "family values" that some would try to sell you as "Biblical" values.

 

And in the Christian Bible the ideal is not marriage, it is celibacy. Non-marriage is the ideal advanced by both Jesus and Paul.

 

Sometimes I wonder if people who talk about "Biblical values" have even read the books they are talking about?

 

Bill

[ChocolateReignRemix]

The problem is, individuals who refuse to participate in gay marriages because of their religious beliefs are being sued. Also, organizations run by churches that have refused to host gay marriage celebrations have been sued. There have also been legal repurcussions, such as the Methodist youth camp that lost it's tax exempt status because it wouldn't rent out it's facilities to a gay couple:

 

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2007/sep/07091902

 

Did you actually read your own link here? The church camp was receiving tax exempt status for making the facility open to the public. When they chose to not actually, you know, make it open to the public, they lost that exemption.

"Until recently the camp held tax-exempt status on its entire boardwalk property under a New Jersey program that gives tax-breaks to organizations that open up their property to the general public."

 

They can't claim the tax break and then try to claim a religious exemption. Note that they were not forced to allow the couple to use the facility - they simply lost their tax exempt status for failing to meet the criteria for that status with the refusal.

 

This article does absolutely nothing to make your point.

 

 

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/how-will-gay-marriage-hurt-us-heres-how/

This article is based on Canadian law so it is not relevant.

 

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2007/aug/07082104

This is another article about the camp in the first link you gave us, only this one has even fewer details. It neglects to mention that the issue was the tax exempt status the Methodist was attempting to claim while also discriminating (a non-no under NJ law).

 

I'm not trying to argue for or against anything, I'm just saying that religious freedom for those who disagree with gay marriage needs to be preserved, regardless of whether gay marriage is legalized or not. Religious freedom is no more or no less important than "marriage equality."

Agree. Now please show us some actual evidence that gay marriage threatens religious freedom. Several states allow gay marriage now. Surely you can find that "rash" of lawsuits to make your point, right? Edited July 26, 2012 by ChocolateReignRemix

[Joanne]

I believe it is a choice and I know my family believes the same. I know many, many friends and their families who also believe the same. I think a lot of people these days keep these thoughts to themselves because they are tired of being accused of being bigoted or prejudiced or gay-hating or whatever.

 

I used to live in Houston and attended one of the mega churches there. There were many times I attended when the speaker was a person who had been gay for many years but then became a Christian and decided they no longer desired to be gay. They went to counseling (I don't remember the details about this) and ended up straight and happily married with children. It wasn't just one or two people but many who had gone through this transformation.

 

As for it being a sin or not, this church always preached that, according to the Bible, we are all called to live chaste lives outside of marriage.

 

This type of "counseling" is not endorsed, recommended or supported by the professional counseling community.

 

It seems that your peer group is rather self-select.

 

Nonethless, the numbers you represent seem a bit skewed. Actual homosexuals are few in terms of percentage, and those who go throught the torture of conversion (sic) are even fewer.

[Corraleno]

The problem is, individuals who refuse to participate in gay marriages because of their religious beliefs are being sued. Also, organizations run by churches that have refused to host gay marriage celebrations have been sued. There have also been legal repurcussions, such as the Methodist youth camp that lost it's tax exempt status because it wouldn't rent out it's facilities to a gay couple:

 

 

I'm not trying to argue for or against anything, I'm just saying that religious freedom for those who disagree with gay marriage needs to be preserved, regardless of whether gay marriage is legalized or not. Religious freedom is no more or no less important than "marriage equality."

But the camp is not a church, and refusing to allow a gay couple to even use the facilities at a public camp is not the same thing as refusing to marry them. According to that article, "the camp held tax-exempt status on its entire boardwalk property under a New Jersey program that gives tax-breaks to organizations that open up their property to the general public." The camp violated that agreement by refusing to allow certain members of the public to use a pavilion there for a civil union ceremony, therefore they lost the tax-exempt status for that portion of their property. If they want to be able to discriminate against certain members of the public based on sexual orientation, then they don't get to claim the part of the property tax exemption that applies to public spaces. That is absolutely fair, IMHO. They did not lose their tax exempt status as a church, nor were they being compelled to perform a gay marriage.

 

Jackie

[Corraleno]

A youth camp is not a church, even if it is affiliated with a church. That tax-exempt status had requirements:

Until recently the camp held tax-exempt status on its entire boardwalk property under a New Jersey program that gives tax-breaks to organizations that open up their property to the general public.

 

Did you actually read your own link here? The church camp was receiving tax exempt status for making the facility open to the public. When they chose to not actually, you know, make it open to the public, they lost that exemption.

"Until recently the camp held tax-exempt status on its entire boardwalk property under a New Jersey program that gives tax-breaks to organizations that open up their property to the general public."

 

I got interrupted half-way through typing my post, then finally finished it and hit send before I realized that you guys had already said the exact same thing. :lol:

 

Jackie

[VeritasMama]

Did you actually read your own link here? The church camp was receiving tax exempt status for making the facility open to the public. When they chose to not actually, you know, make it open to the public, they lost that exemption.

