From a truly biblical perspecrive:
The primary Christian argument refuting Homosexual Marriage is found in Genesis chater 2. After creating Eve, God says, "She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.' Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." Women and Men are meant to be together. In addition, Romans chapter 1 states that homosexuality is wrong because it defies reproduction. Homosexuality is a sin. That said, it might be viewed as disgusting and a source of decay to American morals, but that is not why Christians are concerned about it. Therefore, personally I am against Homosexual marriage,
BUT
my beliefs should not be federal legislation. There should be no problem with being a Christian and seeing that the government does not withold the biblical standard for marriage. Homosexuality itself is the sin and to make that illegal would be ridiculous. Limiting marriage does nothing in regards to the government other than limit the rights of people through not allowing them a "pursuit of happiness" and denying equal rights.
I don't understand the logic behind limiting marriage because if it's supposed to prevent sin, it's comparable to passing legislation against gluttony. If it is supposed to maintain a biblical standard which is set for marriage, it has no place in the government.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Hey, a Christian who quotes the bible when saying homosexuality is immoral, yet doesn't want to limit the freedoms of the American people. I've never come across one of those before. ^_^
Very well said. I can definitely respect your position. You don't want to force your religious covictions on others, and that's admirable. As for the logic behind limiting gay marriage, I think it's purely political. Who wants to alienate all those religious zealots with voter registration cards?
"To endure is greater than to dare; to tire out hostile fortune; to be daunted by no difficulty; to keep heart when all have lost it; to go through intrigue spotless; and to forgo even ambition when the end is gained--who can say this is not greatness . .
I completely oppose your view on homosexuality. There are other countermeasures in the Bible and a long list of ways to refute them. But I feel that would be in vein because you are entitling me to my beliefs, and my rights.
So therefore I respect you :)
C*
Wow. This is the most warm and fuzzy I've ever seen a religious debate, especially one concerning gay marriage. Too bad the rest of the world wasn't like this.... what with all the respect and whatnot.
First of all, let me say this, I was raised religious. I know a little bit about the bible, though I havent read it.
Now, I dont hold the same faith. There is (or there should be anyway) a complete separation of church and state. Just because the bible says that gay marriage is a sin doesnt mean it cant be done. People sin all the time. Sex before marrage, killing, adultry. Our government commits crimes of sin on a daily basis. Why isnt that illegal?
How can we forbid two people who love eachother from getting married, no matter what gender they are. They arent bothering you. They just want to live the way they want to. Why isnt that ok?
I'm amazed that you consider yourself "raised religious" when you've never even read the Bible.
I don't understand how you can believe that homosexuality is wrong but that gay "marriage" should be allowed by our government. Have you considered that it is the government's biblical right (after all, it was God who first established government) to enact laws for the good of society? Have you considered that it is only in modern times when efforts have been made by homosexuals who want the same benefits as married couples to change the meaning of marriage in order to get something they wouldn't otherwise be entitled to? Have you considered that this acceptance of homosexuality as an acceptable alternative lifestyle is being forced on school children, and in many cases parents aren't allowed to excuse them from such teachings as they used to be? Have you considered that sanctioning homosexual marriage may lead to more increase in HIV/AIDS (homosexual men are still by far the most commonly infected - ever given blood?) which can then be transmitted through blood transfusions (yes, this still happens, in spite of screenings)? Have you considered that the cost of treating a primarily (notice I didn't say exclusively) homosexual disease is passed on to everyone else in increased insurance costs? Have you considered that the next generation may produce a far more disproportionate number of young people who reject traditional marriage and family, further weakening the institution on which this society is based?
I respect the fact that other people are entitled to their opinions. What I tire of is those same people not respecting mine. To the other posters here who have respected this blogger, did you respect her for having the same opinion as you when it comes to the application of her view on homosexuality and gay marriage? You call that open-mindedness, but what it really means is that the philosophical beliefs are no challenge to you politically.
He or she is supposedly maintaining that "separation of church and state" which is oft-quoted, but unconstitutional. This statement came from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson, and the correct quote is that there should be a ONE-WAY wall of separation between church and state. This means that the government should not interfere with the church, not that the legislature cannot enact moral laws, not that there cannot be Bible verses and/or the Ten Commandments in public places (obviously, since they are engraved all over our national buildings and memorials in Washington). It means that the government is to stay out of the church and not that God should not be allowed in public life.
I agree with the blogger than homosexuality is a sin (as stated in the Bible), and that gay marriage is, therefore, objectionable. But I also believe in amending the Constitution (which the founders never would have imagined would need to be done) to define marriage as it has been all throughout the history of our nation - as between one man and one woman. There is such an amendment that will be on the ballot in Florida in November, having gathered more signatures in its favor than in any other states with similar efforts. This is good news for families and for our country. After all, without families (traditional ones) we would not HAVE a country.
Kim Tracey
``I don't understand how you can believe that homosexuality is wrong but that gay "marriage" should be allowed by our government.``
Maybe you should imagine for a moment a discussion between two atheists. One says, ``I don`t agree with Christians but I agree that they have the right to attend church if they want to.`` The other says, ``I don`t understand how you can believe that Christianity is wrong yet think it should be allowed by our government!``
It`s odd that you cannot imagine supporting rights of others to be treated the same as you even if they are different from you in some way.
