Who can marry?
The following adults can marry:
But in most states, if you want to marry, and you're gay - you can only do it if you lie. If you're willing to live a lie, you can marry someone you're not attracted to, and live that way.
But if you're gay and you tell the truth .... you're deemed not worthy to marry?
Why is lying ok? If marriage is "sacred," how is marriage - based on a lie - ok?
- You can be retarded.
- You can be mentally ill.
- You can be a criminal (including rapist, murderer, pedophile).
- You can be any religion or no religion.
- You can be any race.
- You can be any nationality.
- You can belong to any political party or no party.
- You can work in any type of employment or no employment.
- You can be rich.
- You can be poor.
- You can be sick.
- You can be well.
- You can be disabled (blind, paralyzed, hearing impaired, etc)
- You can be attracted to the opposite sex.
- You can pretend to be attracted to the opposite sex.
But in most states, if you want to marry, and you're gay - you can only do it if you lie. If you're willing to live a lie, you can marry someone you're not attracted to, and live that way.
But if you're gay and you tell the truth .... you're deemed not worthy to marry?
Why is lying ok? If marriage is "sacred," how is marriage - based on a lie - ok?
Advertisement
I am in a three strikes state.
They will not let me marry again.
Thank God.
December 21, 2008 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
a three strikes state.
Take it easy, fella, no one has to get hurt here...just put down the diamond ring, get up off you knee, and back away from the girl
December 28, 2008 11:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
hahahahahahahahahah
December 29, 2008 12:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
That will change. Not as fast as some might wish, true. The momentum, though, is with the change, not the resistance to it.
Why do you think the right wing evangelicals are so adamant? They are fighting a rearguard action. They know they will lose in the long run, on this and many other fronts. Time is not on their side.
As I said, the changes will not come as quickly as some might wish. They will, though, arrive, and be lasting changes.
December 21, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rearguard action. LOL. Okay, I'm a child, I admit it.
December 21, 2008 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
: ). Bad Destor!
December 21, 2008 11:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't that all pretty obvious?
If you want to defuse the fears, deal with them directly. One talking point against gay marriage is the fear that it is a step towards polygamy and other forms of potential "civil union". And if you stop to think about it, if marriage is not between one man and one woman (whether individuals lie etc. or not per your laundry list) then just what is it? Why shouldn't a threesome be acceptable for marriage, or if it should, then make the case openly. Why not marry your dog? Deal with it. People leave their estates to pets, why not formalize that too, regardless of whether or not a church will perform a ceremony.
Did the ERA ever pass? No. Last I checked, it lacked 3 states.
Think about that.
December 21, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
The ERA did not pass for several reasons, including this rather significant one, one that would have obviated any (then) future hue and cry about marriage and much more: "Equality of rights under the law shall not be abridged or denied on the basis of sex."
Take that last phrase off and we'd have had an amendment passing that wrote universal equality into the Constitution. Make it a "special case" on any specific basis whatever and we open the door to "special privileges" counterpoint.
Put it out again with that phrase removed and start the campaigning. Then let the wingnuts' heads explode after.
December 21, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
None of those things bother me either. Whenever somebody says "then why not polygamy?" I just have to say: "why not?"
December 21, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, eds, what a stupid post.
December 21, 2008 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Curious, according to TPM official links you have not yet left any comments, cletus. I have to agree on substance even though I see what looks like a comment in this thread:
"Wow, eds, what a stupid post."
It could be stupid from any number of points of view which you've kept to yourself.
December 21, 2008 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do not believe that a government founded upon individual liberty has a right to interfere in the relational structures its citizens enter into, other than to enforce contractual obligations made as a part of these relationships, and a few legitimate state/societal interests justifying intervention, the significant ones being:
- no coercive contractual relationships-the must be freely entered into by all parties
- persons considered to be minors under the law
- persons should be prohibited from entering into relationship contracts, even with parental consent
- persons should not be forced against their will to continue relationships, although they are responsible to meet reasonable contractual obligations when they end them
This stuff is ConservativePurity 101. The state should not be in the business of legislating morality (a person who believes any politician is a competent dictator of morality, should have a psychiatric evaluation of their sanity). The state should not impair contracts without strong justifications, but the judiciary should be a contract enforcer of last resort, and contractual conflict arbitrator. Are these not just rational free-market corollaries?Marriage to a pets would be prohibited under these standards. It cannot be proven that a pet freely entered into a contract, nor is a pet a Constitutionally defined person. Bestiality is coercive, and as such, is also animal cruelty.
December 21, 2008 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bestiality? Maybe you confuse sex with marriage, or marriage with "brutish or beastly character or behavior". And the burden of proof is on the other side, btw.
But good pointless point about expanding the definition of 'person' for legal purposes to include cherished pets and not just Corporations! We should get right on that once we've settled the current issue.
December 21, 2008 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is strong historical precedence, which implies that a marriage must be consummated before its contractual obligations are activated. I consider defining a collectivist business entity as a Constitutional person an act of flagitious rapine of humanity's natural liberty.
December 21, 2008 10:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
PCA:
Your abstract verbosity is so effective in demolishing drivel while making its lethality opaque to the nonsense purveyors!
:) !!!!
December 22, 2008 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
This argument seems reasonable but is actually specious.
Theoretically at least, we can make our laws whatever we like. Our laws typically are based on some kind of consensus in society about how to deal with particular issues. No one is pushing for polygamy: not even in Utah! No one is pushing for the right to marry their pets or other animals. That's the specious part of your argument. Granted, many people do think in this way, but the only way to combat this genuinely foolish way of looking at the issue is by stating the argument for in clear, easy to understand terms. When that is done and people understand this has nothing to with thos superflous issues then progress can and will be made on it.
December 22, 2008 1:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Even US Muslims aren't asking for polygamy. And the Mormons who do it outside the law don't try to register the extra marriages.
It appears that since the right cannot defend their stand against gay marriage, they resort to straw men and scare tactics.
Think about this: A gay person can perform marriages everywhere! Lots of people have been married by gay individuals - whether they knew it or not.
The more you look at this subject, the more tenuous, tortured, and nonsensical is the reasoning of those who oppose gay marriage.