"Until recently the camp held tax-exempt status on its entire boardwalk property under a New Jersey program that gives tax-breaks to organizations that open up their property to the general public."

 

They can't claim the tax break and then try to claim a religious exemption. Note that they were not forced to allow the couple to use the facility - they simply lost their tax exempt status for failing to meet the criteria for that status with the refusal.

 

This article does absolutely nothing to make your point.

 

 

This article is based on Canadian law so it is not relevant.

 

This is another article about the camp in the first link you gave us, only this one has even fewer details. It neglects to mention that the issue was the tax exempt status the Methodist was attempting to claim while also discriminating (a non-no under NJ law).

 

Agree. Now please show us some actual evidence that gay marriage threatens religious freedom. Several states allow gay marriage now. Surely you can find that "rash" of lawsuits to make your point, right?

 

I misread the first story.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/20/nyregion/st-josephs-medical-center-sued-over-benefits-by-same-sex-couple.html?_r=1

 

There are many more lawsuits like this one, but I don't want to take the time for links. You can find them yourself.

 

This is the issue. You may not agree, but religious institutions include more than just churches, they include the schools, hospitals, summer camps, etc. run by churches.

 

For many Christians, it is not just an issue of a church performing a same sex marriage. Their beliefs prevent them from condoning same sex marriage in any way, that includes providing benefits to same sex spouses. You may not agree with this, but it is a part of their religious belief system, they are not allowed to promote what their religion considers sinful behavior. This stance has been labeled as discrimination, and lawsuits have resulted.

 

I'm not arguing for or against gay marriage here, I am trying to say that

individual Christians (like the photographer who was sued) and Christian institutions feel like their religious freedom is threatened for a reason. Same sex marriage needs to be legally implemented in a way that also allows for religious freedom.

 

ETA: My original point, the reason these lawsuits were brought up in the first place, is that there would be more support from religious institutions for legalizing gay marriage if they weren't worried about the situtations I described.

Edited July 26, 2012 by VeritasMama

[La Texican]

I googled "how did gay marraige get banned federally" to see who made the first move. September 21, 1996: President Bill Clinton signs into law the Defense of Marriage Act, denying federal recognition of same-sex marriages. So originally gay marraige was legal and they had to write new laws to make it illegal?

And Wikipedia says this legal issue started in 1972 when minesota banned gay marraige and the supreme court didn't overturn it because they said "it wasn't a federal question.". Is this true? Did they change the definition to exclude gays first?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson

 

Maybe not. It was just a quick wiki search.

Edited July 26, 2012 by La Texican

[VeritasMama]

A youth camp is not a church, even if it is affiliated with a church. That tax-exempt status had requirements:

Until recently the camp held tax-exempt status on its entire boardwalk property under a New Jersey program that gives tax-breaks to organizations that open up their property to the general public.

 

The point of the tax-exempt status was to encourage groups to open up their property *to the public*, not SOME of the public. They had a choice-don't open it up to the public or don't receive the tax-exemption. They chose to lose their tax exempt status (well, PART of their tax-exempt status, not all of it).

 

Like I said in my post you responded to, churches have choices. They can restrict wedding ceremonies to members of their congregation, require classes, etc. They don't get sued for discrimination for any of that in the US.

 

That one is about Canada, which does *not* have the same sorts of laws that the US does.

 

Your last link was the same story as your first link.

 

I misread the first article.

 

But, churches also run hospitals, schools, etc. and their beliefs dictate that these institutions need to be run according to their doctrine.

 

Even if churches are not forced to perform gay marriages, individuals still need to have the right to refuse to participate in gay marraiges based on their religious beliefs. The photographer who was sued for declining to photograph a gay wedding because of his beliefs is exactly what I am talking about.

 

I'm not trying to argue against gay marriage here, I am simply saying that Christians are concerned for a reason, it is not a red herring. What is happening in Canada does worry Chritians here, and the lawsuits also worry them. I think that gay marriage would have more support if ALL religious institutions, not just churches, and individuals felt that their rights to disagree with gay marriage because of religious beliefs were protected. I know from personal experience that if this were assured, more Christians would support gay marraige as a legal institution.

[Audrey]

A youth camp is not a church, even if it is affiliated with a church. That tax-exempt status had requirements:

Until recently the camp held tax-exempt status

 

(snipped)

 

That one is about Canada, which does *not* have the same sorts of laws that the US does.

 

Your last link was the same story as your first link.

 

Yes, we do have different laws, not least of which is that churches are not tax exempt, nor are they exempt from following the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/charter/page-1.html

Edited July 26, 2012 by Audrey

[La Texican]

Kansas city just ok'd the preliminary to advance legislation to allow religious defense to discriminate against gays for things such as renting an apartment despite the city's anti-discrimination act that includes (that) orientation.

http://m.ljworld.com/news/2012/mar/28/house-gives-preliminary-ok-bill-supporters-say-pre/

 

From googling "is it legal to discriminate against gays"?

[Corraleno]

Kansas city just ok'd the preliminary to advance legislation to allow religious defense to discriminate against gays for things such as renting an apartment despite the city's anti-discrimination act that includes (that) orientation.