``Have you considered that sanctioning homosexual marriage may lead to more increase in HIV/AIDS....``
The majority of those who have contracted HIV and AIDS are black. So would it make sense to you to resolve this problem of HIV among blacks by withholding marriage licenses from all black people? Can you not see the obvious fact that this would do NOTHING to resolve the issue?
I am a healthy male and my husband is healthy also. Neither of us is infected with HIV. If we have sex tonight, our chances of sexually contracting the disease from each other is zero.
``After all, without families (traditional ones) we would not HAVE a country.``
There are other countries of the world whose family structures are less traditional than those in the United States and where everyone has equal rights and more social acceptance, INCLUDING same sex couples. Not only do these countries continue to exist, but their STD rates are lower that those of the US, their life expectancies are higher, their crime and child poverty rates are lower and, guess what, ``traditional`` families do just fine there without any threat from the happy same sex couple down the street .
Not everyone wants to live under the theocracy that you seem to want. Maybe you could visit Iran or Afghanistan to see how well such a system does there. If the Founding Fathers of the USA had thought as you do, you would likely not have the right to attend your own church. The religious makeup of the US was very different then, and has only been allowed to flourish in the directions it has because of the significant degree of separation between church and state. You seem to take this freedom for granted and wish to force your religion onto others by law. I find it disturbing that you seem to value others` freedoms so little.
Your answer to Kim Tracey is flawed in multiple respects but here are two.
(you write)
“It`s odd that you cannot imagine supporting rights of others to be treated the same as you even if they are different from you in some way.
By saying “supporting rights of others” you have answered the question before presenting it. That is dishonest & you are question begging.
The proper question would be “should we redefine marriage to include same-sex couples”
I support the rights of Mormon sects and Muslims. This does not mean that as a matter of public policy I think we should adopt polygamy. I can have multiple objections about altering our marriage laws without them being characterized as Not “treated people the same as you even if they are different in some way.”
Not everyone wants to live under the theocracy that you seem to want.
Don’t you find yourself to be hyperbolic. Did we “live in a theocracy” up until the day before the Massachusetts decision? Was 1950’s America a “theocracy”? Prior to 1973 & the Roe decision abortion was illegal in every state? Were we a "theocracy"?
``The proper question would be “should we redefine marriage to include same-sex couples”``
That`s like asking 90 years ago, ``Should we redefine voting to include women.`` The nature of voting did not have to be overhauled. All that needed to be done was that the discrimination on sex be ended. Likewise here, marriage laws can remain exactly the same when we end sex discrimination and simply allow couples to partake without discrimination on the basis of their sex. I do not consider that `redefining` marriage since the essential nature of marriage remains exactly the same. The nature of your marriage does not change because I can get married also.
``I support the rights of Mormon sects and Muslims. This does not mean that as a matter of public policy I think we should adopt polygamy.``
That is not an equivalent. Muslims and Mormon couples have the same rights as Catholics and agnostics to have a spouse recognized. In order to recognize polygamous marriages, new laws would have to be created and a system devised that would be unrelated to that dealing with couples, and it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to resolve all the issues in a way that is fair and equitable.
``Did we “live in a theocracy” up until the day before the Massachusetts decision?...``
No, but there have always been some individuals who do not value enough what it is to live free of religious persecution. For example, the Virginia judge who told Mr. Loving in the late 1960`s that God doesn`t want people from different continents to mix is an example of someone with a theocratic mindset. He wanted his religious ideas to be given preference by law. This poster is no different.
``Was 1950’s America a “theocracy”? ``
The Constitution helped hedge against an all out theocracy, but unfortunately, it wasn`t always honored. We were definitely set back in the 1950s by groups like the Klan who tried, often successfully, to coerce government and society to bend to their own religious interpretations rather than supporting the rights of all to be treated equally.
setting aside that you're still hiding behind the 'racist!' inferrance in terms of redefining marriage, you said this:
Are you now suggesting that homosexuality is a religion and your religion is being persecuted by people who disagree with you and exercise the same right to suggest that we shouldn't do it as you exercist to suggest that we do it?
``Are you now suggesting that homosexuality is a religion and your religion is being persecuted...``
Sorry, I didn`t realize that someone might think that`s what I meant. Religious persecution can, indeed, target a particular religion, but in this case I was referring to the persecution against others in society based on the religion of the persecutor.
For example, if my religion says that the Letter `L` is the letter of the devil and therefore I lobby against your right (since your name starts with the devil letter} to swim in the local pool, I would be persecuting you on a religious basis, even if I don`t even know what your religion actually is.
That's very true.
And, it would be equally wrong to demand that, because of my preferences, swimming pools should be filled with jello, because I prefer to swim in jello, and anything less is discrimination against me because of my natural born desire for jello swimming.
Greg & ALL
#1. Re-defintion
"That`s like asking 90 years ago, ``Should we redefine voting to include women.`` The nature of voting did not have to be overhauled. All that needed to be done was that the discrimination on sex be ended."
No its not like asking that. My original assertion is correct. Same-sex "marriage" does in fact redefine marriage. (while allowing women to vote does not redefine voting)
The point goes undisputed in current court cases. Even the Goodridge Majority that ruled in favor of same-sex “marriage” acknowledged that marriage had always been understood as the union of 1 man & 1 woman in that commonwealth
This is self evident and should not need supporting quotes. Yet…
As a point of fact women’s suffrage resulted in the 19th amendment. That comes after the 14th amendment (think about it) The country realized that a fundamental change required the proponents of change to seek constitutional authority for it through the amendment process.
