A Good Husband
Marriage Advice From A Man
Gay Liberal and Conservative Christian Marriage
Author: Cory H.11 Nov
37 states in the USA have some sort of ban against same sex marriage.
Opinions on the subject are sharply divided among religious lines. Traditional, conservative, older churches (with the notable exception of many Jews) support an outright ban and preach that that homosexuality is a sin.
Many secularists and liberal religious groups say that bans against gay marriage are bigotry and have no place in contemporary society. They argue that marriage is a fundamental right to every person, regardless of sexual orientation.
Irreconcilable Differences
The problem is that it seems impossible to reconcile these two opposing views, and the discussion is growing heated almost beyond the point of civilized return.
Why does the gay community want the recognition of marriage? Some gay couples are Christians who want their church to change their doctrine to legitimize their marriage. They feel that God loves them and will recognize their committed union regardless of what the Bible teaches. Other groups want access to the legal benefits of marriage.
Should government regulate marriage?
Great difficulty stems from the fact that so much of how couples receive their legal rights is tied up in an institution that began as a religious ceremony. While it is possible to receive many of the same legal rights as marriage via a Power of Attorney document (health benefits, life insurance, hospital visitation, etc), many gay couples will argue that “separate but equal” is anything but equal.
Conservative Christians, on the other hand, will argue that not only does gay marriage redefine what marriage is, not only does it undermine the foundation of traditional values, but God has said that homosexuality is immoral in and of itself. Gay marriage can never be justified under the law because you are giving legal rights and legitimacy to an immoral act. Many other acts of immorality have no laws enacted against them in the USA. A person can have sex outside of marriage, commit adultery, drink, do drugs and suffer no legal ramifications one way or another. There are, however, no legal rights associated with these acts. They do not carry the legal weight of institutional recognition.
What it boils down to.
The crux of the argument: the gay community wants equal rights and the religious community believes that homosexuality is a sin and therefore cannot be legitimized.
How then, can such opposing views be reconciled?
You have an intellectual argument that makes sense butting up against a spiritual or theological mandate that carries not the power of intellect, but the mandate of divine revelation.
Because of children, and for the sake of an organized and fair society, it is the government’s interest to regulate marriage and the rights that are associated with marriage. The state saves a great deal of money over time if children are raised by their parents in their own homes, and if families are stable. Because the government in this country is run by the people’s vote, the concerns of all parties must be considered for the health of our democracy.
America on the brink.
America stands on the brink of a moral crisis. Not only is it moral to love and serve your fellow man, but it is also morally imperative to follow your spiritual promptings.
How do conservative Christians come together with the gay community? Should they come together? If neither side is willing to compromise, then what happens? Does the majority enforce their will on the minority? If this happens, how will their ever be harmony?
74 Responses for "Gay Liberal and Conservative Christian Marriage"
I subscribe to the “Follow Your Own Beliefs And Keep Them Out Of My Life” philosophy. I wouldn’t have the government ban bacon because it’s not Kosher. I also wouldn’t expect the government to ban the eating of meat on Fridays during Lent. That’s why we have the Separation of Church and State.
When it comes to Gay Marriage, I think that we should have state-sanctioned gay marriage, but we can’t force churches to accept it. If a church refuses to marry two men or two women, they shouldn’t be sued into compliance. However, the state shouldn’t be bound by religious restrictions either.
An easy way to re-word this question would be: Should the State allow Wiccans to marry? Many Christian churches see Wiccan followers as evil practitioners of witchcraft. Why should the State validate (what some churches see as) an unholy union?
The answer, of course, is that the church is allowed to think that Wiccan followers are on the “wrong path”, but that can’t translate into a governmental ban on Wiccan marriage. Similarly, churches are just fine thinking that Homosexuality is a sin and that gay marriage is wrong. They are fine if they refuse to marry two men or two women. But they step outside their bounds if they force their doctrine on others.
TechyDads last blog post..The Charleston Trip, Part 2: Wandering the Grounds
I think there’s a simple solution: separate the rational/legal from the spiritual/moral, and get states out of the business of authorizing religious ceremonies.
Everyone who wants to get married already needs a “marriage” license from the state. Call this something else, like “legal union,” and let the states follow their laws or federal law, when it gets to that, about who can form a legal union, with all the rights and responsibilities the state now recognizes for those who are “married.”
Then, let people who want to engage in a religious ceremony of their choice, just like they do now. They can do whatever their church allows and be recognized as “married” within their church. But these unions will have no legal status; all legal rights will reside in the legal union.
As someone who does not belong to a church, and who believes in the separation of church and state, it makes me uncomfortable that laws and religion are mixed up in this issue.
Susan Kuchinskass last blog post..Could Oxytocin Have Prevented Our Economic Meltdown?
“Why does the gay community want the recognition of marriage? Some gay couples are Christians who want their church to change their doctrine to legitimize their marriage. They feel that God loves them and will recognize their committed union regardless of what the Bible teaches. Other groups want access to the legal benefits of marriage.”
Mostly I’m willing to bet that they want the latter. That’s the only thing that the gov’t can really control. I say give it to them.
Scotts last blog post..Spiritual Stew: Episode Ten - Rabbit Trails
While the separation of church and state are important, how do you practically separate them when the state is controlled by people, and people are complex - they have all this stuff that guides them. Religion included.
If God was not such a guiding force in people’s lives, and if the law were not so tangled up in religion, this issue would be much easier to resolve.
The question then, is how to reconcile the two parties so that we can have a harmonious society?
I actually have a friend who is writing on this very issue. She is a Christian but has been appalled at how the Christian community deals with homosexuality.
I am probably not doing her thoughts justice, but I would like to point out that people who are conservatively religious do seem to uphold homosexuality as the ubersin, the unforgivable sin.
You can read her thoughts here: http://emphaticasterisk.com/
Hayden Tompkinss last blog post..Honoring Our Veterans
Cory, you’ve obviously put a lot of effort into this, and speaking as a liberal, I think you’ve done a decent job of presenting both sides objectively. I like what you write about marriage, though I admit I skim the spiritual stuff.
Do religious couples feel that marriages between gays undermine the legitimacy of their own marriages? I hope not, because each marriage has to stand or fall on its own merits.
Like TechyDad, I’d like to see all legal rights bound up in a “legal union” and all religious aspects bound up in “marriage”, but, as another commenter noted, people will never let that happen. I would be willing to bet that religious people would object to gays being given the legal benefits, and I would even suspect that liberals would want gay unions to carry the word “marriage”.
It’s something of a culture war, and the people on both sides want all of society to acknowledge that they’re right. Neither side has the moral high ground.
Jeff Hershbergers last blog post..Do you have snow tires?
My father was a bishop for ten years (not that it matters except that it makes his following remark that much more comical.) And he said to me “If Prop8 doesn’t pass then I’m going to fight to reinstate polygamy dammit!”
Sorry, I just had to share.
Surfer Jays last blog post..
I know you were struggling with the issue of Church Law and Civil Law whether they can even be kept separate - and Lindsey just wrote a post on how they are absolutely separate. (Biblically supported, which is why I thought it might be of interest to you.
http://emphaticasterisk.com/2008/11/12/civil-law-and-gods-law/
Hayden Tompkinss last blog post..Honoring Our Veterans
It is an interesting position that people find themselves in. I myself find myself stranded between two poles, as I was raised in the conservative Anabaptist tradition (my grandparents used to be Amish) but I myself support gay rights.
The problem is that there needs to be a real conversation- a conversation about what people really think and why- not about tossing accusations and displaying anger, but about honestly seeking to reconcile the needs of all people and all society, instead of the protectionism that always seems to end up with someone being discriminated against.
We’ve already seen what rampant legislation of morality can do to the country through the Prohibition. And in the prohibition, was any REAL good done? No, the people who wanted to “sin” just found more creative ways to do it, and ended up being penalized far beyond the natural punishments of their actions when they were caught. And, in the end, the majority of society won it’s way and the minority was again silenced.
