- Why in the world is the word "married" charged with so much importance? Maybe we need the "State" to drop it all the way around. We could just call the legal binding of 2 adults some form of "Partnership". And the Churches can then use whatever term they want.
- Why would the Roman Catholic church be against homosexual rights? They seem to have employed many over the years? And even hid some of their more egregious indiscretions.
- Being a member of the ELCA that now allows homosexual Pastors, it looks like we have the blessing to go either way.
- Why would I want to hoard the joys and pains of Marriage? Let them share in some of the excitement !!!
Thoughts?
KARE11 Religious Leaders Oppose Marriage Amendment
MPR Amendment Mobilizes Faithful on Both Sides
ELCA Paper
23 comments:
Contrary to what many will tell you, it's not the word that's important, it's the concept. Those who will tell you that it's just an issue of redefining a word don't seem to really understand what marriage is.
--Hiram
What is marriage from your perspective?
How about this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jFOdkaQ5VM
--Hiram
I agree... Youtube Link
Along those lines, wouldn't the anti-gay marriage folks want to settle these folks into monogomous relationships. Wouldn't this reduce the chance of converting more partners to the dark side???
Here is a story I may have shared before. It is about two of the most "Conservative" older people I know. You know the type, they tend to generalize about the poor, gays, lesbians, illegal aliens, etc, often saying that those people are making bad choices, should straighten up, work hard, make good decisions and behave better. I essence stereotyping away the person, replacing them with an image and blaming the image for the image's problems.
Of course life is full of ironic twists, like one of their closest friends being gay. Thankfully they kept associating with the individual, though I am sure it has caused some complexity in maintaining that particular image... It is always easier to de-humanize when you don't need to face the individual's humanity up close and personal.
It's about love, and commitment. Romance. It isn't about dictionary definitions, and I find that so many people see marriage as little more than a word to be very strange indeed. Maybe that, at least in part, explains the divorce rate.
--Hiram
The title of your post should be "some religious folks oppose MN marriage amendment"
Changing Attitudes on Gay Marriage
My Unitarian church has performed marriage ceremonies and advocated for equal marriage rights for many years.
John--the word "marriage" matters, insofar as the Minnesota constitution has 515 instances where rights and privileges are specifically provided to married people. So giving people civil unions doesn't achieve the goals of equality, unless you want to rewrite 515 portions of state law.
I wish people could separate marriage from their religion. Maybe a Catholic/Baptist/Mormon church ceremony is very important to some people--that's fine. But someone else having a Unitarian/UCC/civil ceremony to celebrate their love and commitment doesn't affect my marriage or that Catholic/Baptist/Mormon couple's.
I really believe the amendment is happening now for two simple reasons--first, to gin up the base and goose turnout, and second, because in another ten years (or maybe another four) there's no way it would pass. The public is more accepting all the time, and all our kids will think that disallowing gay marriage is as backwards as segregation.
--Annie
Laurie,
No way, I wanted to leave it intentionally unrefined. (ie no all, some, etc)
Annie,
Good point... I don't suppose proper procedure would allow them to use "find and replace"...
All,
Another strange thought this morning. I wonder what the proponents of this amendment would do if society was swapped so that only 2 gay folks could be married.
I personally would be in trouble because I am higly attracted to women and don't think I have ever had a flicker towards a man. (maybe I am in denial...) I am certain that environment reinforced these genetics, however they definitely were there the first time I wanted to play doctor...
Now if I could only marry a man because that it was society mandated... That would definitely be a problem.
And yes, my fictional society would enable the propogation of children through sperm banks. It would just believe that women made better parents, thus they bore and raised the kids. (ie it is a kinder and gentler world)
I have seen it argued by conservatives that you don't have a right to marry. Strange talk from the family values crowd.
--Hiram
You do NOT have a right to a legal marriage recognized by the state. You have to get a license and, just like a fishing license, you have to meet the qualifications. If you just want to make a lifelong sacred commitment to someone you love, gay couples, at least, can find all manner of churches that will solemnize that for you. Opponents of this amendment keep trying to confuse the two things, which is somewhat understandable.
J. Ewing
"You do NOT have a right to a legal marriage recognized by the state."
We do of course. It's a qualified right, but a right nonetheless. This is something conservatives are wrong about, and is revealing of a curious strain of statist thinking they seem to be vulnerable to.
I am not sure if the words "Right" or "Privelege" matter too much. Either way, their is a significant portion of our country's population that is not allowed the legal benefits and recognition of their committed, preferably long term, etc relationship.
A different thought, why is the State involved in this Personal Contract in the first place? Is it all about Religion? Or did we want to promote monogamous long term relationships? Did we want to promote families and kids? Did we want to promote stability?
As J. says, a man and woman could go to a Church and have their long term commitment recognized. No need to have all these State rules at all...