So what happens when someone claims he also has the right, based on "religious freedom," to refuse to rent an apartment to a Jewish couple, or an interracial couple, or an atheist couple, because he disagrees with their values? I really look forward to following that court case. ;)

 

Jackie

[Shawna in Texas]

So what happens when someone claims he also has the right, based on "religious freedom," to refuse to rent an apartment to a Jewish couple, or an interracial couple, or an atheist couple, because he disagrees with their values? I really look forward to following that court case. ;)

 

Jackie

 

Reminds me of when Tim Minchin was in Dallas last year and the company who he rented a piano from canceled because they watched some of his videos on youtube. They sent him an interesting e-mail.

[Free]

Jackie, I just want to say that I am really enjoying every one of your posts in this thread. You arguments are well reasoned, calm, logical and non-combative. Thank you, for what I think is a great discussion!

[garddwr]

I googled "how did gay marraige get banned federally" to see who made the first move. September 21, 1996: President Bill Clinton signs into law the Defense of Marriage Act, denying federal recognition of same-sex marriages. So originally gay marraige was legal and they had to write new laws to make it illegal?

And Wikipedia says this legal issue started in 1972 when minesota banned gay marraige and the supreme court didn't overturn it because they said "it wasn't a federal question.". Is this true? Did they change the definition to exclude gays first?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson

 

Maybe not. It was just a quick wiki search.

 

No, it's just that prior to the last few decades the definition of marriage was understood by everyone to mean the union of a man and a woman so there was not need to legally define it that way--the definition was inherent in the word. When people started trying to change the definition to include same-sex unions, laws were passed to clarify the previously understood definition. It's rather like needing to pass a law to define "human"--most laws don't bother to actually spell out what makes someone human because we all know the meaning of the word, but if a bunch of people started trying to get their pets, for example, classified as people, we would have to start defining the term everywhere.

[Rivka]

Man, I think everyone on the anti-gay-marriage side has me on ignore. There's been such a thundering silence on the whole question of why the religious freedom argument doesn't apply to denominations which would like to perform gay marriages.

[WishboneDawn]

The problem is, individuals who refuse to participate in gay marriages because of their religious beliefs are being sued. Also, organizations run by churches that have refused to host gay marriage celebrations have been sued. There have also been legal repurcussions, such as the Methodist youth camp that lost it's tax exempt status because it wouldn't rent out it's facilities to a gay couple:

 

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2007/sep/07091902

 

These are older stories, but these types of situations are still happening:

 

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/how-will-gay-marriage-hurt-us-heres-how/

 

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2007/aug/07082104

 

I'm not trying to argue for or against anything, I'm just saying that religious freedom for those who disagree with gay marriage needs to be preserved, regardless of whether gay marriage is legalized or not. Religious freedom is no more or no less important than "marriage equality."

 

First, lawsuits being filed are different from lawsuits being won.

 

Second, I'll address the link to the Canadian stories.

 

For instance, in Saskatchewan, a homosexual man called a state marriage commissioner, wanting to “marry” his partner. The commissioner, an evangelical Christian, declined to conduct the ceremony for religious reasons. He simply referred the man to another commissioner.

 

When you choose a job or position that has you representing the state then you have chosen to represent the state, not yourself or your own religion.

 

It sounds so reasonable in the article because the man referred the inquirer to another commissioner but what if there had been no other commissioner or if the other commissioner shared his religious belief? Then what seems like an individual's right to refuse to do something on religious grounds might actually result in another person being unable to access a perfectly legal service.

 

Canadian churches are also under attack. Coren writes that when Fred Henry, the Roman Catholic bishop of Calgary, Alberta, sent a letter to churches explaining traditional Catholic teaching on marriage, he was “charged with a human-rights violation” and “threatened with litigation.”

 

That article is extermely sloppy. That incident is now 7 years old and the complaints were dropped the same year. People can complain, it doesn't mean the state is going to step in and squash religious rights.

 

The whole incident was interesting and created a lot of good discussion. A lot of good info can be found at http://www.religioustolerance.org/hommarbhenry.htm

 

Churches with theological objections to performing same-sex “wedding” ceremonies are being threatened with the loss of their tax-free status. In British Columbia, the Knights of Columbus agreed to rent its building for a wedding reception before finding out that the couple was lesbian. When they did find out, they apologized to the women and agreed to both find an alternative venue and pay the costs for printing new invitations: But that wasn’t good enough. The women prosecuted, and the Human Rights Commission ordered the Knights of Columbus to pay a fine.

 

This is another story that's old (2003-2005) and been settled. I think Lifesitenews is almost lying-by-omission in using these stories. Look for links and references with these kind of stories so you can verify the facts.

 

From 2005,

 

Smith and Chymyshyn complained to the Human Rights Tribunal that it was discriminatory to offer a facility to the public and then say a particular group can't use it.

 

The tribunal ruled the organization should pay the women $1,000 each for the embarrassment and hardship they suffered.

 

But the decision also says the Knights of Columbus cannot be forced to contradict its religious beliefs. But the tribunal has told the fraternal group it should have assisted the women in finding another hall to mitigate the harm.