In as much as you assert the suffrage movement it argues against you cause.
#2 Re
My point in bringing up Polygamy & Muslims/Mormons was to point out how it is not considered either bigotry or a denial of equal rights to challenge a minority group that would want a law changed for their benefit.
I was not comparing the difficulties of enacting polygamous marriage with same-sex “marriage”
(FYI) Same-sex marriage requires multiple changes in the law also: They even too numerous to list. That’s why the Court in Mass & other states always order the legislature to rewrite the marriage laws when enacting SS “M”.
#3. Re Theocracy
Your response is still hyperbolic. I can point out numerous religious groups that are for same-sex “marriage” as you can point out various religious groups that were for or against past changes in law (equal rights or otherwise)
We could talk about the role of religious groups in the, suffrage movements, Abolition movement, Civil Rights movement, Prohibition and on and on….both for & against.
Your general claim that those wanting to defend the traditional definition of marriage as somehow being an illegitimate “theocratic” impulse is a fringe attitudinal stance rtather than a substantive opinion.
People of all faiths and no faith stand on both sides of this issue and argue it as a matter of public policy.
``... marriage had always been understood as the union of 1 man & 1 woman in that commonwealth``
Yes, and voting was previously understood in much of the US to be the casting of a ballot by one white male. The same kinds of sources (the Bible, social convention, etc.} were used to argue that that`s what voting should mean.
`` I can point out numerous religious groups that are for same-sex “marriage” as you can point out various religious groups that were for or against past changes in law (equal rights or otherwise)
We could talk about the role of religious groups in the, suffrage movements, Abolition movement, Civil Rights movement, Prohibition and on and on….both for & against.``
I would never suggest otherwise. I am certainly fully aware that certain religious groups (Unitarians, Quakers, Reform Jews, etc.} have argued in favor of racial and sexual equality, while other groups (Southern Baptists and other conservative Evangelical groups, Russian Orthodox, etc.) have argued against them.
But the difference is that on the one side we have groups that stand for legal equality and on the other we have those who stand for second class status for some. That is why on one side there is persecution but not on the other.
For example, let`s say YOUR religion says that you and I should both be allowed to vote, and MY religion says that I should be allowed but you shouldn`t because you have attached ear lobes. Can I legitimately claim that I am being persecuted if YOU are not treated as my inferior by the government to satisfy my religion. Of course not. My religion should guide how I (not you) live, but I should never expect to use it to interfere with how you are treated legally. The government should be blind to both of our religions (and sexes and races and earlobes) when affording us the right to vote or marry or walk down the street or drive or work or obtain public services.
Do you have any supporting arguments for the changing of marriage to include same sex couples that isn't based on inferring that those who oppose it are akin to racists and sexists?
no, but you do claim persecution because we do not agree to define marriage however you wish it to be defined.
Your moral outlook demands that the word be changed to match your desired definition. Instead of coming up with reasons as to why the definition of a word ought to change to match your desires over that of mine, you instead wrap your argument in the blanket of race or gender rights.
The right to vote is not the same as redefining marriage. That courts have ruled otherwise does not change this. (Believe it or not, courts can still be wrong... a good example is the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which is famous for being wrong.)
Because the government should be blind to one person's desires over another, there is no real need to change the definition of a word (marriage)
underhandedly calling us racists or sexists by comparing us to them doesn't change that.
What more do we need? The reason that your position is flawed is that it relies on the same discriminatory arguments that were used to justify racial and gender-based discriminations. As noted by the Court in Goodridge...
"In this case, as in Perez and Loving, a statute deprives individuals of access to an institution of fundamental legal, personal, and social significance -- the institution of marriage -- because of a single trait: skin color in Perez and Loving, sexual orientation here. As it did in Perez and Loving, history must yield to a more fully developed understanding of the invidious quality of the discrimination."
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
You really have simply ignored the substance of my rebuttal and regressed into broad and misplaced analogy
Voting: is the process of casting a ballot for a particular candidate or initiative.
Marriage is the union of a man & a woman.
You can "open up" voting without changing its definition & purpose. You cannot do the same with the institution of marriage without redefining it.
As to your persistent analogies.
(from the Washington State Supreme Court decision)
True enough, but I think it is very interesting to note in what context that observation was offered...
"The department suggests additional rationales for prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying, which are developed by some amici. It argues that broadening civil marriage to include same-sex couples will trivialize or destroy the institution of marriage as it has historically been fashioned. Certainly our decision today marks a significant change in the definition of marriage as it has been inherited from the common law, and understood by many societies for centuries. But it does not disturb the fundamental value of marriage in our society.
They then go on to say...
"A comment is in order with respect to the insistence of some that marriage is, as a matter of definition, the legal union of a man and a woman. To define the institution of marriage by the characteristics of those to whom it always has been accessible, in order to justify the exclusion of those to whom it never has been accessible, is conclusory and bypasses the core question we are asked to decide. This case calls for a higher level of legal analysis. Precisely, the case requires that we confront ingrained assumptions with respect to historically accepted roles of men and women within the institution of marriage and requires that we reexamine these assumptions...I do not doubt the sincerity of deeply held moral or religious beliefs that make inconceivable to some the notion that any change in the common-law definition of what constitutes a legal civil marriage is now, or ever would be, warranted. But, as matter of constitutional law, neither the mantra of tradition, nor individual conviction, can justify the perpetuation of a hierarchy in which couples of the same sex and their families are deemed less worthy of social and legal recognition than couples of the opposite sex and their families. See Lawrence v. Texas, 123 S. Ct. 2472, 2486 (2003)"
And, they also make specific reference to Loving and Prerez cases...both of which you have insisted bear no relevance to this issue...