The problem that religious conservatism now faces is the hard blow it will inevitably be dealt when gay rights are recognized. I truly believe that such a thing is inevitable- the ball has been rolling downhill for over thirty years now, and the gay community wins more friends daily. What the religious community TRULY needs to do is focus it’s eyes inward, at the wrongs they have committed in this process and the people inside it’s own boundaries that need the money and attention being spent elsewhere far more than we need to eradicate the sins of secular society. The religious community is shooting itself in the foot, to put it simply. The millions of dollars being spent on anti-gay propaganda would be far better spent on the needy, like people whose homes are getting foreclosed on. And the vitriol that is starting to show puts a bad face on the God we worship.
The biggest question isn’t one of sin, it’s one of MISSION. I’ve read the Bible cover to cover several times, and never once have I seen God telling me that my mission as a Christian is to eradicate sin. It is to demonstrate love and mercy, to save- not to condemn or behave prejudicially.
(sorry for writing a book here- once I get started I have a hard time stopping)
and @ Hayden, thanks for the link-love, dear!
Lindseys last blog post..In defense of Gay rights- Civil Law and God’s Law
Lindsey, I’m really glad to have you comment. Your blog is great.
I’ve heard the line about churches spending their money on the poor and needy, and I think that while it’s definitely a valid point, there also has to be resources spent on defending & promoting what’s right. If there is legislation being considered that could potentially be harmful to a faith or to society as a whole, a church has the right to make themselves heard, just as any regular citizen, be they right or wrong.
“The problem is that there needs to be a real conversation- a conversation about what people really think and why- not about tossing accusations and displaying anger, but about honestly seeking to reconcile the needs of all people and all society, instead of the protectionism that always seems to end up with someone being discriminated against.”
This is a great paragraph, and both sides of the discussion should keep this in mind.
I am a conservative Christian. Homosexuality is not the uber sin. The sin of homosexuality is equal to the sin of premarital sex or adultery or an other sin. Sin is sin. To expect the church to support sanctioning sinful behavior is absurd. No, gays should not be allowed to marry. People say they should because they are in love with each other. Well the pedophile is in love with the child. Should they be able to marry. If it is all about supporting desire, the alcoholic desires to drink. Why should we think that is ok to do to access? Just because there is love or desire involved doesn’t make it right or healthy.
I am in no way prejudice against gays. I helped to carry my dead brother out of my parents home after he died with AIDS. I know the lifestyle very well. I was extremely accepting of my brother and his friends. I went to his parties and knew what his lifestyle was all about. The lifestyle is not healthy. It damages the bodies of men. There is a great deal of emotional problems in the gay community. Homosexuality is a behavior not an identity. Pedophilia, raping, drinking, prostitution, nose picking are all behaviors. People should not receive special rights due to behaviors. The right to marry has not been taken away from the gays. They just don’t want to marry a member of the opposite sex. I know it wouldn’t be easy to abstain from sexual activity but no church should support sex outside of marriage whether homosexual sex or heterosexual sex. And no church should support gay marriage. You can’t filter through the Bible and decide what you’ll consider sin. God already did that and to pick and choose from that, is sin in itself.
You know, it’s a hard world. Life isn’t fair. Do I wish that gays could marry? No I wish they weren’t gay. But unless they try to figure out how to change that (and it can be done, I’ve seen it) they are stuck. They either need to figure out how to be continent with being single and gay or figure out how to change their orientation.
How can both sides reconcile? History has some clues.
How did both sides reconcile when inter-racial marriage was against the law? This issue of banning guy marriage is largely championed by those over 50. Eventually they will die out and the majority who understand that gay marriage hurts nobody will be left to do the right thing. Will there always be bigots? Absolutely. There are still people who thing inter-racial marriage is wrong. But they are (thankfully) the minority and can be ignored.
It really is that simple Cory. Eventually those who want equal rights win out. Sometimes it takes a very long time which is sad but in this land of freedom it will eventually happen.
Sorry, something else I read above prompted a thought.
Is homosexuality a larger sin than adultery? Jesus never mentions homosexuality but affirms (luke 16:18 and other places as well) that it’s forbidden to remarry after a divorce. Where is the law banning remarriage? Shouldn’t that have been taken care of before prop 8?
I appreciated what you said. I have herd a lot on this topic and most people don’t state the facts but rather get angry. Then bad things start to happen. I also want to thank you for saying what the dispute is rather plainly. I have forgotten that the issue can be boiled down the a church vs state issue. I know it is still complicated, but this is a good place for me to start when looking at the the issue. Thanks
Laurie,
I have serious concerns about the statements you’re making. You say that you wish people weren’t gay and that they can change their orientation. What leads you to believe that being either heterosexual or homosexual is a choice?
And what leads you to believe that homosexuality is a sin? Your religion might dictate how people should live and what they should believe, but why do you feel that your religious beliefs should be represented by our government?
No one believes that churches should sanction same sex marriages. What people are asking for is to provide everyone with the legal right to marry, regardless of their sexual orientation. The U.S. has redefined marriage in the past, allowing bi-racial couples to marry as recently as the 1960s. It’s time for us to redefine marriage, once again, in order to allow everyone equal rights.
I’m sorry to hear about your brother’s death. I would imagine that he would be honored if you would stand up for him and provide others with the same rights that you have and separate church and state when forming an opinion on this matter.
Hip_M0Ms last blog post..Happy Healthy Hip Parents
Eli,
You are welcome to have serious concerns about what I am saying. I don’t. I do wish people weren’t gay. While not every heterosexual life is free of struggle, The homosexual lifestyle is a difficult life with much hardship. Why would I wish that on anyone. I do know of many people who, through a great deal of effort changed their orientation, married, had children and is happy.
I believe it is a sin because the Bible states that it is. It is no more a sin than heterosexual sex outside of marriage. Like I said, sin is sin.
Since our government was established on the belief in God and laws reflected the moral standards in the Bible, I believe that is a good basis for a moral society. So yes I am saying that homosexual sex isn’t moral JUST like heterosexual sex outside of marriage isn’t moral. I am unaware of anything in the Bible against bi-racial marriage, I may be wrong but I don’t recall ever reading that in the Bible. Once again, gays have the right to marry. They choose not to because they don’t want to marry someone of the opposite sex, understandable. But no one has taken their right away. If you believe that marriage should be redefined, how about including cousins, brother and sister, father and daughter, man and dog, man and boy, lady and 20 men, man and 50 women, teacher and student, heck why can’t you marry yourself. TO define it another way will jeopardize the family unit even more that it has been already. To break the family structure down is to break the foundation of our culture.
My brother did not support gay marriage even though he was gay. He knew the importance of the family unit and appreciated that fact.
You’d probably get fewer “politically correct” responses to this post but people want others to come to their blog. I ahve no blog so I can afford to say what I really believe.
SO don’t be concerned with me and my ideas. Have you ever read the communist manifesto?
Laurie,
I’m glad you feel free to say what you really believe. Are you are in favor of making it illegal for people to remarry?
The Bible does allow divorce and remarriage under certain circumstances.
[...] Gay Liberal and Conservative Christian Marriage (A Good Husband) Cory has a great conversation on the gay marriage debate. I have some strong feelings on this issue and will be part of another post. [...]
Laurie,
Luke 16:18 seems pretty clear, but ok. Do you support making it against the law to remarry in most of the cases except where Luke 16:18 may not apply (please clarify btw)?
You are allowed to divorce and remarry if:
Your spouse commits adultery and
If you marry an unbeliever and he/she leaves you
Divorce wasn’t so easy to get in years past. There used to be grounds for divorce such as abandonment and adultery. It wasn’t until a no fault divorce or “irreconcilable differences” came along that divorce became an easy solution to a problem marriage. Judges would not grant a couple a divorce if he didn’t feel those situations occurred.
Back in that day, for the injured party, the grounds for divorce would affect the amount of spousal support awarded. So people falsely accused of adultery would often fight it to save the pocket book as well as their reputation. Do I believe it should go back to this type of divorce granting? Yes but I would also include allowing divorce where there is emotional and physical abuse. You might come up with other situations where divorce should be allowed as well. But I don’t believe in a no fault divorce.
I’d be interested in the point of view of Cory H. Being a Mormon, I would think he has a view point worth listening to.
Laurie,
Ok, but the honest person getting remarried isn’t the question (assuming you are right about that). Would you support a law making it illegal for people who have committed adultery from getting married?
Just for your audience info, civil union couples in CA assumes all the rights and responsibilities as marriage.