 

The KoC's right to refuse to host a gay marriage was upheld. The Lifesitenews article mentions the tax-free status being threatened and I imagine it might be an issue similar to others where they have that tax-free status because they offer their facilities to the public and that's where the issue lies.

 

That Lifesitenews article was deceptive, dishonest, and manipulative.

[MBM]

NM

Edited July 26, 2012 by MBM
too many other things to do today than follow this thread

[AdventureMoms]

Man, I think everyone on the anti-gay-marriage side has me on ignore. There's been such a thundering silence on the whole question of why the religious freedom argument doesn't apply to denominations which would like to perform gay marriages.

 

I did notice that.

[mommaduck]

I googled "how did gay marraige get banned federally" to see who made the first move. September 21, 1996: President Bill Clinton signs into law the Defense of Marriage Act, denying federal recognition of same-sex marriages. So originally gay marraige was legal and they had to write new laws to make it illegal?

And Wikipedia says this legal issue started in 1972 when minesota banned gay marraige and the supreme court didn't overturn it because they said "it wasn't a federal question.". Is this true? Did they change the definition to exclude gays first?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson

 

Maybe not. It was just a quick wiki search.

It wasn't legal, but it wasn't illegal either. A bit like homebirthing with a CPM or DEM in PA...not illegal, but if something happens or someone wants to make a stink about it, then it can be prosecutable. Well, in the case of gay marriage, there was enough publicity coming out that people started making a stink about it on both sides and a new law is made or old law rewritten. Basically, it was considered a non-issue prior.

[mommaduck]

Man, I think everyone on the anti-gay-marriage side has me on ignore. There's been such a thundering silence on the whole question of why the religious freedom argument doesn't apply to denominations which would like to perform gay marriages.

It does, which is why some of us believe the government should be out of it altogether. I can't expect others to follow the beliefs, standards, and restrictions of my faith. If you want to be part of my faith, then those must be followed. If not, then go elsewhere. I think the issue would be, if you marry in one faith, don't expect another to recognise it. *shrugs*

[Bluegoat]

I, and increasingly large numbers of other Americans, have thought about exactly these things, and have decided in favor of marriage equality. That decision is based on logic, not religious beliefs; it is based on plausible and reliable evidence, not hyperbole and fear-mongering; and it is based on the belief that excluding millions of fellow citizens from enjoying the rights that I enjoy is anything but loving.

 

Jackie

 

How nice. I don't think I ever accused the non-religious or the religious of being illogical, irrational, or anything else. I tend to assume most people are trying to do these things without pretty clear evidence that they are not.

 

It's very sad that you don't seem to extend that assumption to others. Do you really mean to imply that all religion is irrational and based on nothing? Given that you clearly have almost no knowledge - radically incorrect ideas actually - of what Christianity teaches and has taught, and you haven't given much indication of understanding the teachings of other religions, that seems a bit ironic. It seems like such a terribly unlikely proposition too given the long intellectual history of religion, the plethora of resources on the philosophy of religion, the many intelligent, well educated, and really remarkable people who have been and are religious. Do you really think the majority of people for most of human history were basically irrational, that something has happened in the last few hundred years to change the human mind?

 

Do you really mean to imply that it is only the Americans who think like you that should be able to contribute to public discussions over social issues?

 

Everyone has a worldview. Everyone starts with unprovable assumptions about the nature of reality and builds on those. That is true of Christians and Jews, of Muslims and Buddhists, of pagans and animists, secular humanists and scientific materialists, Platonists and Deists. Probably the most dangerous state anyone could be in is the one which thinks it is somehow sure and obvious and does not know that it is a worldview, that it rests on assumptions, that it has a particular epistomology.

 

I'd also note that the way you are saying you work to understand marriage is not really compatible with it being a human created institution - if so, it would be hard to come to any conclusions about it based on logic or evidence, and it would be hard then to discern what is a loving way to deal with it. I can't say I am surprised - people are rarely passionate about the justice of things they think are simply invented ideas.

 

You seem to have come into contact with a rather nasty form of Christian fundamentalism. That is too bad, but it isn't really any more rational or useful to base your understanding of religion on that than it is to base ones understanding of atheism on the New Atheists.

[FaithManor]

It does, which is why some of us believe the government should be out of it altogether. I can't expect others to follow the beliefs, standards, and restrictions of my faith. If you want to be part of my faith, then those must be followed. If not, then go elsewhere. I think the issue would be, if you marry in one faith, don't expect another to recognise it. *shrugs*

 

 

Also, whether or not one church recognizes another church's marriage religiously, has no bearing whatsoever on legality. Getting married in church doesn't make a marriage a civil union. It's the marriage license, properly filed after being signed by appropriate witnesses, that does. Check the regs in any state and you'll find that if your clergy person does not file that license within X days of the signing, the marriage is null. Ask us how we know, Dh has a relative whose pastor "forgot" to file the license. When they attempted to add the wife to the husband's medical insurance policy, they had to provide proof of marriage. Wife went to the courthouse only to discover that the marriage license was never filed and was told flat out, "you aren't legally married". She could not be added to the policy until they applied for another marriage license, got blood work again (some states require this and some do not), grabbed witnesses, and ran down to the magistrates office to get the deed done. The magistrate was very, very nice and told them that instead of waiting until the end of the day when he would normally walk all of his paperwork down to the clerk's office, he would take it immediately so they could see him hand it in!