"For decades, indeed centuries, in much of this country (including Massachusetts) no lawful marriage was possible between white and black Americans. That long history availed not when the Supreme Court of California held in 1948 that a legislative prohibition against interracial marriage violated the due process and equality guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment, Perez v. Sharp, 32 Cal. 2d 711, 728 (1948), or when, nineteen years later, the United States Supreme Court also held that a statutory bar to interracial marriage violated the Fourteenth Amendment, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967). As both Perez and Loving make clear, the right to marry means little if it does not include the right to marry the person of one's choice, subject to appropriate government restrictions in the interests of public health, safety, and welfare. See Perez v. Sharp, supra at 717 ("the essence of the right to marry is freedom to join in marriage with the person of one's choice"). See also Loving v. Virginia, supra at 12. In this case, as in Perez and Loving, a statute deprives individuals of access to an institution of fundamental legal, personal, and social significance -- the institution of marriage -- because of a single trait: skin color in Perez and Loving, sexual orientation here. As it did in Perez and Loving, history must yield to a more fully developed understanding of the invidious quality of the discrimination."
Actually, the comments you quoted do not in fact support your position, since they come from the dissent, and not from the actual decision of the Court. The Majority rejected the reasoning of the dissent, as noted above.
percivale
-------------------------
"We must make it clear that a platform of 'I hate gay men and women' is not a way to become president of the United States." ~ Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter in The Los Angeles Times.
I don't know where you live, but here in the U.S., the government doesn't have "biblical rights." In fact, the govenment doesn't have "rights" at all. Only individuals have rights, and one of those rights is the right to be free from religious establishments. I think that Thomas Jefferson said it best, speaking of religious freedom in his autobiography...
"Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination."
Your assertion is based on an erroneous assumption. In fact, there are a wealth of historyical examples (both ancient and modern) of societies from all over the world that have at various points offered legal recognition of the marriages of same-sex couples. There are literally dozens of examples from the African continent alone, included the including the Yoruba, the Ibo, the Nuer, the Lovedu, the Zulu, the Sotho, the Kikuyu, the Nandi and the Azande peoples (just to name the most well-known), all of whom have traditionally recognized same-sex marriages since ancient times. Closer to home, there are similar marriage arrangements that are historically associated with a number of Native American tribal groups, including the Mohave, the Lakota and the Zuni peoples. The Safavidi Dynasty (of the Middle-East), the Melaneians and Papua New Guineans (in the South Pacific), the people of the Song, Ming and Qing Dynasties (historical China), and the practice of Shudo (in Japan) respesent similar culture who fully accepted same-sex marriages in their midst. To suggest that same-sex marriage is an invention "only in modern times" is a remarkably uniformed position to take.
Being gay IS an acceptable lifestyle, and its practice, "alternative" or not, is protected by our Constitution, Per the Supreme Court of the United States (which unlike the bible, actually has some relvance to this question)...
"These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State."
"Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do."
Factually incorrect. Like all parents in this country, you have the right to educate your child at home or in a private school. In a public school, however, the government has an obligation to represent the facts in an objective fashion, which like it or not includes the fact that gay people exist and have rights, just like every other citizen.
This really doesn't make a lot of sense, when you think about it. The primary factor in the spread of ALL sexually transmitted diseases is sexual promiscuity. Allowing same-sex couples to would logically promote fidelity over promiscuity, and would thus lead to fewer cases of HIV infection, not more.
Again, your comments seem to be based on a questionable knowledge of the subject. In fact, the most recent trend reasearch clearly shows that the primary pattern of HIV transmission world-wide has clearly shifted from high-risk homosexual to high-risk heterosexual contact. (For example.) The fallacy in your argument is the suggestion that because HIV was first identified in a gay population, that the it is somehow a "gay disease." In reality, sexually transmitted diseases tend to appear initially in isolated intimate populations (which makes sense, if you think about it), but also that they rarely stay there.
What evidence do you have that this will be the case? Unlike the game of Othello, gay couples don't magically transform everyone they meet into the opposite of who they are. In fact, the State of Massachusetts continues to have one of the highest marriage rates and lowest divorce rates in our country, despite being the only State in the Union that currently recognizes same-sex marriages. (LINK)
Personally, I don't think that it is "open-minded" to be tolerant of bigotry, and frankly there isn't much to respect in an opinion that advocates for invidious forms of discrimination. As citizens of the United States, we aren't required to like one another, but we are required to let people alone more or less to live their own lives. That is, after all, the whole point behind living in a FREE society. You live your LIFE, and have the LIBERTY to make your own choices in PURSUIT OF your own HAPPINESS, but so does everyone else.
I think that it is interesting (and a little bit funny) that you misquoted Mr. Jefferson's words in your demand for a "correct quote." In actuality, the exact quote from Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists reads as follows...
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."
There is no mention of this being a "ONE-WAY" wall in Jefferson's letter.
