How, exactly, does gay marriage threaten me?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pls correct me if I'm wrong but one of the big issues is if gay marriage is made legal, a church can be forced to perform the ceremony.

The DC "marriage equality law says: to ensure that no priest, minister, imam, or rabbi of any religious denomination and no official of any non-profit religious organization authorized to solemnize marriages shall be required to celebrate any marriage if doing so violates his or her right to the free exercise of religion". In fact, the official name of the law, "RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AND CIVIL MARRIAGE EQUALITY AMENDMENT ACT OF 2009", puts religious freedom first, and specifies that it is about civil marriage equality.

This may be the case in DC but not elsewhere. I believe this is one of the reasons why the bill died in MD.

No, this is crazy. Churches already have the constitutional right to discriminate in their membership. You can have an all-white church, an all-male religious organization, and you can have a congregation that bans homosexuals. The law above is needless. It is only there to address an irrational fear.

Everyone knows this. You have never seen a court opinion that forces a church to admit gays.

[Anonymous]

Sitting in a church does not make you a Christian, just like sitting in a garage will not make you a car.

Jesus said by their fruit you will recognize them. He also said not everyone who says Lord, Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

Have whatever religious beliefs you want to have, but this is not a cafeteria or a buffet. Just because you enjoy reading the Bible, going to church, and saying hallelujah it does not mean you have a relationship with Jesus and you have surrendered your life to Him. And if you have not, then you really shouldn't call yourself a Christian. It's common, but it bothers me because it confuses people. Find another name for your religion, or put some kind of qualifier in front of it. Or better yet, leave religion out of it and just state you believe what you believe.

Did Jesus appoint you the arbiter of Christian faith? Did Jesus give you the right and power to determine who is Christian "enough"? Funny...I swear I remember Bible stories on a similar theme, and it was the "holier than thou" crowd that failed Jesus's test.

You don't get to decide whether I am a Christian. That's way above your pay grade, and I strongly suspect you don't understand what Christianity and the teachings of Jesus truly mean.

Sincerely,
Christian gay marriage supporter

[Anonymous]

Meh, screwed up the quote function while typing on iPhone. My PP is supposed to start with paragraph asking when Jesus appointed the "Good Christian" arbiter of all Christianity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pls correct me if I'm wrong but one of the big issues is if gay marriage is made legal, a church can be forced to perform the ceremony.

The DC "marriage equality law says: to ensure that no priest, minister, imam, or rabbi of any religious denomination and no official of any non-profit religious organization authorized to solemnize marriages shall be required to celebrate any marriage if doing so violates his or her right to the free exercise of religion". In fact, the official name of the law, "RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AND CIVIL MARRIAGE EQUALITY AMENDMENT ACT OF 2009", puts religious freedom first, and specifies that it is about civil marriage equality.

This may be the case in DC but not elsewhere. I believe this is one of the reasons why the bill died in MD.

No, this is crazy. Churches already have the constitutional right to discriminate in their membership. You can have an all-white church, an all-male religious organization, and you can have a congregation that bans homosexuals. The law above is needless. It is only there to address an irrational fear.

Everyone knows this. You have never seen a court opinion that forces a church to admit gays.

You missed my point, I said force churches to marry gays.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No, this is crazy. Churches already have the constitutional right to discriminate in their membership. You can have an all-white church, an all-male religious organization, and you can have a congregation that bans homosexuals. The law above is needless. It is only there to address an irrational fear.

Everyone knows this. You have never seen a court opinion that forces a church to admit gays.

You missed my point, I said force churches to marry gays.
No, he did not miss your point. He just answered an even broader issue. If they are not even forced to admit them, they clearly cannot be forced to marry them. The First Amendment protects churches from such government intrusion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pls correct me if I'm wrong but one of the big issues is if gay marriage is made legal, a church can be forced to perform the ceremony.

The DC "marriage equality law says: to ensure that no priest, minister, imam, or rabbi of any religious denomination and no official of any non-profit religious organization authorized to solemnize marriages shall be required to celebrate any marriage if doing so violates his or her right to the free exercise of religion". In fact, the official name of the law, "RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AND CIVIL MARRIAGE EQUALITY AMENDMENT ACT OF 2009", puts religious freedom first, and specifies that it is about civil marriage equality.

This may be the case in DC but not elsewhere. I believe this is one of the reasons why the bill died in MD.

No, this is crazy. Churches already have the constitutional right to discriminate in their membership. You can have an all-white church, an all-male religious organization, and you can have a congregation that bans homosexuals. The law above is needless. It is only there to address an irrational fear.

Everyone knows this. You have never seen a court opinion that forces a church to admit gays.