 

My church should have the right to not perform religious unions for LGBT couples and the state, reminding itself that's its nose does not belong in the matter of religious unions, should respect that. The UU SHOULD have the right to perform religious unions for LGBT couples and the state should keep its nose out of that too. The only time the state should get involved is when churches attempt to unite two people who are not adults and can therefore, not consent legally or spiritually to the bonds of matrimony. At that point, the church has adopted an abusive practice and the state does have a right to protect the innocent...the children. So, if you want to "marry" 13 year olds...gender aside, you are going to get in trouble and rightfully so!

 

As a religiously conservative person, I still readily recognize that for my religious rights to be respected, I have to respect those same rights for others.

 

As for legality, the state will do whatever it needs to do to protect its own self-serving interests. If it is self-serving to provide civil marriages to non-heterose*ual couples, then it will. If it is self-serving to provide them to polygamous couples (consenting adults of course), then it will. If it is NOT self-serving to do so, it will refrain. Whom the state will or will not issue a marriage license to should not have any effect upon whom any particular church will choose to provide a marriage ceremony for.

 

Additionally, NO clergy should be forced by law to violate his/her own beliefs on the subject. So, a UU pastor should not lose his/her right to perform a religious marriage for LBGT couples because the state chooses not to extend civil marriages to the same couples. By the same token, my pastor should not lose his right to perform religious marriage ceremonies for hetero couples because it is a violation of his beliefs to perform them for LBGT.

 

In terms of whom a church will marry or not, the state should keep it's nose out of it unless there are innocents to be protected.

 

I'm rather libertarian though so even though dh and I are religiously and morally conservative, we don't actually fit in too well with a lot of "church" folk!

 

Faith

[Bluegoat]

Again, if marriage is a religious concept, then government has no business regulating it at all. Get rid of marriage and replace it with civil unions for everyone. People can then get married (or not) in their private religious ceremonies without involving the government.

 

I am not sure it is really possible to separate them entirely. The most obvious practical issue is how we define civil unions - the fact is that they are really talking about the same kind of union in a basic way, just restricting it to the parts the state deals with. So we still have to say they are open to people of the same or opposite sex or opposite only, they are open to couples or larger groups (and how large,) or possibly even open to people who are related or have no interest in a sexual relationship (as they are where I live so I'm not being fanciful.) It might allieveate some issues, but it wouldn't solve them all by any means.

 

That is, we are still going to have to answer the question what is the civil union for and what do we see as legitimatly included in that if we want any government involvement at all, dealing with tax issues, dividing property, pensions, and so on.

 

It would be possible to get out of all those things as well, but I am not sure that is what most people want.

 

I am not sure governments are really well equiped to answer those kinds of questions in terms or purely "secular" principles - by which I mean they can't really address them without reference to some basic worldview. And I think it's also the case that the separation of church and state has not meant in the past that people were not supposed to engage their own worldview when engaging in political discourse. The separation is between the institutions of the state and the institutions of religion (and I include philosophic institutions in that as well.) THe mediation between them within the individuals who are members of both - the voter who is an atheist, or the member of government who is religious, or whatever.

 

In the past a lot of the basic aspects of worldview were the same for most people, even those who were religious and who weren't. So it was not so hard to find common ground on many things and give a lot of freedom on others that were less central. I'm not so sure that is the case any longer - there seem to be questions being asked about social structures where it is difficult to find commonalities.

 

Although, I think the problem has been seriously exacerbated by a divisive rather than collaborative approach to political leadership and maybe it has been totally created by that approach. Certianly it is not so controversial here in Canada where those kinds of divisive politics are quite a new thing.

[TranquilMind]

Man, I think everyone on the anti-gay-marriage side has me on ignore. There's been such a thundering silence on the whole question of why the religious freedom argument doesn't apply to denominations which would like to perform gay marriages.

 

Well, this thread is enormously large and I can barely follow it anymore, but I thought the Pro-traditional - not "anti-gay" - side had addressed this.

 

The church can do whatever it wants. It can declare two, three, or five people married to each other.

 

It cannot demand state recognition, however, in contravention to the (previously understood) marriage definition, should said normative definition be the current law. If state has redefined marriage to include same sex marriages or any of the above scenarios, no problem.

 

Is anyone else amazed and gratified that this thread hasn't been shut down? I am. I sort of favor free speech.

[TranquilMind]

But the camp is not a church, and refusing to allow a gay couple to even use the facilities at a public camp is not the same thing as refusing to marry them. According to that article, "the camp held tax-exempt status on its entire boardwalk property under a New Jersey program that gives tax-breaks to organizations that open up their property to the general public." The camp violated that agreement by refusing to allow certain members of the public to use a pavilion there for a civil union ceremony, therefore they lost the tax-exempt status for that portion of their property. If they want to be able to discriminate against certain members of the public based on sexual orientation, then they don't get to claim the part of the property tax exemption that applies to public spaces. That is absolutely fair, IMHO. They did not lose their tax exempt status as a church, nor were they being compelled to perform a gay marriage.