December 21, 2008 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thera, I don't get why anyone is interested in anybody else's consensual relationships at all. The more I look at this the more I see a nation of busy bodies who need to mind their own lives and leave others to follow their bliss.
December 21, 2008 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, not to get too distracted, but when marriage gets a person or couple benefits from the tax base or in law generally, then it becomes the business of any citizen to that extent.
December 21, 2008 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Destor, I'm with you! Right to privacy and all that.
December 21, 2008 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Linear extrapolation to logical conclusions is not "tenuous, tortured, and nonsensical" even if it happens to be wrong or limited. Twisting simple points of principle into unnecessary pretzels is poor form outside the circus.
The more I look at the subject, the clearer the logics become, and the more piss-poor arguments can easily be managed if not dismissed.
TheraP, I'm surprised to see you presenting blatant fallacies in this thread. I'm forced to consider short-selling your "stock" now. :(
December 21, 2008 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey TheraP could you send me an email? I got a yeswecan.com email account as synchronicity and I wanted to chat with you online about action toward holding the Bush/Cheney adminstration accountable. I will try to reach you this way a couple of times and then I'll try opening another dialogue per blog.
December 22, 2008 6:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have an old gmail account I could use to try and reach you, Synchronicity. (it was in use at a time when a certain troll was active at The Muck) I think I kept the info on it somewhere) Otherwise we can check with PseudoCyAnts, who has a website, where he's amassing early letters by US founding fathers (culled from google, I believe). It's possible we could private message there - which I'd prefer myself to emailing.
Not sure what I/We can do that couldn't show up right on a blog, however. (maybe you could explain a bit about that)
Peace be with you. Certainly the topic is near and dear to my heart. (and I will be posting on that again soon, I assure you!)
December 22, 2008 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
How did we get from freedom for couples to marry, regardless of their gender, to threesomes and dogs?
Women used to be chattel in a marriage, with no rights, separate property or legal identity that was her own. Somehow we got beyond that and we will get beyond this without descending into one of Dante's rings of hell in doing so.
December 21, 2008 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't believe your question is serious.
But if you want to mindlessly demonize opponents of gay marriage, keep up the good work!
December 21, 2008 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gay couples (2 people = a couple) would like the freedom to marry, regardless of the gender of either of the two people that make up the couple.
Nowhere in that statement is there room for three people, one person and an animal, two people and an animal or whatever other combination of oddities you can create.
I fail to see how questioning the reasoning that goes from that understanding to one that includes more than two people or animals is a demonization of those against gay marriage.
So, yes, it was a serious question.
December 21, 2008 11:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, it doesn't matter what you say gay people want, the law is not about individual desires. You know what a "loophole" in a law is, so now apply that notion here.
The point was:
"If you want to defuse the fears, deal with them directly. One talking point against gay marriage is the fear that it is a step towards polygamy and other forms of potential "civil union"."
December 22, 2008 1:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know what a "loophole" in a law is, so now apply that notion here.
In that case, the loophole would already exist under current marriage laws. There is nothing in the proposed gay marriage laws that would either widen or close the loophole.
"If you want to defuse the fears, deal with them directly. One talking point against gay marriage is the fear that it is a step towards polygamy and other forms of potential "civil union"."
Which part of gay couples (2 people = a couple) would like the freedom to marry, regardless of the gender of either of the two people that make up the couple does not address that fear?
December 22, 2008 5:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can't take your posts seriously, sorry.
December 22, 2008 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wife(wives/concubines), and daughters as chattel does have strong Biblical justifications.
It's implied in the 6th commandment:
Daughters are also chattel:
Numbers 30 delineates differing gender-based standards of contractual enforceability, with a father or husband possessing a time-limited right to nullify vows made by females within his sphere of control.
Virginal female children of a defeated enemy can be a proper spoil of war, given to the victorious soldiery:
Daughters who receive a heritable legacy, because their father died without a male heir, must marry within their own tribe, to assure their inheritance remains in it:
December 21, 2008 10:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, apparently we have been stumbling along denying a fathers right to nullify a daughter's marriage or not demanding money from a guy that doesn't want to marry a woman he just slept with all these years, and we are not burning in hell. Yet ... :-)
December 22, 2008 12:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
demanding money
As said in the Wit and Wisdom of Rod Blagojovich:
"I've got a bleepin' valuable thing here, I'm not bleepin' givin' it away for nothing..."
December 22, 2008 3:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bravo seashell! Great comment!
December 22, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't a polygamous marriage, by definition, partly a same sex marriage? Hmm...isnt' that ironic given the source of the major funding behind the Prop 8 marketing?
December 22, 2008 1:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
intriguing line of inquiry...
December 22, 2008 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
This whole question of legalizing gay marriage has been utterly misunderstood and deliberately obfuscated from day one.
The average person thinks that the issue of gay marriage has something to do with religion. It does not have anything to do with religion. Zip! Zero! Nada!
The marriage rights that gays seek are civil, not religious rites. People, especially uneducated fundamentalists, are applying a religious test to a purely civil matter. It is simply not relevant. No sect, cult, or church would have to perform marriages for any couple they don't approve of. It's just that simple. In no case would the legalization of gay marriage apply to any religious standard applied to marriage unless a particular religious sect wished to marry gay people which they can do right now if they choose to. By the way, there is nothing anyone can do about those churches that do sanction, recognize and perform marriage between gay people. There is no reason why the state should not recognize those marriages already being performed. The gay marriage proposals being offered up and advocated by gays around the nation have never been structured to have an impact on any religious marriage rites nor do they desire it to do so.
Because fundamentalists, homophobes, "conservatives", and morons, facilitated by a moronic corporate media, have continued to confuse the issue and frame it as something that impacts religion the public has been and remains opposed to gay marriage. If people understood that legalizing gay marriage is a simple question of legal status and has nothing whatsoever to do with religion I think public opinion would be quite different. It might still be that a majority would be opposed, but it wouldn't be the sort of lopsided majority we've seen in most states where there have been referendums.