In fact, the actual drafter of the First Amendment, James Madison, was quite clear on what he took the idea of the separation of church and state to mean.
"Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history" ~ James Madison (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).
In fact, we have James Madison's own explicit description of what he meant when he began to draft the prohibition against religious establishments that eventually became the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution. From the Annals of Congress, Sat Aug 15th, 1789 pages 730 - 731...
"Mr. Madison said, he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to wroship God in any manner contrary to their conscience...He believed that the people feared one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combine together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform."
It is unfortunate that our modern schools spend so little time in the study of the actual opinions of our founding fathers.
Actually, the existence of religious symbols being engraved all over our national buildings and memorials is something of a myth. At best, such arguments are over-blown, and they ignore the actual location and context in which those symbols came to be so placed.
Actually, our Supreme Court has set down a very specific standard for judging whether or not a particular act of the government represents an illegal religious establishment. It is called The Lemon Test, and it requires three things...
1. The government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose;
2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.
Can you perhaps persent your arugment in a manner that does not violate the prongs of this test?
With all due respect, who cares if you think that homosexuality is a "sin?" Plainly, religious ad hominems of this sort arguments are not at all relevant in a constitutional context, and as such have absolutely no bearing on whether or not gay people will be allowed to marry in this country.
Fortunately, all of the attempts to modify the United States Constitution to reflect this discriminatory have been easily defeated, and the Fourteenth Amendment from making or enforcing "any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" (which of course, includes the freedom to marry). I would also suggest that the history of our country would be remarably empty if we only gave credit to the evasive illusion of the "traditional family" that you suggest. And, I would point again to the words of our Supreme Court, who have adroitly stated the ineffectiveness of appealing to tradition as a justification for discrimination...
“[H]istory and tradition are the starting point but not in all cases the ending point of the substantive due process inquiry...the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice; neither history nor tradition could save a law prohibiting miscegenation from constitutional attack." ~ Lawrence v. Texas (2003)
TTFN,
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
The Bible says "Thou shalt not steal"
Christians believe "thou shalt not steal"
American law say's "thou shalt not steal"
This does not mean that we should rid ourselves of laws on theft because they coincide with biblical principles.
Laws based on theft have been present in many other societies as well. They are not exclusive to the Bible. Furthermore, theft infringes on the rights of the victim; two people getting married, regardless of what sex they are, does absolutely nothing to infringe on the rights of those not involved in the contract, or those involved in the contract, since they both must consent to the contract. Thus, a comparison really can't be made between theft and gay marriage. Just saying.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
"Thus, a comparison really can't be made between theft and gay marriage. Just saying."
Yes, I see what you’re saying. But I think you missed my point. I was not drawing a comparison between same-sex "marriage" & theft. Rather I was pointing out how silly the tact taken by the original poster.
Christians advocate for the kind of public policy they think is consistent and for the common good. Often people pretend that just because that position is associated with religion that it is somehow not a legitimate policy.
Well It may or may not be. However, as the example of theft illustrates: just because something is proscribed in the Bible doesn’t mean its (ipso facto) illegitimate public policy.
And if you think my point was about comparing theft and same sex marriage directly, you also missed the point. You say that theft was in the Bible, and it is also in our laws, so therefore, other things that are in the Bible should be in our laws as well. But, you neglect to realize that many of the things that are in our laws don't have ANYTHING to do with the Bible, whether they share a comparison or not. If you base a law SOLELY on the Bible, it's wrong, because we, as a country, do not force any part of any religion onto our citizens. To do so would be comparable to Muslim nations living under Sharia law.
If you can name something that is ONLY present in the Bible that exists as a law in our society, then I will withdraw from the discussion until I can do more research.
And I have yet to see examples, with sources, of how allowing gay marriage would not be for the common good of society.
And please, since you haven't done it as far as I've seen, click the REPLY link at the bottom of the comment to respond to it. Thank you.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
To be fair and consistant, I haven't seen examples, with sources, of how allowing gay marraige would BE for the common good of society.
How about allowing everyone equal rights? Now, lance, I know you don't agree with this, and think it's perfectly acceptable to ignore the bill of rights in this case, but the only reason you have for not allowing gay marriage is that it is against your religion.
What are the benefits of marriage at all? Adoption agencies are more likely (far more likely) to let you adopt a child. Thus, gay couples would draw more children out of the adoption system. That's good, is it not? And certainly gay couples who live stable lives are far better parents than the drug addicts and otherwise stupid people that are allowed to give birth to children.
But if you want sources, try this one out: http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2006_10_29-2006_11_04.shtml#116239631.... There are links to the original articles there. It summarizes that since Denmark allowed gay marriages back in 1989 (that's the year my sister was born... 18 years ago), HETEROSEXUAL unions have been on the rise, and divorce rates among that population have dropped. You can read more at the link.
Of course, I imagine that you'll still say that they won't do any good, which is a pity, really.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
that's kind of an insult, but I would suggest that I do not infringe on anyone's rights to engage in marriage. I do insist that marriage be what it has always been defined to be: 1 man and 1 woman.
The desire to NOT change the definition of marriage has nothing to do with a desire to 'ignore the bill of rights in this case', and I am at least somewhat offended that you would stoop to suggesting that.