They are not gaining anymore rights than what they are entitle to now. Obviously, they omit to tell people that.
btw, this type of attack ( http://www.mounthopechurch.org/pages/page.asp?page_id=51068 ) makes them looks like immature sore looser.
Just for your audience info, people riding in the back of a bus can get on and off at all of the same stops as those riding in the front.
Laurie & John Frum - speaking as me, not as a representative of the LDS church, I think that the idea is that you don’t get divorced unless there is some sort of abuse going on, or if there is adultery, but I don’t think either of those cases would automatically warrant divorce. I wrote a post about this a few months ago: http://agoodhusband.net/2008/03/divorce-is-too-easy/ .
Are there cases where abuse or adultery warrant divorce? Yes. Are there cases where abuse and adultery warrant working things out and making it better? Don’t you think each individual situation is up to the couple and their relationship to God?
Religion has no place in government at any level. In fact, that is the principle this country was founded on.
And your religion isn’t my morality.
The country WAS founded on Christian beliefs and morals. Faith and religion are different. Religion is about ceremony while faith is about belief. The foundation for the development of our laws is the Bible. This country was founded on a belief of freedom OF religion not a freedom FROM religion. It’s laws were developed from the morals given in the Bible. You can think it isn’t or shouldn’t be that way but it is. Your morality is yours. Set by you, with boundaries and limits of what you believe is right and wrong. But if your morality conflicts with what society sets as a boundary, you will have consequences no matter what you have decided is your morality.
So Cory H- do you support gay marriage or not?
Just to clear up Laurie’s misinformation…
Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli:
“Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”
This was written, ratified and signed into law by many of our founding fathers in 1797.
It is also important to note that the founding fathers wisely made our constitution a living document that can change with the times. As an example of why this is a very good thing; the bible still clearly condones slavery, our laws have moved on. We changed our laws because our view of what is moral changed. So the bible is a poor basis for laws and a poorer basis still for morality. If the bible were really the last word on morality, morality wouldn’t change over time and slavery (among other things) never would have been allowed in the first place.
http://www.whydoesgodhateamputees.com/
John, there’s a lot more to our country’s founding than the Treaty of Tripoli. We can talk about our nation’s founders until we’re blue in the face, but what it really comes down to is that it’s impossible to separate religion from the lives of those who are deeply religious. A person’s faith informs not only their view on God, but also their view on other people and the world around them. Taking away that world view would be impossible. Since so many “regular people” are Christians (or Muslims, or Jews - they have conservative morality as well), our country - and it’s laws - will never be wholly separated from religion.
Laurie - while I agree with you on many points of doctrine and morality, you should be aware that you come across as strident and argumentative. I have always hoped that this site would be a place where people can come to mutual understanding, instead of arguing back and forth. I believe that I have made my position on gay marriage clear.
What I want to know, and I’m repeating myself here, is how do we then get along, knowing that there are two (or more) such different viewpoints out there?
RE:You have an intellectual argument that makes sense butting up against a spiritual or theological mandate that carries not the power of intellect, but the mandate of divine revelation.
This is why the gay community has such power. We argue and agree for them that divine revelation has no appeal to the intellect. Which is absurd. Divine revelation is always based on “good reason”. Higher reason than our own - that we often have to take on as true by “faith”.
There was a time that we thought the earth was flat. It took men of conviction and “divine revelation” to stand up to the scientific and cultural giants of the day to say otherwise. Yes that is right, most of the major pivotal scientific and wholesome cultural breakthroughs were introduced by God fearing, faith filled individuals. Individuals who had good reason.
George Ws last blog post..Obama And Media Spin
Thanks for the response Cory. My reason for referring to the treaty of Tripoli is that it’s the most concise statement we have from our founding fathers on the topic. You are correct that there is a lot more than that. The fact that our constitution does not mention god was hugely controversial at the time. In fact it almost caused it not to be ratified. There is no doubt that our founding fathers were largely religious. This was prior to our modern age of reason and it was very difficult not to be religious. Yet our founding fathers decided in the end to keep god out of the constitution. Let me say again for emphasis, this was a BIG deal at the time.
People often say the bible is the foundation for our laws but they never really say which laws. How many of the 10 commandments coincide with laws? Some, but if the bible is a good foundation for law shouldn’t all of them fit? Are the few that do fit just common sense? My face does feel a bit blue ?
Here’s a very well done video that explains my viewpoint of the bible: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkXOwBIRX7Y I understand that it may come off as offensive. That is not my intent.
You asked about reconciliation. How do we get along? All we can do is keep talking. Keep presenting evidence for our case. Eventually that evidence will mount high enough that the majority of people will see things the way we see them. I would also gently point out that the need for reconciliation is on your side alone. Once enough people understand that love is universal and gay people are allowed to marry, you will be able to keep living your life the way you do now. You are under no threat. Nobody will take away any of your rights. Love is not a zero sum game. But it will be up to you to come to terms with the every changing world we live in. We are happy to keep talking but ultimately this is something only you (and each like you) can do for yourself.
I in no way intended to come off as harsh. I simply stated what I believed and why. I believe when others do not agree they tend to inject a harsher tone in the writing than was there. I did the same thing above when eli commented by feeling concerned about my statements, and John wanting to clear up what he felt was my misinformation. I believe more tone was read in to what I wrote than intended. If often happens in writing.
I could write a great deal to support my statement about the founding of our country but I will direct you to a book by Darrell Ankarlo called “What went wrong with America and hoe to fix it” It has an entire chapter on how our country was not only founded on religious liberty but was founded to specifically serve as a colony of Christianity. But on to the original question posed by this post, that of gay marriage.
I believe it is assumed that if one is against the idea of gay marriage, that one is prejudice toward gay people. I am not prejudice against gay people. I can not like their behavior and still value them as people much like a parent can disapprove of a son or daughter’s behavior and continue to love their child. You say, John, that I am under no threat but I disagree. I value the family unit. Gay marriage disrupts the family unit. Our nation’s foundation is the family. To disintegrate the family unit is to lead our nation to destruction as a free country. I know you won’t believe this statement. That is why I asked earlier if you (any of you) have read the communist manifesto. It discusses systematically breaking down the government such as ours in order to establish a communistic regime. One of the first moves is to break up the traditional family. And it goes on and on to describe many of the activities that are being currently pushed by the liberals of this country.
There is no compromise with gay marriage. You either have it or you don’t. I believe that by allowing it we sacrifice too much and then where do you stop? After the gays get their marriage certificate, then which group is next? Where is the line? If you are for gay marriage, where do you draw the line and why is the line drawn there? Pedophiles? Cousins? 12 year olds? siblings? parent/child?, where is the line? You can tell me what you want but what is too much for you? And if you do have a limit on what you believe is ok to marry, then does that mean that you are narrow minded and prejudice? Why should it be a big deal if a 30 year old wants to marry a 13 year old? After all “you will be able to keep living your life the way you do now. You are under no threat. Nobody will take away any of your rights. Love is not a zero sum game. But it will be up to you to come to terms with the every changing world we live in.” Are these statements good for every situation? Why not?
The trip to destruction taken one step at a time. I believe gay marriage is one of those steps.
Laurie,
The reason people take offense at the things you type is not just tone. I have a thick skin and can look past tone; but the content of what you type is often very offensive.
Saying that you don’t know where to draw the line between gay marriage and pedophilia?!? Really? Seriously? (this isn’t the first time I’ve seen you say this btw)
There is no slippery slope argument there because the two are not even remotely related.
When you resort to such faulty lines of reason you sound like a garden variety internet troll so don’t be surprised when we respond to you as such.
This question is for Cory because I respect his ability to respond rationally; how is marriage of two gay people harmful to your marriage? Gay marriage is legal in Maryland. If you had to move to Maryland for some reason, how would your marriage be affected? If the distinction is based on religious grounds, why isn’t enough to have your religion not recongnize gay marriage and leave the legal distinction to Caesar?
I am not an Internet troll. I have not questioned your integrity or anyone else’s on this post yet I am the one being accused with having “tone”. I will always say how I feel. The link with pedophilia is to ask where is the line? So far no one has answered that question. I say the line should stay where it is. I am not a horrible person because of my feelings on this. I have a definite sense of right and wrong in this. I have as much right to say how I feel about it as you do. I am not in the minority in the country with this. Evidently just on this post.