If it is about families, stability, kids, etc... Modern science, adoption, etc has made the sex of the Parents somewhat immaterial. I would prefer that kids have responsible gay / lesbian parents,over the many Dead Beat Man/Woman parents we have around today.
Especially if being true to their genetics helps them maintain a stable long term relationship.
The state has a number of interests in recognizing marriage. A lot of them have to do with sorting out various property issues. It is the case that when people choose to share their lives, and create families, there are a number of civil consequences which marriage helps to order.
--Hiram
Well, yes, it is technically a "qualified right." All this means is that if a qualified couple goes in and tries to get a marriage license and are denied on some basis other than legal qualifications, their rights have been violated. Gay couples do not qualify, so this is not a civil rights issue in any way. Not to mention that being gay is not an immutable condition, like race or gender. I am appalled when a father with two kids suddenly "decides" he is gay. If a gay person wants to marry they just need to find someone of the opposite gender and DECIDE to do so. Difficult, yes, but uncommon, no.
The State's compelling interest in man-woman marriage includes inheritance, etc, but it includes a number of "incentives" as well, such as the tax code, to promote the creation of two-parent, opposite-sex, "traditional" families, to best perpetuate the society and the culture. These other pairings, while increasingly common, do NOT provide the same societal benefits, in the mean, and our laws are written for the majority situation, not the exceptions of "deadbeat dads" or the like. Leave the current law around.
J. Ewing
That is, leave the current law ALONE. Put it in the constitution so that it can not be tossed out on the whim of some judge.
Let's hope you are not transported into my alternate universe. You would have to come home, give Bubba a big kiss and maybe more. All the while dreading it and wishing you were with Bubbette.
Just close your eyes and envision Bubba giving you a big kiss.(or more) Would meeting the societal norm really be worth it?
By the way, do you have any Gay or Lesbian friends?
It saddens me when it takes someone until his 40's or 50's to come out to family and friends. When there is a marriage and children involved it must be so much more difficult and painful to all involved (this was the case for both a cousin and a friend of mine, though I am not close enough with either to know much about their struggle)
What saddens me most is to imagine how it must feel to be a gay child raised in a family that opposes a gay lifestyle and marriage. The current level of acceptance in society in general is such that I would have few worries about a child of mine who is gay.
The fact that interracial couples didn't "qualify" to marry prior to Loving v. Virginia didn't make it any less of a civil rights issue. In general, I think the state has an interest in recognizing two person couples as a stabilizing influence in many respects, including child rearing. Why it makes a difference whether these same sex couples or not is unclear to me. There are a number of reasons why we recognize marriage in our society, but very few marriages embody all those reasons, and are no less valid when they do not.
--Hiram
It saddens me when someone "decides" they are gay having already proven-- by marriage and children-- that they can function perfectly well as non-gays. I don't give a whoop and holler for their "struggle." Get your head on straight and keep living. You HAVE a family, don't demand (or allow the court to impose) that the State recognize a "right" for you to break it up to create something not as good. If you have "always" been gay, you can choose to change or to never marry in the officially recognized sense. Up to you, sorry. Society SHOULD disapprove, because if we are all gay society ends with this generation, unless of course you want to go Brave New World. I don't.
J. Ewing
Bubba would appreciate hearing that you would stay with him, even though it disgusted you and you longed for Bubbette...
Most people try hard to fit into their society, even when it is difficult for them personally. Especially if their Parents feel strongly. It is no wonder that some finally come out of the closet after decades. Maybe it occurs about the time their Parents pass... Or the strain of betraying themselves and going to bed with Bubba every night finally wears them down.
I personally would get really tired of Bubba, no matter how nice of a guy he was. It would be the violating myself that would end it. Societal norms would just not be worth it.
Sorry, you are not entitled to a sex life unless you find a willing partner and are willing yourself. You certainly aren't entitled to a legally recognized license to engage in any kind of sex you want. It needs to be the government (and society) approved kind. Anything else, keep it quiet or don't do it at all.
Watching the religious community in general and my church in particular, I find it difficult to deny that an underlying reason, perhaps the major reason for their support of "marriage" "equality" is membership. The Biblical scholarship is somewhere between creative and disingenuous, wholly unsatisfying to me. So is their assumed, arbitrary conflation of public policy with religious doctrine. So is their characterization of those opposed as deficient forms of homo sapiens. And I have yet to hear a competent rebuttal to the "what about polygamy?" question.
But that all said, I also will vote no, simply because I don't believe this belongs in a constitution.
The only reason it must go in the constitution is because there are people already lined up to impose this on all of us by finding one judge willing to bypass the legislature and the people to do it. All the amendment does is protect the current definition from judicial fiat, and outside that nothing changes, for anybody.
J. Ewing
Post a Comment