Everyone in the country who is rational and who wants to see this question debated intelligently and for gays to have legal marriages simply has to stop discussing the legalization of gay marriage as though it were a religious issue. And we must put a stop to any discussions that go down that road and redirect it to the real issue which is legal recognition for marriages between gay persons.
It clearly is not a religious question. These laws don't apply to and have no ability to impact who a preacher marries or who a rabbi marries. These laws would only impact justices of the peace who perform marriages. Each time the debate begins to devolve in the direction of a religious test or evaluation of the question we need to simply refuse to go down that road. We must insist that we remain on topic and address the legal question and not the fantasy issue of marriage as a religious issue.
If we would all do this, we would see a major shift in public opinion. That is what it's going to take to push the truth through the corporate media filter and into the public consciousness.
December 22, 2008 1:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
It clearly is not a religious question
It's a trademark question.
The Yahwist Cultists are like Bayer after they let aspirin become a generic term.
Now that they have permitted the use of the trademarked (cf sacramental) term "marriage" for civil unions performed by judges, ship captains, all kinds of folks with no "power vested in me by God almighty..." they want to continue to make it "special".
That said, I would be happy to give them back the damn word if it would shut them up--then all the rest of us who were married by judges (some more times than other....) would be civilly united, or something. The main issue would be that once the hets were part of the civil union set, the discriminatory tax practices, etc, would disappear overnight.
December 22, 2008 2:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Contemporary Conservatives exhibit a schizophrenic love/hate relationship to a separation of the civil society from matters of personal conscience when arguing about gay rights.
They claim that their personal version of Christianity (per.version) can rightfully spill-over into and affect civil government as a method for prohibiting gay marriages, which they believe is rooted in a sinfulness antithetical to their religious faith. However, Contemporary Conservatives openly embrace the Jeffersonian concept of "a wall of separation between Church and State", even going so far as to assert it is a core Constitutional ideal, when it can be exploited to bar the expansion of defined hate crimes to cover extremely violent criminal acts perpetrated against a victim who were targeted because of their sexual orientation and/or gender identity. These ContemptoCons also assert this legislation would violate the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause, along with 1st Amendment's religious establishment, free exercise of religion, and free speech clauses.
These claims should cause all rational beings to wonder what Dark Manifestation of Evil Contemporary Conservatives believe to be the source of their creation, causing them to believe that hate crimes legislation would impair their free exercise of pious devotion to it.
This is in reality an artful attempt by the far-right to
Tear Down The Wall of Separation Between Church and Hate.
December 22, 2008 2:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for that wonderful website, PCA!!! I commend it to everyone!
Isn't there someone out there who can make the music video? Faith our Conservatives.
I can just begin to imagine the lyrics:
December 22, 2008 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are correct: It's not a religious issue. Otherwise I could set up religion indicating the sacredness of gay marriages and by rights it would not only be legal, but the infringement of my "religion" would be a issue I could litigate successfully.
So it's not a religious issue at all.
Nevertheless, the whole topic has become so murky, so intertwined with religion, that we cannot but argue the question on the turf of religion. For that reason I believe PCA is pursuing a productive course of reasoning - pointing out the nonsense that would result if we look to religion (of a Judeao-Christian variety) for guidance.
I understand you'd like to just close the channels for discussing it in terms of religion. But that doesn't settle the arguments... if fundies persist in viewing the whole matter as a religious one.
So I applaud your endeavor. But I think it simply won't work - as a sole strategy.
We need to argue this matter on every possible turf. Wherever we can. Pointing out every bit of nonsense which has grown up around this issue and maintains it. Thus, your argument may work with some people. PCA's with others. Seashell's with others. And so on. We need a coordinated effort - like the one that has happened on this thread.
For myself - I'm turning this whole area over and over in my mind - seeking for any strings to pull which might throw light on the nonsense. The more nonsense we can find and expose, the more flimsy the excuses of the other side are shown to be. (Thus my idea of setting up a "church of the sacred gay marriage" ... as a way of pointing out that this is not a religious issue!)
December 22, 2008 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you that we need to be working all the strategies with the right audiences. Part of what motivates my post below is that some of these strategies when employed just further alienate a lot people and, thus, are counter-productive, ie make possible allies even less likely to become allies.
Because the issue has become so murky in the beliefs and views of people, to be successful we have to keep in mind that what we attempting to do is not asking people to accept a policy change, but to fundamentally alter their understanding of their world view (religious, political, social and otherwise). This is hard work when one feels strongly that one's side is the one standing on the moral and ethichal ground, and, thus, the other side are not.
I guess I see a critical question here is whether this an issue where we should respect the other's faith while at the same speaking out against it their understanding of that faith. Will people have the necessary epiphanies if we start by saying they are filled with hate (which some are, but I believe others on that side are not).
December 22, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, you've put your finger on exactly what concerns me, acamus. Pursuing routes that fan the flames are not helpful as you say yourself. So we need to persuade the gay community, I think, to set aside outrage (which I can completely empathize with) in favor of a longer term strategy which bespeaks compassion.
I've also wondered whether we could use the term "family" as what we're after. In essence marriage is sought to form a family. In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
So wouldn't "family" be the way to go here? We already view "family" as very extensive. Single parents. Blended families. And so on. Wouldn't gay couples then be just another family? And how do we change "family law" - so as to ensure certain rights and responsibilities?
We need to persuade some gay people - leaders ideally - that another way is needed. Show how the path of compassion works better in the long run.
Again, food for thought/discussion.
December 22, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is interesting thought. Again, whether through family or through some civil union, the focus here is on the rights of the individual.
I think an important fact is that here are many in leadership roles who are taking the compassionate route, but they are not the ones that are going to get the press. And this pretty much always the case whatever the movement or cause.
When I was working with timber communities, they would remember environmental activists who gave them the bird and told them that they were a-holes, and not the one who was trying to reach out to find the win-win solution (or they figured the latter was thinking a-hole and just not saying it out loud), thus making a possible resolution all the more difficult or in some instances impossible in the near future.
December 22, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which is why, I suppose, that a movement needs someone electrifying like a MLK or a Ghandi. In both cases the movement was tied to religion. And it preached compassion and non-violence. It also worked because people were willing to go to jail. But in this case... I don't see where jail comes in.