 

Jackie

 

Not sure I caught all the posts on this, given the size of this thread, but it sounds as if the camp did not disallow use of the premises, but merely use of the premises for a purpose that violated its purpose. That's a significant distinction. If the couple had wanted to use the premises to have a picnic there, no problem. But the couple wanted to utilize the property for a purpose outside the purpose and charter/beliefs of the organization- a same sex marriage. It's a public place, but that doesn't mean that everything has to be permitted there, even in violation of the positions of the organization that owns the space.

[TranquilMind]

I, and increasingly large numbers of other Americans, have thought about exactly these things, and have decided in favor of marriage equality. That decision is based on logic, not religious beliefs; it is based on plausible and reliable evidence, not hyperbole and fear-mongering; and it is based on the belief that excluding millions of fellow citizens from enjoying the rights that I enjoy is anything but loving.

 

Jackie

 

Well, good for you. This is definitely one way to spin it your way and smear those who disagree, a tactic that is widespread and insidious.

 

I'll give it a try, just for fun.

 

"I, and significantly large numbers of other Americans, have thought about exactly these things, and have decided in favor of marriage equality for all, as has always been available in this country. Anyone of proper age, proper distance in familial ties, and sound mind can marry any similar individual of the opposite gender. That decision is based on logic, science, faith tenets, and obvious biological imperative, not disparagement of traditional values and redefinition of the basic building blocks of society, marriage and family. It is based on the belief that the structure of traditional families is imperative for the continuation of western culture and that expanding the definition of marriage is not in the ultimate best interest of society."

[TranquilMind]

Not true. You just don't know your history. Same sex unions existed in ancient Rome until it was made illegal in 342 BC by a *Christian* emperor who declared anyone at that point who was in a same-sex union should be executed.

 

I said, "Normalized". No culture has ever normalized this behavior. There were a few highly non-normative instances here and there.

[cdrumm4448]

Well, I think "many, many" means 50-ish. I'm still not sure what your view is.

 

And what is my agenda?

 

Shall I provide you their personal information so you can contact them directly?

[cdrumm4448]

So, marriage is a religious sacrament ordained by God, homosexuality is immoral, and the legal/civil definition of marriage must not deviate from the religious one, lest our country slide down the "slippery slope" into total chaos and immorality. Because, clearly, allowing 1-2% of the population who are in committed, long-term relationships, many of them raising children, the right to marry will destroy civilization as we know it. :001_rolleyes:

 

This argument might carry weight if the US were a theocracy — but it isn't.

 

Jackie

 

Reread the article. Religion is one aspect, but certainly not the only or main one.

[Corraleno]

It's very sad that you don't seem to extend that assumption to others. Do you really mean to imply that all religion is irrational and based on nothing?

Of course not. But I do think it's illogical to expect civil laws to be based on religious notions of sin, especially when those notions are used to deny rights to fellow citizens. I think it's illogical to believe that "freedom of religion" gives someone the right to impose their beliefs on others.

 

Given that you clearly have almost no knowledge - radically incorrect ideas actually - of what Christianity teaches and has taught, and you haven't given much indication of understanding the teachings of other religions, that seems a bit ironic.

LOL, actually I was raised as a Catholic; I attended church until I was 16 and catechism every week until I was confirmed at 12. I have studied other cultures and religions extensively (PhD in Anthropology). The fact that I disagree with you doesn't make me ignorant. :001_smile:

 

I'd also note that the way you are saying you work to understand marriage is not really compatible with it being a human created institution - if so, it would be hard to come to any conclusions about it based on logic or evidence, and it would be hard then to discern what is a loving way to deal with it. I can't say I am surprised - people are rarely passionate about the justice of things they think are simply invented ideas.

I'm afraid I don't understand this paragraph. Are you saying that anyone who doesn't believe that marriage is an institution created by God, not man, is incapable of coming to any conclusions about it based on logic or evidence? :confused:

 

You seem to have come into contact with a rather nasty form of Christian fundamentalism. That is too bad, but it isn't really any more rational or useful to base your understanding of religion on that than it is to base ones understanding of atheism on the New Atheists.

My understanding of religion is based on (1) having been raised as a Christian, (2) having studied human culture and religion for 10 years in college and graduate school, and (3) having travelled extensively, including living abroad for 10 years (so, for example, I have a good idea of the role of religion in life and law in Europe vs the US).

 

You seem to have come into contact with a rather nasty form of Christian fundamentalism. That is too bad, but it isn't really any more rational or useful to base your understanding of religion on that than it is to base ones understanding of atheism on the New Atheists.

Other than a couple of Evangelical relatives, all of the Christian fundamentalists I have "come into contact with" are on this board, actually. I certainly wouldn't characterize them as "nasty."

 

Jackie

[Matryoshka]

Originally Posted by Mrs Mungo

until it was made illegal in 342 BC by a *Christian* emperor who declared anyone at that point who was in a same-sex union should be executed.