As far as the government's concern, I don't know what value they place on marriage. I, myself, view it as the coming together of 1 man and 1 woman (traditional definition of marriage) as one whole, per the original design for such a relationship (religious view, I admit)
I still don't see any reason to change the definition of the word marriage to allow what is not marriage to be considered marriage. I have no problem with some union that would have any existing 'benefits' of a marriage, able to be applied to any couple, regardless of gender. I believe that if the government is going to allow benefits to one type of couple, it ought to be allowed to any couple. However, it is important to note that this is not marriage, as marriage requires 1 male and 1 female.
I, further, do not believe that the federal government ought to be involved in support of or in opposition to such a change of definition of the word marriage. At best, it ought to be left to each state individually.
That some states may not rule the way you WANT them to is just how things are. Try being a gun-rights person sometime. You get used to it.
No, but I will ask why the opinion of other countries should be the basis for US law. That is a distrubing new trend from the left, especially in the gun rights realm. "Well, Country X did this, so we should too!" . . .. No, that's ok.
In response, I would suggest that you do. The freedom to marry is a fundamental right guaranteed to all citizens. Attempting to single out an identity based group and say that they cannot exercise the same freedom to choose their own spouse is quite plainly an infringement on the fundamental rights of those citizens..
The problem is that the premise of your insistence, i.e. that marriage has always been defined as "1 man and 1 woman" is not accurate. In fact, there are many examples of legal systems and societies, both historical and modern, that have in fact (and which currently do) recognize same-sex marriages.
I think that the Court in the Goodridge case responded to this very argument with great insight...
A comment is in order with respect to the insistence of some that marriage is, as a matter of definition, the legal union of a man and a woman. To define the institution of marriage by the characteristics of those to whom it always has been accessible, in order to justify the exclusion of those to whom it never has been accessible, is conclusory and bypasses the core question we are asked to decide. This case calls for a higher level of legal analysis. Precisely, the case requires that we confront ingrained assumptions with respect to historically accepted roles of men and women within the institution of marriage and requires that we reexamine these assumptions...I do not doubt the sincerity of deeply held moral or religious beliefs that make inconceivable to some the notion that any change in the common-law definition of what constitutes a legal civil marriage is now, or ever would be, warranted. But, as matter of constitutional law, neither the mantra of tradition, nor individual conviction, can justify the perpetuation of a hierarchy in which couples of the same sex and their families are deemed less worthy of social and legal recognition than couples of the opposite sex and their families. See Lawrence v. Texas, 123 S. Ct. 2472, 2486 (2003) (O'Connor, J., concurring) (moral disapproval, with no other valid State interest, cannot justify law that discriminates against groups of persons); Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 850 (1992) ("Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code"). ~ Goodridge v. Public Health (2003)
That admission on your part should be enough to end the arguement. Our Constitution does not permit religious establishments, and attempting to use that reasoning as a basis for defining a fundamental right that is guaranteed to ALL citizens, regardless of their religious beliefs, is plainly unlawful.
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
percivale
Your entire position is based on this "Your position is plainly unconstitutional" hyperbole. You fall back on a purely presumed future SCOTUS opinion of your own imagining & declare contrary opinions and discussions that don’t even involve constitutionality as somehow “out of bound” based on this unfound assertion.
Its not so much an opinion, much less a legal opinion as it is an attitudinal stance. I have watched you do the "dance of the advocate" as apposed to the role of a fair minded thinker.
When dissents help your case (New York) you site them. When they do not help your case you call them irrelevant (Mass).
When State court precedent helps your case (Mass) you site it as legitimate. when state high court precedent hurts your case (N.Y., Washington, Maryland, Road Island) you claim it is irrelevant and that SCOTUS is all that "really" matters.
I am more than aware of your constitutional claim. You never seem to go outside its narrow confines. Opinions such as Lawrence that you rely on expressly reject that the reasoning applies to marriage, yet you site them with a reckless abandon.
It is the position (as your new logo indicates) of an advocate. As such it purposely neglects most of the nuance and sophistication that fair minded legal analysis requires.
Well, as usual you have decided to take a comment entirely out-of-context, and your argument fails accordingly. The admission to which that comment was directed was this...
The prohibitions against religious establishments in this country is very plain, and The Lemon Test requires that all actions by the government must must have a legitimate secular purpose, must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion, and must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion. With the admission that the inent behind the argument being offered is inherently religious, the unconstitutional nature of the resulting argument is plain. One simply cannot offer religion as the defining premise of an arugment, and then expect that argument to stand up to a constitutional challenge.
Not al all. I cited the New York dissent because I agreed with it. I did not however attempt to pass off a dissent as representative of the opinion of the majority (which is what you attempted to do).
I cite Goodridge because it is the standing precedent that most directly addresses the issue at hand. I also regularly cite several stating Supreme Court decisions (Romer and Lawrence, particularly), because the cases that YOU tend to cite clearly contradict the reasoning of those rulings.
That is not at all what the Lawrence decsion states. I usually cite the Lawrence decision (to you) specifically in the context of your denial that the Loving decision has any bearing on this issue, due the fact that the Court itself specifcally cites Loving in Lawrence in the context of rebuking the appeal to tradition which is central to your arugment. The passage which you misrepesent says only this...
JUSTICE STEVENS’ analysis, in our view, should have beencontrolling in Bowers and should control here.
Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it isnot correct today. It ought not to remain binding precedent. Bowers v. Hardwick should be and now is overruled.