There must be something hard-wired in the brain, so that incidents of violence are recalled. That would actually explain why the movements above go so much press. Since people were willingly beaten. And came to be viewed as martyrs.
Thus the idea, for me, of trying to "marry" disparate groups working on behalf of causes which transcend them. Whether it is in small groups geared toward meeting the needs of a neighborhood. Or whatever.
I'm way out of my expertise here. Just seeing that the lawsuit strategy often leads to backlash. And also seeing that the rage of usually quiet people may do more harm than good. (understandable as that rage may be)
Family. It's a less loaded word. It's already a word the right loves! And it's a word that has been stretched without breaking.
I'd go with family myself!
December 22, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I mentioned elsewhere, my parents are against same-sex marriage, but they're totally fine with a same-sex couple adopting a child. How they work that out in their heads I don't quite get, but a same-sex couple with a kid is a family as much as a straight couple with a kid is. (although straight or gay, a couple without kids is just a couple, so there is with some that need to expand their definition but I don't think there would be that much resistance).
December 22, 2008 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok. Here's the argument then that might tip the balance for them. Ask them if every child should be able to have married parents.
It's just a matter of finding what matters to someone. And then looking for a tiny chink in the armor, I believe.
Once people think it's ok for gay individuals to adopt, it's just a short step to thinking about the rights of that adoptive child. Bad enough the kid has to deal with being adopted. But why should they then have to feel, in addition, that the parents who adopted them can't be married? To me, that is just way too much for a kid to have to carry around!
December 22, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Might make an interesting test case.
(I have some gay family members, and one of them just got married overseas. Your idea intrigues me.)
December 22, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wouldn't it be fun? I'm sure I could come up with some doctrines and rituals. (After the 2004 election, when it seemed to me that the fundies had taken over Christianity, I decided to do my part to "take it back." So I studied theology - got to know some very conservative folks - oh, my god! I felt like a CIA mole for a while!)
Here's our problem:
A. To marry people need a "license." (Those who imagine bestiality - find me a pet that will qualify to fill out the form!)
B. Then you take your license to someone who marries you. And we allow that person to be a religious minister.
C. But why is there a "license" needed to begin with? That's where I'm stuck! What is the history of such a "license?" Isn't the whole idea of a "license" to marry simply ludicrous? Makes the whole thing look like fishing or hunting or driving!
* But why not set up a church where the "sacred" ritual of all rituals is supposed to be the "gay marriage?" Or where marriage itself is the whole point of the church? And to join, you must go through a "marriage" ceremony?
** Here's another tack. There is a long, long history of "common law marriage." Whereby living together long enough qualifies as the equivalent of a license and ceremony. (Palimony suits have been brought using that kind of thinking.) So, why not claim that the "church of the sacred gay marriage" is only validating via ceremony what is already a "common law" fact?
December 22, 2008 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
We'll only be able to give the license up when we all agree the state is not to get involved in matter of how the estate and (especially) child custody are to be dealt with when the union becomes a disunion. I don't see that happening.
For me, the state provides the legal rights to the couple, and if the couple wants to go to a church and have a religious ceremony recognizing their union, that's their choice. Just as someone could have the ceremony, but not have it legally recognized by the state. Their choice.
December 22, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
But what if the state does one function only? A marriage certificate! No need for license then. Any idea how other countries handle this? Is there always a license? Sounds weird to me now!
But the religious people should not be involved in performing a civil function. Of that I feel sure.
Plus, in Christianity, there already exists - at least in orthodox doctrine - the idea that the couple "marry" each other = confer the sacrament on each other.
There is way too much confusion here!
But lots of avenues to go down in a search for some kind of sense.
December 22, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I understand your point of view, but the course that has proven it won't work is the course of arguing on all fronts. It has failed in nearly half the states and miserably so. Each time, the strategy you suggest has been used and typically it hasn't even been close. That's why right wingers have been putting it on the ballot. They know our side can be lead around by the nose trying to answer every objection, every foolish question. Their side has been and remains quite firmly in control of the debate. When you don't control the debate you lose.
It is a strategic question. My opinion is that the only strategy for winning this battle is to simply refuse at every turn to "go off message" if you will and the message is quite clear and simple:
A. This is not and never has been a religious question. Any discussion of religion in the context of this issue is not relevant.
B. This policy only affects the legal status of marriages between same sex partners and has no effect whatsoever on any religious institution, church or belief. Only those religious sects that want to marry same sex couple will do so. Any sect that does not approve of same sex couples does not have to do so.
It's that simple and if we depart from this simple, clear, direct message we lose. After decades of working on all sorts of ballot questions, campaigns and so forth, I can tell you that all you need is one reason to vote no on any referendum. But in order to vote yes, one must swallow the whole package. Thus, the other side's task is much easier. All they have to do is kick up enough dust about "gays", turn it into a religious issue and a not so subtle referendum on whether or not one "likes" or approves of gay sex or the gay "lifestyle" and the good guys lose.
Unless and until we make it clear and simple and palatable to the nearly illiterate and almost completely misinformed American public we will lose.
December 22, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for continuing the discussion of this, oleeb. I appreciate your info on how this has worked in the past.
Ok. I see two issues.
One relates to discussion. The other to "action." The action is aimed at getting people of opposite sides to work together - on issues that transcend them, that matter to both of them and that are away from the playing field of gay marriage. (See below, for example, my idea of "Families for Justice" in one of my comments to acamus.)
In the second place, if it comes to discussion, I think we need to take the offensive as it were. To ask questions, such as I asked here. To point out logical problems. Such as religious folk performing civic duties (= a marriage ceremony).
I agree that if you allow the fundies to set the debating points, that gets us nowhere. And if you like, just go ahead, when they speak on one turf to transfer it to another area. Or use arguments such as PCA uses. Or try your idea of refusing to discuss the religious aspect.
I absolutely see the problems here. And for you it must be so wearying to see that all your efforts seem to result in so little advancement. On the other hand, the more people thinking about this - on our side - the better. I think ultimately the fundies have very few arguments they can muster. They keep using the same ones over and over. We are more flexible. We have more territory from which to argue. But in addition, we have history on our side. We have young people on our side.