 

 

I think you mean 342 AD here. ;)

 

I am a big marriage fan, and think that same-sex marriage strengthens the institution, and promotes family values.

 

I also don't get this "the Bible says marriage is between one man and one woman." Where? All the stuff I remember reading about in the Bible, marriage is between one man and many women, and the man also has assorted concubines and slaves who he has free s*xual access to. This is not a model I'd wish modern society to follow.

 

I rather like a definition along the lines of "marriage is a monogamous union between two committed individuals, who swear to love, honor and cherish each other, in sickness and health." with any luck until death do they part, but considering the divorce rate, maybe that's too much to ask...;)

[Corraleno]

Reread the article. Religion is one aspect, but certainly not the only or main one.

The main argument in that article is that homosexuality is wrong, and that normalizing it will lead to widespread immorality and the decline of civilization. The reason homosexuality is wrong is because the Bible says so. That is a religious argument.

 

Jackie

[cdrumm4448]

When copying and pasting the work of another, it is generally accepted you should cite the source.

 

For anyone interested, the entire exchange can be found here: http://faculty.mc3.edu/barmstro/sullivan.html

 

Yes ma'am.

[cdrumm4448]

They all have the same rights. Everyone has a right to marry someone of the opposite gender, which is our current definition of marriage.

 

It seems so simple, doesn't it?

[Joanne]

Shall I provide you their personal information so you can contact them directly?

 

It's an unlikely statistic that you offered. From a lived experience standpoint, the chances of finding "many, many" non religious persons who believe gay is a choice rather than an orientation (the way most people believe heterosexual to be) are slim.

[nmoira]

Shall I provide you their personal information so you can contact them directly?

:lol:

 

You made a pretty strong and dismissive statement, and I asked a simple question in the interest of clarity. One you haven't answered.

[nmoira]

The Bible defines marriage as a covenant between one man, one woman and God so it would not include two same-gender people.

 

Anyone who wants to can be legally married by simply marrying someone of the opposite gender. Everyone can do this. Nobody is excluded from doing this. A gay person could marry a straight person of the opposite gender and a gay person could also marry another gay person of the opposite gender. A straight person also cannot marry someone of the same gender. They all have the same rights. Everyone has a right to marry someone of the opposite gender, which is our current definition of marriage.

Do you mean "gender" or "sex"?

[Corraleno]

Well, good for you. This is definitely one way to spin it your way and smear those who disagree, a tactic that is widespread and insidious.

I am not trying to "smear" those who disagree.

I think it is illogical for people to want freedom of religion for themselves, while simultaneously claiming the right to impose their beliefs on others.

I think is hyperbole and fear-mongering to claim that legalizing gay marriage will lead to marriage with animals and inanimate objects and the complete breakdown of society as we know it, as several of the linked articles have suggested.

I think it is the very opposite of loving to deny to fellow citizens many of the rights and privileges that I enjoy, when they haven't committed any crime or hurt anyone, and all they are asking for is the right to marry the person they love.

 

"I, and significantly large numbers of other Americans, have thought about exactly these things, and have decided in favor of marriage equality for all, as has always been available in this country. Anyone of proper age, proper distance in familial ties, and sound mind can marry any similar individual of the opposite gender. That decision is based on logic, science, faith tenets, and obvious biological imperative, not disparagement of traditional values and redefinition of the basic building blocks of society, marriage and family. It is based on the belief that the structure of traditional families is imperative for the continuation of western culture and that expanding the definition of marriage is not in the ultimate best interest of society."

Marriage equality means being equally free to marry the person you love. Claiming that there is no discrimination because gay people are "free" to marry someone they don't love is a ridiculous argument and insulting to gay couples. :001_rolleyes:

 

Jackie

[cdrumm4448]

The main argument in that article is that homosexuality is wrong, and that normalizing it will lead to widespread immorality and the decline of civilization. The reason homosexuality is wrong is because the Bible says so. That is a religious argument.

 

Jackie

 

The Bible was never mentioned. What was mentioned was this,"...completely antithetical to the tenets of all of the world's major religions..." which was one reason in the author's list of reasons. I didn't realize the Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists use the Christian Bible.

[Corraleno]

Originally Posted by Lea in OK

They all have the same rights. Everyone has a right to marry someone of the opposite gender, which is our current definition of marriage.

It seems so simple, doesn't it?

It's only "simple" if you assume that marriage has nothing to do with love. Claming that gay people can just marry someone they don't love isn't "simple," it's absurd, sarcastic, and insulting.

 

Jackie

[cdrumm4448]

I am not trying to "smear" those who disagree.

But you are.

I think it is illogical for people to want freedom of religion for themselves, while simultaneously claiming the right to impose their beliefs on others. You are purposefully misunderstanding.

I think is hyperbole and fear-mongering to claim that legalizing gay marriage will lead to marriage with animals and inanimate objects and the complete breakdown of society as we know it, as several of the linked articles have suggested.If you all want the change, it's up to you to prove it won't.

I think it is the very opposite of loving to deny to fellow citizens many of the rights and privileges that I enjoy, when they haven't committed any crime or hurt anyone, and all they are asking for is the right to marry the person they love.But don't you see, you're actually asking for acceptance of a practice many people believe is wrong. And then you're surprised when they don't support you.