You missed my point, I said force churches to marry gays.

Did I have to spell out to you that churches also can't be required to marry non-members?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Incest is not homosexuality. You're derailing the conversation with this bullshit. We're NOT asking to marry our siblings. We're asking to marry our partners. It's not a slippery slope. We want the same rights you have to protect your family. If your real defense is that you think gay siblings will be asking to be married, you're grasping at straws. It's utter crap and you know it.

I think the point of this extreme case is to demonstrate the fallacy of the "basic human right" or "civil right under the law" argument being advanced to support gay marriage. If you make the argument that marriage is a right, regardless of the moral code of the majority (gay marriage has been consistently defeated on referendum) then that right then should be extended to any two individuals who desire marriage. You absolutely cannot say that it should be morally acceptable for two unrelated same sex adults to marry and not allow two adult brothers or sisters or father/son, etc. the same right. By saying that is a "no go" you are defining a moral limit, that is exactly what you are arguing against when others say they oppose gay marriage based upon their view of morality. You cannot argue it both ways, sorry you need to be consist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it a Civil Union was modified to include all of the legal rights of marriage, t hen the gays would be happy? Get all of the benefits, but not called "marriage". Marriage is preserved as a union between a man and a woman, and a civil union is the joining of two other individuals (might as well include related same sex family member too in there). Each would afford the same rights under the law, but have a differing name. Does that solve the problem?

I think that a few years back, there was a large contingent of gays who felt that marriage might be too much to hope for, and it would be better strategy to work for civil union. But that meant a lot of extra work in each state to be sure to get all the benefits of marriage, and it also meant gays would still be second class citizens. Once public sentiment made marriage a more realistic possibility, the arguments for the more limited strategy lost ground.

Not sure I follow this line at all. The dominating argument here is that gays are not afforded all of the benefits of marriage given to heterosexual couples. So when two same sex individuals want to marry, then simply call it a "civil union" and give them the same rights provided under traditional marriage. This would not be procedurally difficult at all, that is a weak argument against civil unions. Is the goal to win the right so as to rub the faces in it of those who view marriage as a union between a man and a woman? How exactly is a civil union that affords all the rights of marriage create a second class citizen? Seems to me this is a means for a majority to get what they want, the preservation of marriage and the extension of legal rights for gay unions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Civil unions are too little, too late. America had it's chance to make a compromise that appeased those who were not comfortable with gay people. It did nothing.

Now the demographic trend is inevitable. Each new generation is more welcoming than the on before it. The oldest Americans will not be voting forever.

Look at the to the pew forum data. It is inevitable.

Please provide a link to the data you are referencing.

I am not quite sure that the "trend" is supporting your assertion. Gay marriage has been defeated in numerous states when voted on by referendum. America is still a center right country. Recently it was defeated in California, one of the bluest states in the union. Besides opposition by republicans (who are the demagogues here), gay marriage is strongly opposed by the African American, Asian, and Hispanic cultures, and many Christian democrats. Registered republicans are significantly in the minority in California and these traditionally "democrat" voters are reason for the the referendum's defeat there. Not sure why those supporting gay marriage do not show more outrage against these group for opposing their cause. Finally, polling young people on this topic may not be a great indicator either, voters tend to become more conservative as they age. I think convincing the majority to support gay marriage is an uphill battle. That is why it is being trumped through the courts, because selling it to the voters is a losing strategy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Civil unions are too little, too late. America had it's chance to make a compromise that appeased those who were not comfortable with gay people. It did nothing.

Now the demographic trend is inevitable. Each new generation is more welcoming than the on before it. The oldest Americans will not be voting forever.

Look at the to the pew forum data. It is inevitable.

Please provide a link to the data you are referencing.

I am not quite sure that the "trend" is supporting your assertion. Gay marriage has been defeated in numerous states when voted on by referendum. America is still a center right country. Recently it was defeated in California, one of the bluest states in the union. Besides opposition by republicans (who are the demagogues here), gay marriage is strongly opposed by the African American, Asian, and Hispanic cultures, and many Christian democrats. Registered republicans are significantly in the minority in California and these traditionally "democrat" voters are reason for the the referendum's defeat there. Not sure why those supporting gay marriage do not show more outrage against these group for opposing their cause. Finally, polling young people on this topic may not be a great indicator either, voters tend to become more conservative as they age. I think convincing the majority to support gay marriage is an uphill battle. That is why it is being trumped through the courts, because selling it to the voters is a losing strategy.