I hope you read down and see the discussion acamus and I had earlier this morning. And perhaps you have some comments you can make here.
For myself I am truly trying to find whatever ways I can to point out how intertwining religion and a state "status" ends up in lots of logical and social knots - that make for a huge mess in terms of values and lives and so on.
I hope you understand I am sincerely searching here to see if there are any untrodden paths to pursue.
I'm trying to find ways to lessen the stigma (that religious folk place there) and enlarge the possibilities for conversation or working together.
December 22, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I completely agree with your every sentiment.
As a practical matter, however, it just doesn't work that way and the results from the many state refernda are as clear as can be on this point so don't take my word for it. Sometimes very smart people think that if they just keep explaining to the uneducated, the ill-informed and the just plain ignorant that it will make a difference. Often, particularly in the case of policy issues such as this, it just isnt true. If the public were interested in the details it might matter. They aren't. The public thinks the question is: is it okay to be gay and to get married and have gay sex. They really think that way. Do we really think that attitude can be reasoned with? I certainly don't and furthermore it isn't necessary to reason with them. All we really have to do is keep them on topic. The topic is nothing more or less than granting legal recognition to the millions of same sex couples that are in existence.
What is required is a winning strategy. This does not include winning the hearts and minds of those who don't like or are uncomfortable with gayness. The issue has nothing to do with being gay, or sex (gay or straight), or approving/disapproving of it, just as it has nothing to do with religion.
As a matter of fact, there are millions of gay couples in this country and around the world. They exist. The only issue is legally recognizing their exustence. All these laws and rulings that have been proposed do is extend the same legal status to all couples.
At this moment, the law in most places denies some existing, real-life couples the recognition of their existence. It has nothing to do with religion as we agree. In fact, the truth is that no marriage on it's own by a preacher, priest, imam, rabbi, or whatever has any legal force whatsoever: none at all. Unless there is a marriage license which is the legal instrument that officially recognizes the status of the couple that pays the required fee and waits for the required period of time before it takes effect.
It is the marriage license and not the church or it's religious ceremony that allows a couple to attain legal recognition as a marriage in the eyes of the law. That's it. That's all we're talking about. That's the only issue that need be under discussion. All other issues are simply not relevant and serve to distract from this the issue at hand. Period. The moment we start arguing about all the superfluous non-issues out there, we lose, same-sex couples lose, and America loses.
Holding firm on refusing to entertain crackpot ideas and wrongheaded notions from uneducated bigots and homophobes does nothing to harm the cause. Failing to keep the discussion on point sinks the entire enterprise. You need not take my word for it: just look at the election results of the various states.
December 22, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me be clear. I am not among those who try to change specific people - particularly those with closed minds. Once I see someone has a closed mind or seems disposed to nonsense or nitpicking, it's clear to me there is no reason to proceed. I'm just not wired to knock my head against brick walls.
As far as the "winning" strategy, while you have convinced me your strategy is the one you consider "winning", your belief in this one argument doesn't necessarily convince me it's the only way. As you've already said - the proof is in the pudding. But you haven 't shown me proof that this strategy - and this alone - is the "winning strategy."
To me there seems to be no one - or logical - way to budge the bigots or the people who buy the arguments of bigotry. I honestly think it's fear of gays and gay sex more than anything else. And the assumption that marriage = sex. And sex alone. And non-missionary type sex at that.
I'm in the "change business." And change generally only occurs if people recognize a problem. And want to assume some ownership over the problem. To me, the fundies do seem to recognize a problem - but want no ownership at all. They blame gay people, as you know, and address it as if it were an "addiction." They view them like alcoholics, I think. They say, "Just turn your life over to God - and work the 12 steps."
But I see change as coming much more from an emotional connection - or aversion. Rather than simply changing "minds." I believe you need to change hearts. You can disagree, but that's where I'm coming from - on the basis of long clinical experience. I'll admit that may not translate to voting. But prove to me that voters are changed by logic. (I fear not!)
As far as it all coming down to a marriage license, yes, now we are totally on the same page here. Totally!
(but the fact that we agree on where the problem originates in the legal realm does not provide an answer to how people view marriage.. and that is the real sticking point here)
So licenses. With a big exception. And that involves "common law" marriages. So there is history of enduring relationships meriting treatment as marriage.
So... what is the history of "licenses" to marry? As well as the history of common law marriage?
But that's not necessarily gonna change "hearts and minds." So I still see this as a twofold task. One is the law, yes. The other is people's sense of safety and familiarity with gay people - as well as a growing sense of justice.
Thank you for your kindness and willingness to discuss this. I so appreciate your patience, especially given your decades of trying to push this heavy rock uphill.
Question: Do you think men, as a group, are more resistant to change here than women? I wish we knew - as it might influence how to reach the more resistant group - if there is one.
December 22, 2008 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I completely understand what you're saying.
The long range goal may be to change people's opinions and attitudes. But that is not the same as our immediate objective which is to have same sex couples recognized legally within our lifetimes. For that all we need to do is win the approval of a majority of voters on specific ballot questions. That's what I'm focused on. We can win their hearts and minds later. For now, let's focus on doing what must be done and which, I believe, will be far more influential and effective in terms of changing hearts and minds: winning these referenda on the question.
All we need to do is to have people understand that it isn't about all that other stuff. It just isn't and never will be. It is only a question of whether same sex couples can go to the local recorder of deeds or whoever has responsibility for marriage licenses and pay the fee like everyone else and have the partnership recognized by law. That's it. Are you for or against same sex couples being legally recognized for the purpose of joint ownership of property, inheritance, pension & health insurance benefits, etc..? That is all. Nothing else should enter into the discussion over whether or not this should be done. Everything else, including changing people's minds, is something entirely different and not important in terms of answering this public policy question.
Once this is done and becomes commonplace people's hearts and minds will change rather rapidly. Going about it as has been done will continue to produce the same disasterous results. Ya can't prove in advance that something will work before it has been tried. I think this strategy, structured much the same way many initiatives and ballot questions I've worked on have been structured (tightly focused) has a much better chance of success than what has been tried thus far. While it is unproven because it has not been used, what keeps us from trying it considering the other strategy has failed so many times and in so many different places?