 

 

Marriage equality means being equally free to marry the person you love. Well, I love my guinea pig. I want to marry her.Claiming that there is no discrimination because gay people are "free" to marry someone they don't love is a ridiculous argument and insulting to gay couples. :001_rolleyes: Actually, it's insulting to denigrate someone's closely held beliefs for your own benefit.

 

Jackie

 

:patriot:

[La Texican]

It wasn't legal, but it wasn't illegal either. A bit like homebirthing with a CPM or DEM in PA...not illegal, but if something happens or someone wants to make a stink about it, then it can be prosecutable. Well, in the case of gay marriage, there was enough publicity coming out that people started making a stink about it on both sides and a new law is made or old law rewritten. Basically, it was considered a non-issue prior.

 

I thought everything that was not illegal was reserved for the States and the individuals to decide, or something like that, with preference going to individual liberty by default.

 

About my question earlier, "who made the first move to legally redefine marraige as being definitely not gay?". The answer is because the States used to call gay coitus itself illegal, so they were kind of like homeschool kids used to be, kept in the closet. In 2003 some Texas police tried to enforce this archaic law and arrest some gays for having coitus. The gays appealed to a higher Texas court, which upheld it, another Texas court, which wouldn't touch it, and finally the Supreme Court, which decided that States laws banning personal gay coitus are in violation of the constitution. http://www.apa.org/about/offices/ogc/amicus/lawrence.aspx

 

The reason gay marraige wasn't attempted was because gay coitus was banned in several States statutes and laws. Now it's not. If it's illegal to exist, well you can't ask for more rights. Once it's legal to exist you're entitled to basic human rights. It's all over but the crying.

[cdrumm4448]

It's only "simple" if you assume that marriage has nothing to do with love. Claming that gay people can just marry someone they don't love isn't "simple," it's absurd, sarcastic, and insulting.

 

Jackie

 

What is insulting is the attempted aggressive co-opting of an age-old tradition that people value that is the bedrock of our society, that we want to protect and nurture. The definition of marriage is one man, one woman according to law and the commonplace definition of the word. No amount of bashing will change that.

[justasque]

The definition of marriage is one man, one woman according to law and the commonplace definition of the word. No amount of bashing will change that.

 

Actually, the law has been changing quite a bit. Six states now allow same-sex marriage, along with Washington DC. Maryland and Rhode Island recognize marriages from other states. California is in flux, of course, due to Prop 8. Combined, these states include a significant portion of the country's population.

 

The Defense of Marriage Act means, among other things, that states don't have to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. Several challenges to DOMA are winding their way through the courts, making federal recognition a possibility in the near future. If DOMA falls, then all states would have to recognize marriages performed elsewhere, thus making individual state law somewhat moot.

 

In addition, quite a few other countries allow same-sex marriage, including Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, and Sweden.

[La Texican]

The Bible was never mentioned. What was mentioned was this,"...completely antithetical to the tenets of all of the world's major religions..." which was one reason in the author's list of reasons. I didn't realize the Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists use the Christian Bible.

 

The relationship between Buddhism and sexual orientation varies by tradition and teacher. According to some scholars, early Buddhism appears to have placed no special stigma on homosexual relations, since the subject was not mentioned.[1] Some later traditions do feature sanction of homosexual contact.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_sexual_orientation

 

I had to look that up because I've heard a little about the Dhali Lhama and all I know about Buddhism is that they seek personal improvement and ask that any good karma they earn go towards "relieving the suffering of all sentient beings". *

 

 

 

Can't find the quote you quoted

But here's the cut and paste. *My point here is that she could have said "religious texts" rather than using the generic Bible we all grew up with, but in this thread all the participants who referred to a religious text drew only from the Christian Bible. *It seems no others are participating in this conversation at this time.

 

Quote

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corraleno *

The main argument in that article is that homosexuality is wrong, and that normalizing it will lead to widespread immorality and the decline of civilization. The reason homosexuality is wrong is because the Bible says so. That is a religious argument.*

 

Jackie

 

 

 

Am I the only one lol'ing that Bill Clinton, the guy who you know what, made that defense of the sanctity of marraige law happen? Oh the irony.

Edited July 26, 2012 by La Texican

[justasque]

As to the question of the boardwalk pavillion rented for weddings, the judge's decision is well worth reading, regardless of which side of the issue you are on. He lays out the facts and the history, and his reasoning, in a very readable way.

 

Interestingly, the town had been concerned, when considering giving the tax breaks in the first place, that the church might restrict access based on their religious beliefs, and the church had repeatedly told the town that it would not. This was pretty influential in the judge's ruling.

[Free]

But don't you see, you're actually asking for acceptance of a practice many people believe is wrong. And then you're surprised when they don't support you.

 

When the choice is between equal rights on on hand and continuation of tradition on the other, then equal rights IMO should win, don't you think? Equal rights has won over tradition earlier and even then there were people who believed that the new ideas of equality for all were wrong and that society would degenerate and it would be the end of western civilization.