Labels like "Center Right" don't really mean anything. This is a single issue. Here is the report that I referenced.

http://pewforum.org/Gay-Marriage-and-Homosexuality/Support-For-Same-Sex-Marriage-Edges-Upward.aspx

The two trends that I am talking about are this:


And this:


The first says that as time goes by, the public has consistently shifted its views more in favor of gay marriage. The second explains why. And it also shows that as a generation ages, it does not get more conservative on this issue. The poll shows upward trends on acceptance of gay marriage for the same cohort from year to year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm currently living in MN where the state senate jusst approved adding an anti-gay marriage amendment to the state constitution. The House will surely approve as well, then it will go on the ballot in Nov 2008. Apparently this will help protect and benefit me in some way. I'm a heterosexual mid thirties married Christian female with three children. What serious threat to me or my family is being avoided by ensuring gays cannot marry? What benefits will my family and me receive? If this is such a serious issue that a constitutional amendment is necessary, I'd like to understand why, exactly.

My tiny little brain just can't process how denying rights to others will improve my marriage, strengthen my family, or make the world safer for my children.

Go ahead and change the institution that has formed the basis of every civilization since the beginning of recorded history. I am sure there will not be any unintended consequences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Go ahead and change the institution that has formed the basis of every civilization since the beginning of recorded history. I am sure there will not be any unintended consequences.

1. You have just pointed out that this "sacred institution" long predates Jesus, Moses, Buddha, etc.

2. It is not being changed, just extended. Same thing happened a few decades ago when laws against racial intermarriage were dropped.

3. Every change can have unintended consequences, but we do not choose to keep the status quo on everything.

4. Giving all the rights of marriage, but calling it civil union might be okay if it really included all the rights of marriage. But the only sure way to be sure to give it all the rights of marriage is to call it a marriage.

5. The ceremony may be sacred, but "marriage" is just a word, and words belong to all who speak the language.

[Anonymous]

Not sure I follow this line at all. The dominating argument here is that gays are not afforded all of the benefits of marriage given to heterosexual couples. So when two same sex individuals want to marry, then simply call it a "civil union" and give them the same rights provided under traditional marriage. This would not be procedurally difficult at all, that is a weak argument against civil unions. Is the goal to win the right so as to rub the faces in it of those who view marriage as a union between a man and a woman? How exactly is a civil union that affords all the rights of marriage create a second class citizen? Seems to me this is a means for a majority to get what they want, the preservation of marriage and the extension of legal rights for gay unions.

I honestly used to think this way. Why not call it a civil union, give it the exact same rights as a marriage, and everyone is happy?
But then I looked at it from a non-religious point of view. Marriage is a word, not owned or patented by any church. So why shouldn't a homosexual union be called the same name? If you take away the thought of gender, its about 2 people making a commitment to each other, to be each others lifelong partner. Why not call it a marriage? Is there a good reason, other than calling it a marriage offends the far right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm currently living in MN where the state senate jusst approved adding an anti-gay marriage amendment to the state constitution. The House will surely approve as well, then it will go on the ballot in Nov 2008. Apparently this will help protect and benefit me in some way. I'm a heterosexual mid thirties married Christian female with three children. What serious threat to me or my family is being avoided by ensuring gays cannot marry? What benefits will my family and me receive? If this is such a serious issue that a constitutional amendment is necessary, I'd like to understand why, exactly.

My tiny little brain just can't process how denying rights to others will improve my marriage, strengthen my family, or make the world safer for my children.

Go ahead and change the institution that has formed the basis of every civilization since the beginning of recorded history. I am sure there will not be any unintended consequences.

So was slavery. It turns out that changing that was pretty darn good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Not sure I follow this line at all. The dominating argument here is that gays are not afforded all of the benefits of marriage given to heterosexual couples. So when two same sex individuals want to marry, then simply call it a "civil union" and give them the same rights provided under traditional marriage. This would not be procedurally difficult at all, that is a weak argument against civil unions. Is the goal to win the right so as to rub the faces in it of those who view marriage as a union between a man and a woman? How exactly is a civil union that affords all the rights of marriage create a second class citizen? Seems to me this is a means for a majority to get what they want, the preservation of marriage and the extension of legal rights for gay unions.

I honestly used to think this way. Why not call it a civil union, give it the exact same rights as a marriage, and everyone is happy?
But then I looked at it from a non-religious point of view. Marriage is a word, not owned or patented by any church. So why shouldn't a homosexual union be called the same name? If you take away the thought of gender, its about 2 people making a commitment to each other, to be each others lifelong partner. Why not call it a marriage? Is there a good reason, other than calling it a marriage offends the far right?

What is important here, calling it marriage or having all the rights of marriage? Marriage can be defined however the lawmakers decide. It could be defined as only between a man and a woman and civil unions for all others. Each could provide for all the same legal rights. Then a much greater percentage of the overall population could support it.