Laurie,
Honestly I value your ability to say how you feel. I’m only doing the same in return. I also don’t intend to have a harsh tone but my desire to be understood is sometimes interpreted as harsh, especially in text only form.
I will take you at your word that you aren’t trolling and answer your question more directly.
The line should be placed such that any two adults who are not already in a contract of marriage should be able to join in a contract of marriage.
The idealist in me would like to insist that the contract be based on love and respect, but even that should not be the subject of legal affairs. From the perspective of the state, marriage should be purely a binding civil contract. Any ceremony on top of that should be the jurisdiction of religion. If you god doesn’t allow gay marriage, fine. If someone else’s does, also fine. But your church should not be able to tell other churches what is acceptable (freedom OF religion right?).
…
Be honest though. Two gay people who love each other and are in a committed relationship and want to build their lives together are not the same thing as pedophilia right? Please be honest and tell me you can see that.
Wow, John, thanks for your reply. I can open up to this. Yes, molesting kids is not the same as gay marriage. My point was to simply point out the slippery slope.
There is already a civil union (I’m not sure what that is called) available for gay couples. When you move the language over into the idea of “marriage” to me, it brings faith into it since marriage is a faith based bond. I cannot ignore my faith in all of this. I realize that others don’t share my faith but to sit idle on such a Biblically wrong act to me, would be wrong of me to do. I would be just as vocal if we were discussing other behaviors that are not Biblically supported. I am not saying I have it all down in this world. Oh no. I have tons of issues that I struggle with. I am currently in a group called Celebrate Recovery to get over my hurts, hang ups, and habits. But to not speak up to me would be condoning the idea of gay marriage. In my mind, I am being obedient to God for speaking up. So I can’t compromise on this issue. Do you understand this at all?
I feel so sorry for a gay couple who has no direction to turn. But I would rather them seek at least an effort to turn toward heterosexuality that to stay in the gay lifestyle. Can it happen? Yes but maybe not for all. So would that mean that they have no alternative? Yes. And my heart pours out for them in this case but abstinence is better than living a life that is unpleasing to God. Sometimes, life isn’t fair.
Ok, what IS and Internet troll?
John, once again, thank you for your last comment. It felt like and invitation to enter into this conversation without swords drawn. I can really understand your points. I just cannot compromise my faith.
Laurie,
You said “When you move the language over into the idea of “marriage” to me, it brings faith into it since marriage is a faith based bond.” Would you approve of a man and a woman getting married if they were atheists and their ceremony consisted of a trip to city hall or Las Vegas? Would you recognize their wedding as valid since there would be no “faith” involved? Is any kind of faith acceptable? If two Wiccans marry, is it acceptable?
I understand that you find homosexuality to be a sin and you have the right to your religious opinion. I’m just trying to find where the boundry is on your opinion that marriage is a “faith based bond.”
TechyDads last blog post..In Trouble With THE F(ake)BI
Oh, and an “Internet Troll” is someone who posts to a message board/forum/blog/etc with the sole purpose of stirring up as much trouble as possible. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet) )
Imagine someone who would enjoy going to a Christian board and making a post denigrating Jesus or someone who posts to an Atheist forum about how they are all going to hell since they don’t believe in God. The Internet Troll doesn’t care about the discussion. Often, they won’t even stick around for it. They’ll stir up the beehive and then watch from afar, chuckling about how upset the bees are. The mere fact that you’ve stuck around for the discussion lessens the possibility in my mind that you are a troll.
TechyDads last blog post..In Trouble With THE F(ake)BI
Interesting question techDad. I would have to be REALLY honest and say I married an atheist. I married in a church and for me it was a faith based covenant. I was really young and was not outspoken enough to ask him what it meant to him. He has since become a believer in Christ. I would draw the line for marriage at a man and a woman. I believe the roots of marriage are biblical but yes, not everyone that enters into it is making the commitment with a faithful mindset. But even so, it was, from the beginning of time, meant to define a certain relationship between a man and a woman, also designed to provide structure for having and bringing up children.
Hehehe. Ok, I am not a troll. I don’t even live under a bridge. I have a regular set of blogs I read and comment on. I comment on a variety of blogs. Blogs on relationships, creativity, entrepreneurship, self development, parenting etc. Most of the times you wouldn’t notice my comment but on this one since I have a view that is different from most commenting, I stand out. For me, the whole blog thing is a fun way to discuss issues, get ideas, learn, and just talk to people. With this post, I was really surprised that my response met with such objection knowing that Cory comes from a LDS background. I figure this site was probably frequented by many LDS’s. I would think they would agree with my view. Maybe not. The debate on this issue is good to have. You might (and have) give me some food for thought and visa-versa. To me, that is the beauty of the discussion. It is not about stirring up trouble. It’s about sharing views. When I get on a “hot topic” I like to say what I believe and why. That is what I thought I was doing by talking about the line. I think some took that as being argumentative. It was explaining. As long as the discussion doesn’t get into a personal attack, I am not offended by another’s view. I choose not to be. I think we all came around to seeing it something similar to this. Anyone disagree? I’m ok with everyone. Everyone ok with me? Hugs???
Hugs, Laurie.
Hi, I am a stumbler who is gay with a relatively low attention span so forgive me if I didn’t read your whole article objectively. But what do you mean
/Why does the gay community want the recognition of marriage? Some gay couples are Christians who want their church to change their doctrine to legitimize their marriage. They feel that God loves them and will recognize their committed union regardless of what the Bible teaches. Other groups want access to the legal benefits of marriage/
Hmmm… 1,000 rights my man and the same path to these things as everyone else. At the Justice of the peace. And gay Christians probably wouldn’t be caught dead in a fundie church anyways, so wanting their church to legitimize same-sex marriage is moot. Their churches already do.
Holding up Marriage as a religious institution should devoid it of any secular government meaning. Strike marriage down for all for a year, until people’s tax returns come in, stop heterosexuals from adopting because some people abhor sex in particular and as a practice should be avoided at all costs; recommended reparative therapy to these offenders.
The cost to the Religious is zero. Your ideas are losing ground because they are flawed, based on faith like some outrageous gossip, and predicate fascism. Not because two guys want to make sure Aunt Christy with the Love Wins Out org doesn’t sweep in and take his partners house when said guy dies.
To end the issue rename the license to Civil Union and leave marriage to the church. Why is this issue so difficult? All couples can have a union in the secular world as a civil union, and those who have a religious belief and want to have the rite and ceremony of marriage obtains it from the church..problem solved!! At the end of the day God will settle the sin, but for now lets keep the secular world views and relgious views seperate as it should be.
Interesting comments. (Sorry mine is so long)
To me it seems that this issue of government regulation in marriage is not an issue of church vs state, it’s an issue of individual rights vs. religious rights. If a church (doesn’t matter which one) wants to perform marriages for their members who have (for lack of a better word) conformed to their set of beliefs and/or commandments, why should an individual’s right supercede that? The question is when an individual wants to “get married” and they don’t conform to a church’s particular “worthiness” standards, the church’s rights supercede the rights of the individual. The same way the rights of the government and justice supercede the individual’s right to steal, murder, sell drugs, etc. My individual rights end when they impose upon somebody else.
It doesn’t matter what you call it, marriage, civil union, legal union, whatever, the point is that, historically, the union between two people (man and woman) was to foster a relationship where children could be raised and taught how to be respectable citizens in society. Families are the basic unit of society, and that is accepted on the international stage. To have a man marry a man and then to raise a children is not how things have been done historically. Now, looking at our history, I would say that the way we have been doing things since the beginning of time has worked out pretty good. Husbands and wives, mothers and fathers raise their children to grow up and contribute back to society–principally by raising good children of their own. Of course, the argument is that gay men can adopt and lesbian women can adopt or have IVF in order to raise children. That’s true. However, generally speaking, a mother and a father who raise children together have the highest rate of productive, non-criminal, children of any demographic. (Of course there are outlyers but generally speaking). If you want I could post hundreds of research studies that all say the same thing. (Of course, there are 1 or 2 out there that, again, shown the outlyers.) But the point is that children do best when they are raised by a mother and a father in the home–and that’s research based, not legal or faith based (though there are justifications for this argument in those arenas as well). Imagine the statistics we would be giving to society if we neglected to raise children in that environment. Not that it would lead to increased crime and delinquency, but statistically speaking, it is better for children to be raised in a home where the mother and father work together in nurturing their family.