I guess the first question we need to ask ourselves is do we want to win at the ballot box within our lifetimes or do we want to be doing this for the next 20-30 years or more? I'm a whole lot more interested in finding a winning formula and getting on with it.
Again, I understand where you're coming from. It's a perfectly legit position. Many people share it. The only real problem with it, in my view, isn't the intention or the methodology. The problem is that it just doesn't work.
December 22, 2008 9:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Public Policy Question. You've isolated it down to this one thing. If only life worked that way! Absolutely, as you can see, if given the opportunity to vote on this, you will always have my vote. At the same time, I simply doubt that by pressuring people... badgering them if you will ... into deciding "for or against" this one "public policy," you can get them to see it as a just a "narrow" thing. Most individuals will see it in a context. As I do too.
When I make decisions, I don't isolate the decision as if it could float free from everything else. For me it's embedded in a web of values or principles or practicalities. (I'm casting a wide net here because I'm thinking of how I'd make any decision, not just this one.) Emotions play a big role. More than you may realize.
Yes, if laws change, people will adjust. But you can't predict how. They may accept the law. Or there may be a backlash. When you force change, you simply can't predict the reaction.
Frankly, if I were to decide to do a little survey in my own neighborhood... just walk up and down and visit each family, asking your question, here's my guess. The leftists may say "yes" - we may even have a discussion about the rights of all people - and it would be heartwarming. Then I can picture some of the others... the people who will be unwilling to answer. Maybe they'll make some kind of non-verbal expression from which I could glean mistrust or disgust or how dare you or whatever. So I'm not even sure there would be the possibility of honest discussion with some of those folks. (probably the same folks who shunned me when I spoke out publicly for the building of a hospice on the parkway right below us)
I honestly think the issue - now I'm speaking as a therapist here - is shame. The bigots believe they have the right to shame people - to despise them - in the name of religion or whatever. But it's really based on shame and shaming. If we cannot turn that around, to the point where they feel shame themselves, for espousing bigotry, then I think it will be harder to take your path of "this is just public policy."
To change people's minds, you need to get them to see that a previously held view is no longer pleasant to hold, no longer feels ok to do or say. That's how it works in therapy for sure. One by one, I think the bigoted neighbors might be reluctant to express bigotry. But put them in a group (like those who opposed - not the hospice itself... but a hospice in our neighborhood) - and you'll find rationalizations and so on. So what we have now, in essence, is places where groups bolster each other's views on this topic. And within those groups - positions harden.
To unharden the positions, I submit, you need to find ways to mingle the groups. I know you disagree. But as much as I turn this over in my head, that's how I see it. Another issue is to convince leaders (even like Rick Warren) that their position is a shameful one - and that they are the ones who need to repent. That they should literally go and wash the feet of those whom they have shunned and harmed.
We each need to pursue this in ways that are true for each of us. That flow from who we are. I know for sure that unless I speak from my deepest beliefs and principles, that my words would fall flat. So for me it can't just be one narrow thing - even though that's what the ballot might say.
We agree on the license as the central problem. But you are somehow able to mentally isolate that. And most of us can't see the issue as isolated from society and how we value things. I honestly think it comes down to values. At least in terms of how most people make their decisions.
I can't see myself badgering people into... just... are you for or against this one thing... and you musn't link it to anything else.
I see things as linked. Most people do. If you try to break the links, you're going to increase your opposition, I'd suggest.
I'll keep chipping away and trying to drill down into whatever seems related to this - exposing the fissures as best I can. Trying to get people to view their own mental structures as questionable, so that there's a possibility those structures may crumble as they now exist.
Of course.... just now the Pope has made this a big deal - which is not going to help one bit!
Peace be with you, oleeb. May you find joy this season with those you love.
Peace on earth. Good will toward all.
December 23, 2008 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't disagree with anything you're writing here. But the difference between the way you think and the way the public as a whole thinks is vast. Persuading the electorate in a particular state on a question like this has to be narrowly focused or else it will lose. This isn't just true with same sex marriage but most every type of issue. It is common to focus the public's attention on a narrow slice of a question like this in order to bring about the desired electoral result. That's my entire point. I do not think our side has a prayer in terms of winning the public on the broader issues anytime soon. We do, however, have a decent shot at winning a majority or close to it, in electoral contests when the question is direct, clear, and simple as I've tried to demonstrate.
Merry Christmas to you TheraP!
December 24, 2008 1:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
More thoughts.
I agree simplicity is key here! Key.
I also agree that forcing anyone on the defensive makes it much harder. Especially if it's the "when did you stop beating your wife" kind of attack.
What about my idea of moving away from "marriage" and toward "families?" Using the Universal Declaration of Human Rights model? Or using the idea that children deserve intact families, with the same family rights as all other families?
But yes.... as long as any issue is complex, it's very hard to garner support. Since, as you say, all you need is for one sticking point per voter, no matter how silly or paranoid it may be.
There's no way you're gonna ever get people to use the same "talkingpoints." That's a losing battle in itself, I'd wager. It's just not gonna happen on our side. On the fundy side, yes. Because they're in this strange, rigid "thought world." Fundy fits so well the repub mindset.
I still think we're making huge progress here. But it will never be fast enough for your lifetime, nor smooth enough for your (undeserved) bruised feelings.
Even though posts like mine draw the fire of trolls, still they also constitute a huge overall threat. You may prefer I'd keep to just one line of thinking. But that's not me. And I'm not worn out by a decades-long fight. Indeed, I used to be for civil unions... till I saw the ire of the right-wing... and bam, that did it for me!
If you consider this, we've gone from a situation where homosexuality was defined as "mental illness" to one now nearly proven to be biological (particularly among men). (Women seem to have a more complex sexual identity, it would seem. Or at least many do.) We've gone from situations like Spain, where no marriage except a RC marriage was recognized to gay marriage. The right has got to be very scared by this!
I'm not sure we're gonna have simplicity here. Much as I'd love it!