The present case does not involve minors. It does not involve persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent might not easily be refused. It does not involve public conduct or prostitution. It does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter. The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government.
This comment is specifically directed at the reasoning behind the Courts decision to overturn Bowers, because those were the situational points that Bowers relied upon. In fact, the Court very specifically notes the potential relevance of its decision to the issue of same-sex marriage, and does so not only in its Opinion, but in Dissent as well. For example...
From the Opinion of the Court...
The Casey decision again confirmed that our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education...In explaining the respect the Constitution demands for the autonomy of the person in making these choices, we stated as follows:
“These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.” Ibid.
Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.
This passage clearly indicates that the reasoning in Lawrence, applied to sexual conduct, is similar to the reasoning applied in Casey regarding (among other things), marriage. The Court goes even further, and notes that its rejection of the Texas statute in Lawrence is similar to its previous rejection of the anti-miscegenation statutes struck down in Loving...
“Our prior cases make two propositions abundantly clear. First, the fact that the governing majority in a
State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice; neither history nor tradition could save a law prohibiting miscegenation from constitutional attack. Second, individual decisions by married persons, concerning the intimacies of their physical relationship, even when not intended to produce offspring, are a form of “liberty” protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Moreover, this protection extends to intimate choices
by unmarried as well as married persons.”
In Saclia's Dissent...
Men and women, heterosexuals and homosexuals, are all subject to its prohibition of deviate sexual intercourse with someone of the same sex. To be sure, §21.06 does distinguish between the sexes insofar as concerns the partner with whom the sexual acts are performed: men can violate the law only with other men, and women only with other women. But this cannot itself be a denial of equal protection, since it is precisely the same distinction regarding partner that is drawn in state laws prohibiting marriage with someone of the same sex while permitting marriage with someone of the opposite sex...This reasoning leaves on pretty shaky grounds state laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples...This case “does not involve” the issue of homosexual marriage only if one entertains the belief that principle and logic have nothing to do with the decisions of this Court.
Lawrence v. Texas (2003)
The fact that BOTH the Opinon of the Court and the Dissent rely repeatedly on the relevance of precedents that were set specifically in the context of marriage is very significant. Either way, it clearly shows that one cannot rationally expect that the arguments regarding same-sex marriage will not include such references (both pro- and con-) in the future.
Well, that's an ad hominem if I've ever heard one. *rolls eyes*
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
that's kind of an insult, but I would suggest that I do not infringe on anyone's rights to engage in marriage.
It's not an insult at all. It's something I've heard through the grapevine that you believe. I didn't say that you infringed on anyone's rights to engage in marriage (as you haven't, as far as I know, gone out and held people back from getting married). I merely suggested that you do believe that it's ok to not allow equal rights in the case of gay marriage, which is a position you clearly take, as evidenced by the remarks in the rest of THIS comment, if nothing else. And, indeed, the only reason you have for opposing it is your religious beliefs.
I have no problem with some union that would have any existing 'benefits' of a marriage, able to be applied to any couple, regardless of gender.
Which is far better than what you seem to have been suggesting, which is that gay couples be required to make up all the documents that gives them the same rights as a married couple, and let the married couple actually consider themselves married. That just reeks of 'separate but equal'. And yes, I'm fully aware that you do not like the comparison between racism in the past century and gay rights now, but they are remarkably similar no matter how you look at it.
I, further, do not believe that the federal government ought to be involved in support of or in opposition to such a change of definition of the word marriage. At best, it ought to be left to each state individually.
I disagree on the mere idea that it would complicate the system far more than it needs to be complicated. If a married gay couple moves to a state that does then not allow gay marriage, are they not allowed the same rights as married couples in the state, even though they ARE legally married? Surely you can see the dilemma.
No, but I will ask why the opinion of other countries should be the basis for US law. That is a distrubing new trend from the left, especially in the gun rights realm. "Well, Country X did this, so we should too!" . . .. No, that's ok.
You misunderstand the purpose of the information if you think I'm simply soliciting the opinions of other countries. Many times, both on this site and off, people have said that society would be RUINED if we allowed gay marriage. And yet, you look at countries that HAVE allowed gay marriage, and they're doing remarkably well. If those countries showed that gay marriage was a detriment to society, then I'd be more inclined to agree with you. So instead of implying 'Well, country X did this, so we should too!', I'm more implying 'Well, country X did this 10 years ago, and were in the same position we are currently in, what has happened to them since?'. Since nothing bad has happened in this case, it furthers the idea that nothing bad would happen here, either.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
no, the insult was the suggestion that i wanted to 'ignore the bill of rights' for gay people. You know better than that. I have always framed this as a definition of marriage issue, not a "Let's bash dem der homeo-sexuals!" which is why I found your wording insulting. I'll note that you did not apologize.
it isn't an equal rights issue. Marriage is defined as 1 man and 1 woman. no matter how many times one says otherwise, that is how it has always been defined. Exceptions have always been small, few and short lived. To point to a few odd societies that existed centuries ago as 'proof' that marriage does not mean 1 man and 1 woman is kind of silly on the part of those supporting homosexual marriage, as it only shows how vast the definition of 1 man and 1 woman is.
Any man can marry any woman. Any woman can marry any man. That you support changing that doesn't make me a bigot or someone who wants to 'ignore the bill of rights.'