Finally, though not specifically mentioned here, but alluded to, gay rights are not the same as civil rights. Discrimination based on color, race, gender, disability, age, etc is restricted because of the protected class of those demographics. That means that a disabled person is protected because of their disability being a biological thing. An African American (just like a Hispanic or Caucasian American) is protected from discrimination because their skin color is biological. Homosexually is not a protected class. The government will never change their rights unless they begin to view homosexuality as a protected class. That means that someone must discover that homosexuality is biological and not a choice. I have read just as many research articles that argue for both sides. But the point is, until someone discovers that homosexuality is related to DNA, the comparison between civil rights and gay rights is inappropriate.
Cory M.s last blog post..Tribute to an Apostle
@Cory M- I totally agree with what you said.
Cory M,
Do religions rights only trump individual rights if we’re talking about your religion?
If one religion wants to be allowed to marry gay people they should be able to right? Or are you saying freedom of religion only extends to your religion?
Nowhere did I say that my religion’s rights trump other religion’s rights. That’s what is so great about America. You can choose to practice religion any way you choose. The specifiers on religious practice come when we start talking about government’s regulation of religion (yes, government does regulate religion). In order to be a “legal,” government-regulated religious entity you have to subscribe to certain practices (ie not sacrificing people, not marrying more than one person, etc) and then the government will grant you a religious license (which is really a business license) to practice your religion and begin to proseltize–if you so choose. Because without the government’s approval, you can practice however you want, but you can’t have others join you unless you have a religious license.
Now, I’ll answer your questions literally.
“Do religions rights only trump individual rights if we’re talking about your religion?”
No. Again, my rights end where yours begin. I have no rights over a religious institution or another person. However, they have rights over me. If I “violate” their commandments, I am subject to the religious institutions disciplinary actions. Just like I would be if I were to violate the law. Now, some of those disciplinary actions from religious organizations are not criminal (like adultery or homosexuality) but I have violated their religious law and I am subject to their discipline.
“If one religion wants to be allowed to marry gay people they should be able to right?”
Yes. Again, as long as those religious practices are “legal” according to the government. If I wanted to establish a church/religious organization that practices homosexual marriage, I could (except in those states where it is legally prohibited by law– like California), as long as I follow the appropriate legal channels. Of course, I could just start my own church with just myself and marry myself without any government or legal authorization. But when I try to marry my neighbors, that’s when the government takes issue. (You see, my rights are superceded by the government’s right to promote health, safety and welfare)
“Or are you saying freedom of religion only extends to your religion?”
I assume that this question was a continuation of the last one and I already answered that one.
I hope that answered your questions, John Frum.
Cory M.s last blog post..Tribute to an Apostle
Cory M,
Thanks for the response. I think my misunderstanding came from the first part of your first post. I thought you were saying a church’s rights should trump individual rights even when those individuals aren’t part of said church, which I think you cleared up.
So I think we are in agreement. If a church doesn’t want to marry people who are gay that’s fine as long as other religions that do want to marry gay people would still be free to do so. My main point is that this country was founded on principles of freedom of religion, so allowing one religion to legislate it’s views on the country / state as a whole would be wrong.
I agree John that “allowing one religion to legislate it’s views on the country/state as a whole would be wrong” because it would infringe on individual’s rights who are not members of that church. However, that religion still has the right to influence it’s membership according to their religious beliefs. If that includes legislating (within the tax exemption requirements) then they have that right. If the church goes outside the legal parameters of legislating (which as far as I can tell, none did in the Prop 8 campaign) then the government would have every right to take away their tax exemption status. So the church has to then choose if they want to stand up for what they believe in regarding marriage and risk possibly losing their tax exemption status.
RE: “If a church doesn’t want to marry people who are gay that’s fine as long as other religions that do want to marry gay people would still be free to do so.” I believe it should go both ways. If churches allow other churches to practice how they want, then individuals need to allow churches to practice how they want. A practical example: Gay rights activists should not insist that LDS Temple Marriages be performed for homosexual couples. I think that this example is where a lot of people are fearful that this is where this legal battle is heading. Why should churches be forced to practice what they do not preach (ie marriage for homosexuals) in order to appease an individual’s sense of civil injustice? Believe me, that argument will hold up in court. Churches have been “forced” to do a lot of things because of perceived inequalities. But that’s another discussion for another post. (hint, hint)
Cory M.s last blog post..Tribute to an Apostle
Cory M.,
I’d agree that churches shouldn’t be forced to marry couples whom they didn’t feel lived up to the religion’s code. That might mean not marrying divorcees or even marrying converts if they haven’t converted “the right way.” (When my sister was married, some Orthodox rabbis tried questioning my brother-in-law-to-be’s Jewish status by noting that his mother had converted — prior to his birth — via Conservative practice and not Orthodox practice.)
Still, any two unmarried consenting adults should be able to walk into a government office and get a “marriage/civil union/whatever” license that confers on them the same legal status as a married couple. (The “unmarried consenting adults” part is to allay fears that allowing gay marriage would lead to child-adult marriages or man-and-dog marriages.)
Just to flip the argument around, though, there have been cases where a pharmacist refuses to fill a prescription because it conflicts with his religious belief. In that case, I think that the person’s religious belief needs to be impinged upon as it is directly affecting someone else who might not share that same belief. So a church can say “we won’t marry a same sex couple”, but they can’t say “no one in America can marry a same sex couple because we believe it to be a sin.”
TechyDads last blog post..Of Wandering Toddlers and Harnesses
Wow. This has certainly been some interesting reading!
I think, on the gay marriage issues, that the real issue is whether someone believes that homosexuality is wrong.
Every piece of research I have seen on homosexuality (biology v. choice, if it is biology then comparisons to mental disorders such as pedophilia, studies on effective familial units) is rooted in trying prove homosexuality one way or the other.
So this, I think, is the questions:
Is homosexuality wrong?
Every other question is being used to either support or defend a point of view.
Is homosexuality nature or nurture?
Is homosexuality a choice?
If homosexuality is natural, is it a mental aberration or as god intended?
Is homosexuality caused by abuse as a child?
Is the homosexual ‘lifestyle’ still that lifestyle?
Was/is the homosexual lifestyle caused by having to ‘go underground’ or is in an indication of a perversion?
If you are someone who believes that homosexuality is wrong, and usually for religious reasons, than you will never accept gay marriage. A sin is a sin is a sin.
The discussion of terminology is interesting. It reminds me of how people view Christmas. Some people view Christmas as a cultural holiday that has nothing to do with religion. Some people view Christmas as the celebration of of the birth of Jesus Christ and resist “Happy Holidays”, etc. Some people view Christmas as a faux religious holiday, one that was never in the Bible, and - as such - believe that celebration of Christmas is false worship.
Just one little word and about a million interpretations.
Marriage.
Marriage is a social recognition that you are fully included in the fabric of our nation, fully accepted as a citizen. Ask any single person during the holidays whether they feel ‘included in the fabric of our nation’. Married people have a different status than an unmarried couple.
The question we have to ask ourselves as a nation founded on judeo-christian principles (even if we were not founded on the Bible) is whether the anti-homosexuality portions of the Old Testament (the base of both the Torah and the Bible) is like the subjugation of women, and therefore an antiquated prejudice - or whether homosexuality is akin to “Thou shalt not steal”.
I truly do not know if there is any middle ground on this issue. Someone who believes that homosexuality is wrong and is a sin, will never accept gay marriage. Someone who believes that homosexuality is right and natural, will view our society’s unwillingness to extend marriage to gay couples as nothing less than a civil rights issue.
Someone can be a skinhead or Nazi or a member of the Aryan Brotherhood and spout a hateful, racist agenda. They can talk about how N* are corrupting our country. How they are inferior or subhuman. Even though it is ugly, even though it is something that I feel to the marrow of my bones is wrongwrongwrong - as an American citizen I have to support their right to free speech.
So the question is, is gay marriage such an issue?