December 22, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Every one of us is doing something that the government at large would object to. Shall we put it all up to a vote? The government has no business legislating morality or religion. Especially, when it's coming from one of the most immoral, fake-ass religious parties ever to govern a country.
December 22, 2008 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think oleeb upthread makes a very important point in this discussion: our laws typically are based upon on some kind of consensus in society about how to deal with particular issues. Is the government interfering with personal liberty if they tell people they can't use child labor. There was a time when child labor in this country was not deemed inappropriate, let alone something to be made illegal, by the majority in this country. Today, most in this country see using child labor as immoral. And someday we may have the majority of Americans believe that denying same-sex couples the right to marry as immoral.
Unfortunately, as others have pointed out, the word "marriage" in this country has been stretched from the civil/legal sphere to the religious sphere. It is impossible at this time to have a discussion collectively in this country without the idea of state approving of marriage without the religious views marriage becoming part of the discussion. We can, and should, discuss with others our disagreement with this. But the fact remains that for the majority of those out there (who are going to the polls at least) the law that marriage is only between a man and woman is important to maintain.
There are many people such as my parents who are left of center on just about every issue out there, but are against gay marriage. They are, however, for giving same-sex couples all the legal rights of married couples. As in the arbortion issue with the is it pro-life or anti-choice, they don't see themselves as anti-homosexual, homophobic bigots, rather they are standing on what their faith tells to be moral ground. The same moral ground that tells them that they cannot ignore the plight of the poor and the needy, that what Bush & Company have been doing around the world is immoral, what the Corporations and Wall Street are doing to the workers of this country and around the world is immoral, etc.
If the ultimate goal is to get to a point where same-sex marriage is accepted in this country and becomes legal, then what is best path at this time. Is it to accept the confluence of legal marriage and religous marriage, and attempt to pass laws acknowledging the same for same-sex couples. Or is to seek the same legal rights of different-sex couples through civil unions, avoiding the marriage issue until a little further down the road after people get used to civil unions, and there is a corresponding shift in the collective understanding about marriage and same-sex couples that allows for it to be accepted.
December 22, 2008 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're asking the right question in that first sentence!
A. Best path? I don't think there's one only. But I do have concerns that using the route of lawsuits and outrage is not very "productive" at this point, because what is "won" in a legal sense is often "lost" in terms of public relations. (I'm not saying this should cease to be a method, but it can only get us so far.)
B. I'm thinking of this issue in the same way we think of guerilla warfare actually. To do the equivalent of bombing people just makes for mayhem. (that's the lawsuit route in terms of how it's opponents view the problem) So instead of "blasting" a way, I think we need to pursue instead a policy of counterinsurgency - one whereby you befriend the populace and make yourself indispensable in terms of outreach and good deeds and so on. This is more long term strategy - but one that I believe would yield much better PR.
So I'm envisioning a cadre of gay families committed to helping fellow citizens - or working alongside people, for example in Obama-generated volunteer activities. I think it's hugely important that we somehow see greater integration of the gay community with the larger society - which means all of us need to help facilitate that. (I don't have all those answers, but I'd suggest this is an important route.)
Catch flies with honey! That's the strategy.
C. Many young people who are gay definitely want "marriage." That's what they grew up with!
See this for example:
http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/29221519.html
So we don't want to lose young people - whose energy might be especially helpful in B (above).
D. I wonder if we'll need to change the marriage laws period - so that no religious minister is charged with exercising a civil duty! There's something nefarious about that practice, if you ask me. It's a definitely intertwining of church and state then!
Just some food for thought/discussion.
December 22, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Regarding (D), I think in the long-term this is where we need to go. But it will take a while.
Regarding (C), we need to keep speaking out for same-sex marriage, and to let them know that there many people out there who support their right to get married. They really need to hear that there heterosexuals out there that support this issue. I remember when I was doing some phone-banking in 2004 to try and defeat the man-woman marriage initiative in Oregon I had a few of the younger ones ask me why I was working on this issue.
And regarding (B), I think the honey strategy is exactly how Obama sees it (the community activist in him), inviting everyone to the table to work together, and focusing on where we agree, rather than we disagree. In the process, so many of the areas where we disagreed fade away into insignificance, something we can't do (or are less likely to do) when we are sitting at separate tables.
And regarding (A) - I would just say that there is a time and place for everything, and when to push and when push hard is not always easy to differentiate. In fight for civil rights during the 50s and 60s, there were those who thought King was not pushing hard enough and those who thought he was pushing too hard. And no movement has made real progress shouting at the other side.
December 22, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very well reasoned. All of it.
I completely intend to keep speaking out on this. I also want to "partner" with some people right on my block (we've got two households of women and one of men... I see the women as more likely partners in this regard) As well as partner with the young man who wrote that beautiful piece I linked to - he's in college, but very able to connect with others his age. So yes, it's crucial that this be a united strategy. And that of course leads to the Obama honey pot strategy!
Sounds to me like we're pretty much on the same page here, acamus. Not only that, I think not being in the middle of the anguish (since we're not gay) makes it easier to think about this without so much rage - and thus come up with more effective strategies.
I intend to continue to write about this issue from various perspectives. And I'll be weaving it in with other issues when I can.
In the middle of the night (sometimes that's when I do my best thinking!) - I came up with an idea for lawn signs and an interest group: Families for Justice.
I'd like to see families uniting for different "justice" ideas. That fits with the moral duty to prosecute war crimes, for example. And boy could we enlist fundies in that fight, I think! And what if we snuck in the idea of "justice" and "families" meaning "all sorts of families." What if people up and down a street could recognize their common goal of "justice."
Boy... is my mind running at top speed or what?
December 22, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think we're on the same page. And keep your mind at top speed as long as you can. I like your idea about Families for Justice. It is in the process of such work that I believe people will have those epiphanies needed if we're to get fairness and justice in this country. Full and equal rights, and justice, for all citizens is, in the end, a movement. When it comes to same-sex marriage, one can have in some states the law changed and then have attitudes and beliefs change afterwards, whereas in most states, we are going to have to change the attitudes and beliefs before we can the change in law. And those attitudes and beliefs will more likely be changed while working in common toward something positive, like justice.