Only 1 person, jsaj, has ever asked for my opinion on civil unions. Everyone else just, apparently, assumed that I must oppose them out of some deep hated of gay people. Amazing what happens when people assume.
If you want to compare me to a racist because you want to change the word marriage and I do not, you are free to. I am also free to think less of people who stoop to such an action. Marriage is 1 man and 1 woman. Anything else is not marriage. End of story. It was wrong to suggest that marriage had to discriminate against race, because there really WAS nothing about the definition of marriage that includes race.... as racism is stupid. However, marriage is clearly 1 man and 1 woman, despite the push in the recent decade or two to change that.
Do you not understand how marriage works? It is wholly a State's issue. The states DO have a right to not accept a marriage license from another state. They each have reprocity with one another when it comes to marriage licenses, and they each have the right to accept or not accept marriage licenses as they see fit.
My parents were married in MN... Oklahoma could legally say that they don't recognize such a marriage license. There is no federal marriage license.... that's why preachers and judges say "by the powers vested in me by the state of [state]" rather than 'by the united states government.'
Then save such arguments for them, not me. I don't suggest that it would 'ruin' the country. I do suggest that it would require the redefining of a word, and there is no real reason to do it apart from the desire of a tiny (TINY) minority (what.... 5 or 6% of the population by their own count?) to do what they want to do. That, to me, is not enough reason to change a word with the massive tradition as Marriage. I would support a way for them to get any 'benefits' that the federal government allows to married couples that legal documents, wills and such cannot already do.
I wouldn't say that they're doing 'remarkably well' but any problems they have aren't due to gay marriage, nor can you actually say or suggest that the good things they are doing are because of gay marriage. Correlation is not Cause.
But, I've never suggested that homosexual marriage would cause the earth to tremble, the seas to turn to blood or fire to fall from the sky.... I don't even think that it would cause a problem with the economy (except for the dishonest folk who would call themselves gay in order to be considered married to their buddy to defraud insurance companies)
It is a variant. If someone says "nothing bad" then the response THEN is "well, maybe we should do it too."
Never base our law on what other countries do. Other countries brought us Stalin, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Il and the President of Iran, as well as largescale death due to Communism, removal of rights due to Socialism, tyranny under dictatorships and suffering under gang mob rule. No thanks.
I am sorry, Lance, but your assertions in this matter are flatly false. For example, the practice of Shudo in Japan (hardly an obscure or "odd" society) was widely practiced from at least the 8th Century C.E. through the late 17th to early 18th Century. Similarly, the same-sex marriages of the North American tribal cultures originated in ancient times, and was still being practiced through the early 19th Century. The practice is widely documented in more than thirty African tribal groups, including the Yoruba, the Nuer and the Zulu (three of the largest ethnic groups in Africa). Your dismissal of the many examples of these marriages is arbitrary, and is neither reasonable nor historically accurate.
Factually incorrect. The Supreme Court of the United States' refusal to grant certiorari in Goodridge v. Public Health renders this assertion plainly false.
Factually incorrect. Loving v. Virginia clearly indicates that the freedom to marry is a basic civil right guaranteed to all citizens in this country per the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The states DO have a right to not accept a marriage license from another state.
Only partially correct. A State may refuse to recognize the marriage licenses of other States, but it may not do so through the application of invidious categorizations.
Point of fact...a minority of ONE would still be entitled to exercise the full range of basic rights that are guaranteed to all citizens as individuals.
The rights created by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment are, by its terms, guaranteed to the individual. ~ Perez v. Sharp (1948)
The bottom line is simple. No one owes you any justification or explanation for their desire to exercise their fundamental freedoms. On the contrary, the burden of proof lies with the State when they wish to LIMIT any citizens action relating to such a right, and in doing so they must comply with the Constituion's guarantees of Equal Protection and Due Process (among others).
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
"You say that theft was in the Bible, and it is also in our laws, so therefore, other things that are in the Bible should be in our laws as well.
No...that’s not what I said. My point was to refute the (original posts) insinuation that just because something is ALSO in the bible (as well as law) it should not be in the law. That it is somehow illegitimate.
That’s why the metaphor about theft was so compelling an illustration.
" But, you neglect to realize that many of the things that are in our laws don't have ANYTHING to do with the Bible, whether they share a comparison or not. If you base a law SOLELY on the Bible, it's wrong, because we, as a country, do not force any part of any religion onto our citizens. To do so would be comparable to Muslim nations living under Sharia law."
Yes...as you say "soley" on the Bible. Laws should be based on public reason. Justifications that are rational (apart from faith) a assessable to reason. The definition of marriage as one man + one woman is one such law.
This only came into dispute recently and the finding that such laws are rational has been affirmed now by a majority of State Supreme Courts that have decided the matter.
Only the Massachusetts court, with an narrow majority, has decided otherwise.
I apologize then, for misinterpreting you.
And as percivale has pointed out many times, there are many societies that define marriage differently than you, and have for a long time. Our society has changed drastically in the past 100 years. Things that were defined one way are now defined differently. Just because something is tradition, doesn't mean it shouldn't be subject to change.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
"Just because something is tradition, doesn't mean it shouldn't be subject to change."
Agreed - You will not find me making such a blanket pronouncement in reference to tradition. It would be just as silly for me to characterize proponents of same-sex "marriage" as those who think... Just because something is traditional then it MUST be changed"
As stated above, we should base public policy on reason and just argument.