Hayden Tompkinss last blog post..How Life Coaching Can Revolutionize Your Friendships
TechyDad:
Of course churches can say “no one in America can marry a same sex couple because we believe it to be a sin.” Why should churches be denied that right when you and I have it. In fact, “no one in America can marry a same sex couple because I believe it to be a sin.” See, I can say it, just like churches. (I apologize for the satire) but the point is why should churches be censored for stating what they believe to be moral wrongs? Sure, they can lose their tax exempt status, but that’s their choice. Moreover, to classify it as hate speech is ridiculous because (as stated before) homosexuality is not a protected speech and the same civil rights protections do not apply nor is it hate speech to simply state what you believe to be true according to your faith. Now to say that homosexuals should be arrested for their choices, that is crossing the line into hate speech territory. Churches should no more be denied their right to free speech and influence than you or I should be.
As for the pharmacist, first, they are able to not fill a prescription for known drug users or even questionable drug-seeking behavior. However, if the behavior has nothing to do with the service, they need to be more careful…But they have the right to offer their opinions and “refuse service to anyone” according to local laws and ordinances. If I were a marriage counselor and a gay couple came to me for counseling, I would professionally refer them to another counselor because I don’t feel I would be the best resource for them because of my biases (just like judges often recuse themselves from hearing cases). The pharmacist should state that he can’t fill it and let one of his Pharm Techs do it and have another pharmacist sign off on it or refer them to another pharmacy. But to deny services and not offer another course is just plain bad business practice.
Cory Ms last blog post..Tribute to an Apostle
Hayden:
“I think, on the gay marriage issues, that the real issue is whether someone believes that homosexuality is wrong. Is homosexuality wrong?”
This is another interpretation issue. What does “wrong” mean? If it means legally a crime, no. If it means a sin, depends on your religious views. If it means a moral wrong for society, I would say…yes. Because research has shown time and time again that homosexual parents are not as beneficial to the positive nurturing of children in society. Homosexual couples without children, well they don’t apply in this situation because they don’t have children.
RE: “So the question is, is gay marriage such an issue?”
If you mean a civil rights issue, no, it is not such an issue because of the protected class argument (see previous post). If you mean an issue of free speech, then (depending on the circumstance) yes it is a free speech issue. Again, my rights end where yours begin. Within the confines of legal precedence, I can say whatever I want. However, when my speech starts to infringe upon your rights (ie protesting inside of your home when you asked me to leave), my individual rights are superceded by your rights. If I try to force a church to change their practices in order to accept my beliefs, then my rights are superceded by the church’s rights.
Cory Ms last blog post..Tribute to an Apostle
Hi, Cory M! Ok, well I agree and disagree with you. I agree that the issue of ‘wrong’ is an issue of interpretation. It is that interpretation at the very heart of the issue.
I disagree that something has to be classified by the government as ‘protected’ before it is a civil rights issue. You are legally correct, though not ’socially’ correct. It is a social movement of a segment of the people that bring an issue to light. People would not be so moved unless they felt it was an issue of social justice.
Or, in the alternative, agitating for a woman’s right to vote - prior to women becoming a protected class - does not negate the fact that the issue is one of someone’s civil rights.
Hayden Tompkinss last blog post..How Life Coaching Can Revolutionize Your Friendships
Hayden:
I agree that “It is a social movement of a segment of the people that bring an issue to light. People would not be so moved unless they felt it was an issue of social justice.” You are correct. Without that (being “moved”) we wouldn’t be where we are today. However, by very definition, a protected class is protected because it is biological. My point was not that homosexuality will never be a protected class, it is just that to become a protected class it will have to be proven to be biological. (or at least accepted by the US Supreme Court as being sufficiently biological to be deemed a protected class).
Regarding gay rights as a civil rights issue, the problem that I have with it is that because it has not been shown to be biological, there is still evidence that it is a choice to be homosexual. Given that it is possible that homosexuals are that way by choice, it is inappropriate to classify it as a civil rights issue. When women were fighting for the right to vote and blacks were fighting for equal treatment, there was no discussion about whether or not a woman was a woman by choice or a black was that color by choice. It is scientifically proven that women are women because of biology and men are men because of biology.
As far as being “socially correct,” isn’t social correctness defined by society? And hasn’t the majority of society clearly not defined gay rights as a civil right? (by voting in 37 states to constitutionally define marriage as being between a man and a woman).
Cory M.s last blog post..Tribute to an Apostle
Usually, in the case of an issue of civil rights, you have a small - albeit vocal - minority of people agitating for a cause. So the fact that 37 states have or have not passed legislation is immaterial to your counterpoint. An issue is determined to be one of social rights if a segment of society has decided determined it to be. (And also, as history is written by the ‘winner’ both militarily and socially, it will be shown to have been a civil rights issue.)
Anyway, you answered the two questions I posed. Is homosexuality wrong? (You say yes.) And is it an issue of civil rights? (You say no.)
However, the problem with answering these questions - in either the affirmative or negative - is that any answer is essentially an opinion.
Hayden Tompkinss last blog post..How Life Coaching Can Revolutionize Your Friendships
I guess I’m confused because you keep using civil rights and social rights interchangeably. In my understanding, civil rights are not the same thing as social rights. To bring up another hot topic: Health care would be considered a social right but not a civil right. A civil right is related to protected class status, not whether “a segment of society has decided [or] determined it to be.” That is the definition of a social right or social issue. Legally, civil rights are connected with the status of a protected class (regardless of whether it’s socially correct or not). Social rights are determined by society.
Re: “However, the problem with answering these questions - in either the affirmative or negative - is that any answer is essentially an opinion.”
I agree and everything that I write is my opinion. I try to base my opinions on factual evidence, but it is, in the end, my opinion. Here’s another question: Who’s opinion matters more? I’m not talking about in this discussion, I am referring to the larger societal opinion. Is the opinion of a few, albeit vocal, minority more important than the voice of the majority? What about the opinion of the California Supreme Court Justices? Is their opinion more important or of more value than the people of California? As we have seen, it was…until the majority of Californians voted for Prop 8. In other places, like Massachusetts, the opinions of the justices have more weight than the executive and even the legislature of the state. So, does it matter who’s opinion it is?
Cory M.s last blog post..Tribute to an Apostle
What is frightening to me is the idea that the courts can try to throw out a vote by the people to amend the state constitution. If this is what they do then our government changes from a government by the people for the people to a government by the courts for the courts. There is a system of checks and balances. The right of the people to vote to amend the constitution (state in this case) is a part of these checks and balances. When a court can come in and say that amending the constitution is unconstitutional there is a major problem. How can the courts say that the people do not have the right to amend the constitution? What I suspect will happen is the courts will find some technicality to nullify the vote. Which is another type of problem.
Cory M,
I guess I should clarify. A church is free to say to its members “You shouldn’t marry someone of your same sex. It’s a sin.” If they try to get legislation passed purely based on their religious beliefs, though, they are infringing on my rights to follow a different religion. There can be laws passed based on non-religious arguments that impinge on religious beliefs. Even an atheist would agree that anti-murder laws are a good thing for society. But laws that simply state “this is illegal because Church X says it’s a sin” are unconstitutional. Should Congress pass a law outlawing all pork products because they’re not Kosher and thus I can’t eat them?
The pharmacists I mentioned were refusing to fill birth control pill prescriptions for single women. They felt that birth control conflicted with their religious views and thus refused to provide it. Of course, they ignored other uses for the pill. My wife, for example, has endometriosis and the pill helped control her symptoms for years. We didn’t even rely on it as a form of birth control. If she had gone to one of these pharmacists, though, she would have left without her pills. In many of these cases, the next pharmacy was far away, so it wasn’t like the women could just drive down the block to another pharmacist. In a case like this, the pharmacist should either fill the prescription or, as you suggested, have a tech fill it for him.
Lastly, you say that it is wrong to classify gay rights as civil rights because homosexuality might be a choice. Let’s suppose it is for a second. My being Jewish is a choice as well. I could easily walk into a church tomorrow and convert to Christianity. Or I could convert to Islam, Buddism, Wicca, etc. But I choose to remain Jewish.
Does that mean that a hypothetical law forbidding rabbis from performing marriages wouldn’t be a civil rights issue? Would a restaurant that refused to serve Jews unless they sat in the “Jewish Section” in the back be violating my civil rights? Of course they would. It doesn’t matter whether my being Jewish is a choice or not, if someone refuses to treat you like they treat everyone else solely based on your race, religion, sexuality, etc, they are violating your civil rights.
TechyDads last blog post..Losing Weight and Restarting My (Wii)Workout
Laurie,
If a group of people voted to amend a state constitution declaring that Christianity was the only recognized religion and all other religions were banned, I would hope that the courts would toss it out as unconstitutional. You can have the majority of people support something and have it be unconstitutional.
TechyDads last blog post..Losing Weight and Restarting My (Wii)Workout
As far as a state amendment, federal law does trump state law (as you know) but if an amendment to the federal constitution was voted in, I believe the courts would have no jurisdiction to overwrite it. If you believe I am wrong, please site your source of information so I can review it. Also as far as the separation between church and state, there is nothing in the constitution establishing a separating between church and state. That was one of those court decisions where the courts overstepped their boundaries by making law instead of interpreting it. They were referring to a letter written by, I believe, Thomas Jefferson. I believe if the courts used a Bush letter where he stated that gay marriage should not be allowed and the courts used that to make their judgment on, there would be a public outrage. If you believe that there is a constitutional separation between church and state, please reference it so I can review it.
I agree with Cory M. People do not have rights due to behaviors. A behavior is a choice unless the behavior is the result of a biological condition such as Turret’s syndrome. Even then there are certain “biologically” induced behaviors that could result in a jail sentence or at least being help in a metal institution. And as Cory stated, there is currently no conclusive evidence to support that being gay is biological.
Techy Dad:
Firstly, I didn’t say that “it is wrong to classify gay rights as civil rights because homosexuality might be a choice.” I said it was inappropriate because the legal rationale does not fit. Whether it is “wrong,” well, that’s a discussion that Hayden wanted to have.
In the law, religion is a special category. Because it is a choice, by definition, it should not be a civil rights issue. However, because of the special circumstances surrounding religious beliefs (ie the ability to worship/believe how you want) the courts have ruled that religion is included in civil rights. So, a restaurant owner could refuse to serve Jews (or Christians or Muslims) simply based on their religious preference, but they would be subject to anti-discrimination laws.
To use the “religion is a civil right so sexual orientation should be also” argument is inappropriate (or flawed) because the courts have only made an exception for religion and not for sexual orientation. Notice there are no rights for heterosexuals in civil rights either, (at least none that are explicitly stated.) The remaining civil rights are all biologically based. Until the government (because they are the ones who regulate marriage) defines homosexuality as being biological, I do not foreseee gay rights becoming a civil rights issue.
I must note that I use legal reasoning for my arguments in this case because otherwise it would be, as Hayden Tompkins says–and I agree, just an opinion otherwise. And it is really hard to have a fruitful discussion when we are throwing around opinions.
Cory Ms last blog post..37 Odd Things About Me
Laurie:
You’re right. It is frightening that a court of 5-9 judges can overthrow the “will of the people.” Interestingly, this is exactly what happened in California. The state passed an ordinance that essentially said marriage is between a man and a woman and in May 2008, the courts ruled that ordinance unconstitutional. Then, the people voted again in November 2008 to amend the state constitution (which is different than an ordinance) to read essentially the same thing. The test for the judges now is to examine (pending an appropriate case law) whether that amendment contradicts the existing state constitution. Sometimes we forget that the Court’s job is to interpret the constitution based upon legislation and case law.
The problem comes when there are judges who have decided that the legislative process moves too slowly for them and interpret the constitution to mean more than current legislation actually states. That is what happened in the California case–at least in my opinion. The judges interpreted one section of the state constitution without regard to judicial precedence or legislative intent (which is judicially unethical) and came up with the intial overruling of the ordinance.
Fortunately for the gay rights movement, the decision now stands with the courts about where to proceed next. When an appropriate case presents itself, the California Supreme Court will hear it and rule on the new amendment (prop
and we’ll see what happens from there.
RE: “but if an amendment to the federal constitution was voted in, I believe the courts would have no jurisdiction to overwrite it.”
I have to disagree with this. Because of the system of checks and balances, the legislative branch makes the laws, the executive branch enforces the laws, and the judicial branch interprets the laws. Interestingly though, judicial review is a judicially constructed mechanism (aka the courts “made it up”). There is nothing in the federal constitution that states that federak courts have the right to interpret legislation and rule it constitutional or not. That is something that John Marshall (the first US Supreme Court Chief Justice) made up to give the courts more power and defined the courts as the official interpreters of the constitution (see Marbury v Madison, 1803). In the opinion, Marshall never cites the constitution as the authority for judicial review. It is quite interesting to read his rationale.
Anyway, courts do have the right to interpret the constitution according to legislative intent, current laws and statutes, and their judicial discretion. It’s the last part that really progressive judges hold onto more than the former two.
I hope this answers your question.
Cory Ms last blog post..37 Odd Things About Me
Although your right that a power of attorney does grant some of the same powers that a marriage would grant your wrong for your statement that it is this document that is the end all of the problem.
You see, I have domestic partner benefits at my partners work. We have a power of attorney. We have a house together. We assessed our options. The problem lies with this, because we are not recognized federally we get taxed an extra 16,000 at the end of the year as “additional income” due to the fact that I have health insurance through his work. With our house, if he would die tomorrow, I would have an inheritance tax assessed. It would not just be handed over to me. Its almost viewed like im not his partner of 6 years but rather im a long lost friend or something and so taxes should be assessed. Unlike married people who if your wife passed away your house together would go straight to you. There is a million other things/ differences I could say on the topic that I will leave alone.
Personally, it amazes me how the church even really cares. If the government was trying to force some law on the church the church would have no problem letting the government know that there is a seperation of church and state. But in instances like this the church thinks it has a say in how america or the state handles affairs such as this. I also dont think the government should even call marriage, marriage. Marriage is a spiritual ceremony. Civil unions is a legally binding contract that gives two people certain rights and privilages. What do tax laws and owning property together as well as health insurance have anything to do with the church?
The fact of the matter is, it does not. Throughout history the church and the fanatics of the church have used the bible as a weapon to keep people down. Isn’t this really just about control and power? Is it really a big deal? Does me having a civil union somehow cause your marriage to fall apart? I doubt it. If you somehow come to the conclusion that it does then I would think that your marriage is not as strong as you would have me believe.
Well said Freddie. Since it’s the state that grants the marriage license, the legal aspects should be purely secular. Any ceremony the church wants to add on top of it is fine. To me this is such common sense that I’m confident in time it will be the way it is.
Freddie:
You are right that power of attorney does not grant the same rights as a marriage and/or civil union (for purposes of this post, we’ll consider marriage & civil union separately). Power of attorney basically only gives decision-making power to another person that is not legally the next-in-line. Given that the government has not recognized same-sex unions in the same way as marriages or civil unions, it is obvious why you wouldn’t have the same rights. It’s the same situation as a man having an extra-marital affair with another woman and then leaving all of his inheritance to his lover and not his wife. I agree that that puts people on separate grounds.
The LDS Church opposes this campaign precisely because it is a question of separation of church and state. If the government is given the ability to define marriage as something different than one woman and one man, then eventually, churches will be forced to comply with the government’s definition of marriage based on discrimination. Judicial precedence sides with anti-discrimination laws about virtually every time. Churches are fighting against a future threat to their right that “congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” (that’s paraphrased, but the meaning is there).
Civil unions, which the LDS Church supports bytheway (I don’t know about the other religious institutions that campaigned against Prop 8), provide a way around that legal obstacle of “next-of-kin.” They offer couples the legal justification to be considered a “married” couple. A lot of cities already recognize civil unions (and in my opinion, that’s the way that the gay rights movement will be heading). Marriage, if it is indeed just a spiritual ceremony, then why shouldn’t churches have the right to determine how that is defined? If state should truly separate from church, then government needs to affirm churches’ rights to define “marriage” as a spiritual committment and maintain “civil union” as the legal binding between two people that want to be married.
The problem is that from what I can see, the gay rights movement will not stop at only civil unions. They are the ones that want to either: 1) force churches to accept civil unions in their marriage ceremonies, or 2) combine the meaning of civil union and marriage and move marrige from a spiritual ceremony to a legal definition. The legal committment that civil unions bring allows for the type of shared rights that a marriage committment brings. The problem is that this creates a “separate but equal” argument for proponents of the gays rights movement, thus bringing anti-discrimination into the fray.
Any way you look at it, it’s a complicated matter and the way things are going, either side is not going to settle for anything less than a full victory.
Cory Ms last blog post..Graduation Party!!
Obviously Cory you have completly missed my point. I don’t give a care what the church thinks marriage is or is not. I am speaking about this on a federal level, and where did adultery come into the picture? I think your comparing apples and oranges.
If I wanted to go ahead and do my research and find myself a church that would be willing to marry my partner and I, I doubt that I would have a problem. Calling myself married is a spiritual belief, an oath that I take in the eyes of god, not through the eyes of men like you. I do not require you or anyone else to determine if I am actually married or not. The legal standpoint im trying to point out is how my property, insurance, savings, and work that I have put into building my family can be wiped away with taxes and such. I am quite sure you would see my point if you and your wife were unable to get “married” or “civil unioned”. Either way like I said im speaking from a logical legal/ financial angle here. Call me whatever you want. In my heart im married. Isn’ that whats really important?
I do see your point that once the can is opened that will give way to completly changing whats important to a majority of christians. However, I dont think marriage should have been called marriage in the eyes of the law anyhow. Like I said in my previouse post, marriage is not a legal thing its a ceremony where civil unions are a legal document allowing extended rights. Marriage should have been called civil unions in the first place. By allowing this no one is hurt. Your marriage remains protected and my rights remain protected. All in all I blame the government for making this horrible mistake in the first place. Because church and state were always meant to be seperate.
I understand your first point completely: you’re upset because the government (federal, state, and local) will not recognize your marriage and the only legal backing that you have is a power of attorney, which isn’t sufficient in your eyes because you want to be able to leave an untaxed inheritance to your partner. You must have misread the first paragraph in my post.
As for the comment I made about the Churches definition of marriage, I was just relating your comment back to the original post. (and BTW, adultery comes into the picture when you are talking about rights with power of attorney. Even though adultery and homsexuality are not similar in social definition, in the context of power of attorney they are identical).
“Either way like I said im speaking from a logical legal/ financial angle here. Call me whatever you want. In my heart im married. Isn’ that whats really important?”
If it’s your own personal opinion that you are seeking, then Yes, that is all that is important. However, if you are, as you are desiring, to have the legal right to a tax-free inheritance for your partner, your opinion means a lot less than the legal definition of “marriage” and “civil union.” So in the context in which you are rationally arguing, the government’s opinion holds more weight. Just because you are married “in [your] heart” does not mean that you can have the same rights as legally married couples. (I am speaking of generalities because I know nothing of your specific situation). I have known a lot of people who are married “in [their] heart” but since their marriage is not recognized by their country’s government, they have no rights other than what a non-blood related friend would have.
“Marriage should have been called civil unions in the first place. By allowing this no one is hurt. Your marriage remains protected and my rights remain protected. All in all I blame the government for making this horrible mistake in the first place. Because church and state were always meant to be seperate.”
You can’t have it both ways. You can’t have marriage and civil unions be the same thing while crying that church and state must be separate. If you combine the definition of civil union and marriage then you are combining the role of the church and the state. What can the church do to promote marriage within the ranks of their membership if they are forced (by the state–meaning government) to recognize all civil unions? If the possibility of marriage is taken away from churches and replaced with civil unions, what’s to stop the government from interfering with that church’s right to prescribe marriage according to their own doctrine? The churches have every right to preserve their ability to practice their religion as they see fit. If you read the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, there is nothing in there prohibiting religion from interfering with government, but only from government interfering with religion.
Cory Ms last blog post..Graduation Party!!
First of all a bit about myself. Catholic, 26 year old male, recently married.
John Frum earlier had said the basis of support for sole heterosexual marriage is for those 50 and above. I disagree I’m strongly for Prop 8 under it’s current standing.
This is what I’d like keep marriage (or at least the word) exclusively for religions. Gay people aren’t going to change the Christian church, it’ll seriously be a cold day in hell (figuratively and literally). The word Civil Union should be extended to anyone (gay or straight) and that way you get to get married have all the same rights etc. The Church doesn’t get scared about their rights being intruded upon.
I think that the problem marriage poses is that - unlike other institutions - it is part religious and part secular. You could technically walk into your local church/temple/whatever and get married without filing out a state marriage license, but the state wouldn’t recognize that marriage as binding. (There might be laws to prevent this. Not sure.) You could also go to your town clerk’s office, fill out some forms, and be legally wed even though your church never was informed at all.
I think it would make matters clearer if the government aspects of marriage were called one thing (”civil union” perhaps) and the religious aspects were called another. So any two consenting, unmarried, unrelated (no brothers-sisters) adults could walk into the town clerk’s office and get a civil union. They could even call it a marriage. (If the term “marriage” was strictly for the religious, what would an atheist couple be?) In some small sense, churches would need to regard these people as being married (possibly only being limited to dues collection), however, no church would be legally obligated to host the wedding.
Yes, this would make churches need to make some concessions and it would mean government making laws that affect religion. While I’m usually reluctant to have government interfering in religious affairs (and vice versa), I would have no problem with this so long as the rules weren’t targeted towards or against a specific religion. (i.e. No, “all marriages are valid so long as they acknowledge Jesus as the savior” type laws.)
If gay couples were given legal civil union rights on par with straight couples, I think that inevitably, some churches/temples would accept them and some would reject them. Over time, people would cease to regard this as an issue (similar to marriage between people of differing races) and the churches/temples would adjust accordingly. Eventually, you would be hard pressed to find any that thought of gay civil unions as a big deal at all.
I like your comments TechyDad. It would be an historic day if all that were to come true.
I guess my only follow-up comment/question is why should churches be the ones to have to make a concession? Churches have rights too. I guess the question that prompts is whose rights are more important? The rights of the individual or the rights of the church?
Cory Ms last blog post..Graduation Party!!
John,
If you keep the work Marriage strictly for religions, would that mean that an atheist couple (even if it was a man and a woman) would be unable to get “married?” Also, would there be any limits on which religions were allowed to use the term Marriage? Could two people from the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster ( http://www.venganza.org/ ) get married or would they need civil unions?
TechyDads last blog post..WiiFit Workout Week 3
Cory,
Ultimately, I think that the rights of the individual trump the rights of the church. An individual may choose to follow the teachings of a particular religion, but no religion should impose their views on others.
By concessions, I mainly meant treating a married (civil union-style) gay couple as a single family unit. This would probably only really matter for mundane issues such as dues payment (paying a family rate instead of two single rates).
Oh, and my last post should have read: “If you keep the word Marriage strictly for religions….”
Upon looking over my last post, I think we really need some neutral word to differentiate between state-level marriage and religious-level marriage. Civil Unions work for state-level marriage, but I wouldn’t want to reserve “marriage” for religious-level marriage. As I stated previously, this would leave atheist couples “unmarried.
Perhaps we could use “holy matrimony” for religious-level marriage. (I don’t think any atheist couple will desire “holy matrimony.”) So you could have a gay couple, atheist couple, Christian couple, and Jewish couple all of whom are married. The first two are married via civil union. The last two are married via holy matrimony.
Churches would need to recognize that the married via civil union couples are indeed married, but they don’t have to grant a married via holy matrimony status on them. (Churches would even be free to regard another religion’s holy matrimony as inferior in status to their own. They might not want to state this too publicly though.)
TechyDads last blog post..WiiFit Workout Week 3
Here In New Zealand “Civil unions” were introduced a few years ago. It’s gay marriage effectively. There was minor controversy when it was happening with hard line Christians objecting. If I recall correctly they forced it to not be called “marriage” but everyone gets that this is exactly what it is and in fact the terms get used interchangeably. Over here plenty of straight people prefer a civil union because it gives you the exact same legal rights but removes the church stuff which the growing secularists object to.
I feel that this issue of getting Gay people the same rights everyone is entitled to in the US is a symptom of the wider issue of religion. I really believe religion vs rational is finally coming to a head all over the world and is particularly interesting in America which has had the number of Atheists dramatically rising in recent times.
Promote rational thought and you kill so many birds with that stone.
Leave a reply