December 22, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for all your help - here and elsewhere!
We'll just keep plugging away and I agree, sometimes minds change because circumstances are changing - and sometimes it's the reverse. (That's why different types of therapy work.)
Glad to hear this "Families for Justice" idea sounds worth pursuing. I love the marrying of "families" and "justice."
Peace.
December 22, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
TheraP I repeat myself too often. But the license is only a precursor to the VOW. The Vow or Oath has to be taken (because of historical precedence going back a thousand years from a western perspective) before a judge, a justice of the peace or even a notary public and of course a member of the Cloth.
Seven Hundred years ago in
December 22, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Was a license always required prior to the vow?
You're not repeating yourself too often for me. It's a mixed-up muddled-up world of marriage anymore. And I, for one, am very perplexed here!
December 22, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
One of the difficulties in this entire debate has been the desire of the gay community to have "marriage" vs "civil union". It is a semantic difference, but emotionally and symbolically important to the gay community as it is to their opponents. If the word marriage weren't so important to the proponents of gay "marriage" civil union laws would be being passed in many states. Because of the insistence on this semantic/symbolic victory over the word marriage we are seeing the various conflicts in the states. I am not dissing this desire to have marriage vs civil union, but as a practical matter, the fact that this causes major league complications in the politics of all this cannot be ignored.
December 24, 2008 2:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
semantic/symbolic
That being so, is it not up to those of us who avail ourselves of "het privelege" to abjure the same, (Like Danes slapping on the yellow patch...) declare ourselves civilly united and demand that the sundry agencies and principalities that currently deny those so united the perks of that symbolic status, "spouse" immediately mend their ways?
In other words, it ain't just symbolic: Try filing a joint 1040 as domestic partners; ditto drawing survivors' benefits on a Social Security Account.
And I'm sure that there are a hundred other discrimatory distinctions between marriage and civil union as currently practiced.
December 28, 2008 8:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is symbolic if the law provides for the same benefits under a different word to identify it. And most certainly it is semantic when as a matter of fact, people are actually living in these situations and the only difference is the lack of legal recognition. And that is, in reality, the only difference. It isn't the word, it is the legal status and what that confers that makes the difference. It then goes without saying that the sort of legal difficulties you mention no longer exist if the law confers the very same rights. There is a symbolic and semantic dillemma that exists in the political approach, not the legal arena. In the law the matter is clear. The law either does or does not recognize same sex unions or it does not and it either confers the same rights and prveleges or it does not. It is a plain and simple fact, that the insistence on using the same word for both kinds of couples is a massive political obstacle for those who favor legal recognition of same sex couples and has created masasive resistance in the vast majority of the population. Just look at any public opinion survey where the terms change and you will see how obvious this is. It isn't a value judgement. It's just the way things are.
December 28, 2008 11:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
if the law confers the very same rights
Indeed. And the problem, as I understand it, for the proponents of marriage equality is that the law as presently structured does not, in fact, (on the federal level at least) provide such equality.
You are certainly correct to urge (as I think you do) that such practice is inconsistent with the doctrine of otherwise ceding to the individual states the regulation of marriage and/or, civil union.
I imagine, per contra that a same sex couple married in massachusetts can file a joint return and draw on each others Social Security Survivors Benefits. (unless the Defense of Marriage Act bars this--anyone know?)
That's why I think all us hets should insist that we are not "married" but we are "civilly united".
Let the cultists have the word as long as there is equality of treatment...which there is not, at present.
December 28, 2008 11:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
How, exactly, is a homosexual's right to marry in California different from anyone else's? No one is jumping up and down to allow the FLDS to marry thirteen year olds, and their right to marry is just as "unequal", if that word applies at all.
Everybody has the same right to marry (actually, every woman and every man has the same right as every other woman and man respectively). You just may be more or less happy about it based on your preferences. You could, I think, say the same thing about taxes.
January 7, 2009 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then you won't mind a gay man marrying your daughter. Good to know.
January 16, 2009 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
That depends. (Arguably, if he's marying my daughter, and I'll mention that I have none of those, he isn't gay.)
Is he good to her? Is she happy? Do they have lives put together that they can live with?
Those are the questions I'd need answers to before your question even makes sense.
January 21, 2009 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
RE. civil unions vs. marriage:
If CUs were actually treated the same, that would be fine. But, they are not. THere are numerous cases in which legally unioned people were denied their legal rights because it's not marriage. Indeed, that was the foundation of the recent decisions in NJ in favor of gay marriage: the testimony of people with unions that they were actually NOT treated as married, even within the state.
In CA it has been the same. And it is of small satisfaction to know you can sue someone for denying you access to your partner in the ER after they are dead. (there have been a number of cases in CA where legally partnered people were denied access in hospitals).
Without case law actually testing every claim of a unioned couple to be the same as marriage (we call them DPs here), there is no certainty they will be treated the same.
Our attorney told us not to bother to file a DP, since it was completely unreliable legally. We have to carry around proof of all our powers of attorney, etc anyway.
MARRIAGE is.....everything. It's the difference between jumping over a broomstick (DP) and an actual marriage with the weight of the state and society behind it.
Separate is not equal. It is not treated equally, we know through experience. I say the state should give EVERYONE a union and reserve the M-word for religion. How likely do you think that is?
It's not just semantics.
January 16, 2009 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Especially for your children. Children are very sensitive to truths. They are not easily lied to.
I hope you understood, IT, that this blog was meant to point out the absurdity of denying marriage or revoking it.
Thank you for your words here.
You may enjoy this blog as well:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/therap/2008/12/fundy-food-for-thought.php#comments
January 16, 2009 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, your last theory is how I think it probably ought to be; government should just get out of the business of sanctioning marriage and do civil unions. Then religious organizations would have marriage to themselves.
Of course, gay activists want the word marriage because it means they "won", and traditional Christians aren't protecting marriage, they're protecting society from an onrush of same sex couples.
So that wouldn't stop anyone from protesting, nothing ever does.
You think Al Sharpton is going away even now, with Obama as President? Didn't think so.
Whole issue is a political pissing match.
January 21, 2009 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink