Gay Marriage - At Last Some Sense

[Craig Read]

Excellent thread. Lots of good info. I still am awaiting 'proof' that sodomy and homosexuality is natural. This thread i believe disproves any notion that is a genetic disorder. Gay people are confused and unstable.

[Tony]

I am not a homosexual but, I believe that 2 people in love have a right to marry. As far as a ban on this well, I think that a ban on opposite sex marriage would be in order also. You can't accept one but not the other. That would be discrimination. Anyways, isn't there supposed to be a seperation of the government from the church? This sounds like a religious issue to me! I don't see how anyone has the right to decide who another person should love. Anyways thats my 2 cents on this!

[FastNed]

Hello Tony, welcome to the Forum.

I do not believe any of us posting here are homophobes or wish to intrude into anyones bedroom. Neither do we wish to classify anyone as some sort of second class person because of their sexual orientation but, in the rush for "Gay Rights", we do not wish to see our rights ignored either.

For many of us, marriage is a religious rite and the tenets of our faith do not allow for same sex marriages. We firmly believe in the separation of church and state and because of what we have witnessed in other areas of contention, we are certain that unless we speak up now, in the near future some Court, Civil Rights or Human Rights Commission is going to order our Minister or Priest or Rabbi to perform a same sex "marriage" in violation of the dogma of our faith.

One concept which has been advanced as a possible solution is to reserve the term "marriage" to religious ceremonies while the term "civil union" would be used for ceremonies performed by a Justice of the Peace, City/Town Clerk or whomever is so authorized to perform such a ceremony. The State and/or the citizens of each jurisdiction may specify the criteria - age and sex or whatever - for a civil union while each specific religion remains free to perform the rite under the tenets of that faith. This would maintain the separation of church and state and remove much of the opposition to the concept of "Gay Marriage".

Unless an approach such as this is adopted, we have a formula here for civil unrest and civil disobedience. Do people really wish to start a religious war over this?

[Tony]

I understand your point but, I,m sure that the homosexual community does't practice the religions that oppose their beliefs. I really don't see it being pushed onto churches that are opposed to such a union. But, the issue is more about the rights of a married couple as opposed to a "union" between same sex couples. I personally believe that they should have all of the benefits of an opposite sex marriage. I don't think it will ever come to forcing a certain church to perform the ceremony.

I still don't understand the significance of a ban on it anyways. I understand that laws are not set in stone and are meant to be changed but, this seems more of a fear tactic. Afraid of something different, so it must be wrong.

ALL rights of a opposite sex marriage should also apply to same sex couples. That I believe is the issue.

P>S> Thanks for the welcome

[Lost in Manitoba]

Really though it's all simply 'civil union'. Without the aprovall of the clerk/magistrate/whatever the religious marriage is not considered valid....

If a priest marries you and your wife at a private ceremony with no witnesses and no certificates to submit to the courthouse, are you considered married by society at large?

[FastNed]

The problem, Tony, is that this issue does intrude into the religious sphere - quite deliberately so in some cases.

Currently, in Ireland, Gay groups are threatening Catholic Priests & Catholic Civil groups with prosecution under "Hate Speech" Laws if they speak, publish or disseminate the Pope's latest Statement on Catholic Dogma on Homosexuality. Here you have a religious leader restating a 2000 year old position, based upon "Old" and "New" Testament positions on Homosexuality. It's the old joke: "Is the Pope a Catholic?" Well then, who better to restate the position of the R.C. Church than the Pope? And that's "Hate "Speech?"

Can't happen in Canada - sorry, you are wrong! Google under "Gay" and "Sask..." and you'll come upon with the story of the Saskatoon something or other newspaper. In 1999, this paper (which prints some ads for 'gays seeking gays') accepted and printed an ad which cites biblical quotes against homosexual activity. Three gay guys decided this was hateful and filed a "Hate Speech" complaint with the SK Human Rights Commission. Yup, the Bible is hate speech!

Well, guess what - The Human Rights Commission decided that quotes from the Bible are "Hate Speech" in SK! They fined the person who placed the ad and the paper that published it. Do you still wonder why many of us are up in arms about protecting our religious rights?

Have you ever read AndrewSullivan.Com? You can find him

HERE He is a fine writer, and is openly gay with an arrested case of AIDS. He is also a devout Catholic and in his blog you can experience the agony of someone who leads a life that is a "sin" by the tenets of his faith. His agony is real, as is his faith but this can not change the dogma of the Catholic Church. Not now, not ever. So you see, there are gays who wish religious acceptance. The State can not be allowed to interject itself into religious dogma under the guise of "Human Rights" or "Hate Speech".

Yes Lost, in my only experience of Marriage, I had to obtain a State License and provide that to the Priest before he would perform a marriage ceremony - he was responsible to complete the section at the bottom and return it to the License authorities to certify that it had been done. Let's look at those steps again - (1) the State issues a license (2) You decide if you wish a religious or non-religious ceremony (3) Someone marries you and certifies this to the State.

Let's just go ahead and create a "Civil Union" status, equivalent to marriage, and establish the criteria State by State or Province by Province and this would resolve the issue.

[Lost in Manitoba]

Neddy,

About the SK story you related. Is intent taken into account for hate crimes? I would assume a judge would look at the lengths the offender went to commit the act. His intention, I'm assuming, was to hurt these people or at the very least be hurtfull. I don't really understand my own feelings on Freedom of Speach vs. Hate Crime, IMHO it is something that can be easily abused. (such as in the case going on now with the BC teacher)

About the difference of civil union and a marriage, my point was they are both state-sanctioned civil unions. The difference is that you choose to call it something else, ie. marriage or more specifically a Catholic marriage. Its a matter of perception. If a gay couple had a civil union, what would people say? Probably 'They got married'. People would refer to it as a marriage. In the court of law, they would have no less rights than the Catholic married couple. They maybe would refer to each other as 'spouse' 'husband' 'wife' 'better half'. In the public eye, a gay couple would be as married as the straight couple in terms of culture, lifestyle, legallity, and authenticity. The only way a married gay couple would be different than a married straight couple is the sanctioning of the Church, with all it's spiritual and cultural legacy, and that Church's congregation. If you believe and lead an active Church life, I would imagine that is one big difference. If your church doesn't believe in homosexuallity, that is one thing a gay couple will never be a part of.

[FastNed]

Lost, there is a very significant difference between common everyday speech about being "married" and the legal status of "Marriage". We must right at the beginning make a legal difference between a religious marriage and a gay union or you will see Courts, Human or Civil Rights Commissions attempting to dictate to religious groups about what they must do. Plus, if there is not a clear legal difference, this will be fought tooth and nail!

I do not care who lives with whom, what they do in their bedroom and if six people and a goat are what float your boat, then row away! But based upon prior experience with this "rights" business, if this is designated as "marriage" eventually some damned government functionary will walk thru the doors of my Church and tell us that the "Law" requires that we perform a "Gay Marriage". By the doctrine of my faith, marriage is a sacrament granted to a man and a woman and no government will change that.

Now the government can force me to separate my trash, tell me how fast I can drive on the highway and shake me upside down to take my last cent in taxes and I have to go along with that. But they can not dictate my religious practices and they had best stay out of our Church! Civil disobedience is the least they can expect if they attempt to proceed on this basis.

[Lost in Manitoba]

I actually do understand where you are coming from. You and your Church's right to practice the faith must be protected. I just don't see it as even a remote possibillity that a Church would be forced to perform a ceremony against the very tenets of its faith.

[Black Dog]

But they can not dictate my religious practices and they had best stay out of our Church!

As Lost said, this is just another byproduct of the fear-mongering the Christian right has been perpetuating in this country. Churches currently have the right to refuse to marry indivduals who do not conform to the tenents of the faith (ie. a Jew cannot get married in a Catholic church). The same would likely go for gay couples.

[FastNed]

Black Dog, you are incorrect. Specifically, a Jew can be married in a Catholic Church as can members of christian faiths. Yes, they must jump through the hoops of the RC Church, agree to raise their children as Catholic and on and on but I have a sister-in-law married in the Church to a fine gentleman who is Jewish so I know it can be done.

The point, BD, is that such decisions must be made by the Church involved not the State.

We have watched while Laws passed to insure fairness and equality have been turned into weapons by extremists, time and time again. We have watched while laws passed to insure civil rights have been turned into weapons of racial politics. We have seen the feminist movement create a new right wherein if a woman changes her mind after the fact, her consent is cancelled ab initio and what was a mutual sexual act thus becomes rape. We have witnessed the same with laws on disabilities, on sexual harassment. We have learned our lesson well. Not this time, Brother, not with our religions! Fool me twice, shame on me!

Depending upon which figures you wish to believe, our Gay population is somewhere between three to ten percent of us. The numbers are sufficient to require some legislative accommodation to their desires. As an attorney, I am very aware that for a gay couple creation of a legal relationship equivalent to that of a married couple is both time consuming and expensive. It can be done and the degree of difficulty varies depending upon the jurisdiction. Candidly, I think they should have been careful of what they wished for because they are now going to get it. Welcome to the world of divorce lawyers!

But we have learned some bitter lessons from the experiences mentioned above, we are not going to give them something which extremists among them may use to attack our religions. Not in this lifetime.

[Guest tigerbait]

As a Christian I believe that homosexuality is wrong. I respect the separation of church and state, but I do not believe in the separation of morallity and state. Most Americans are Christian, and in the Christian religion homosexuality is immoral, therefore should not be legalized.

[FastNed]

Tigerbait, we have already lost that argument, see: ABORTION. This follows that as night follows day, and it is now official that there is no morality in politics!

Believing as we do, several conclusions follow: a Higher Authority than you or I will judge those who participate in such acts, we can trust in that Judgment. Judeo-Christian morals and principals are under unending attack from the post-modernists so we must (1) preserve and protect our religious institutions from any further encroachment and (2) ensure that Judeo-Christian morality and beliefs are taught to our children. If we are unable to stop public education from teaching acceptance and belief of homosexual activity as "moral", we must concentrate on home-schooling and Charter Schools and sustain existing religious schools to insure our children are not brainwashed into immoral beliefs.

Above all, remember we hate the sin but not the sinner.

After you look us over, please consider becoming a member. This is a fine forum with some extremely sharp people and while we often get very passionate in our postings, we try our best not to get personal. Please join in, new voices are welcome.

[Guest tigerbait]

FastNed, this is not addressed directly to you, but I am using a quote from your post; if you please.

FastNed said, and I quote, "it is now official that there is no morality in politics!". If that be, then we should ban all laws that deny people the right to murder, steal, rape, or commit adultery. Since the laws that banned these rights are based on the Ten Commandments (moral law); why don't we just throw them out? I mean, aren't they repressing us from something that is our human right? We are born with the instinct to kill, so why should we be denied that? We have the desire to steal items that we want, so why should we be arrested if we do?

The concept of morality is the entire basis of law. This is what separates us from animals. Whether people like it or not, God had something to do with the laws that we follow today.

People misinterpret the freedom that exists in America as "completely free"; meaning no obligation to anything or anyone; and the right to do as one pleases. American freedom should be viewed as: The right to take on a role in civilized (lawful) society without the intervention/opinion/say of outside party (government).

In simpler terms... this means: The right to be what you want to be (farmer, politician, policeman) without the government having say, but within the ruling of the civilized law.

This leads me to my point. (here comes a serious run-on, but bear with me) Since the civilized law in America is based on moral standing; and since the moral standing

->

(Christian faith, do reseach into the founding of American law and you will find that it is based on Christianity, for example: the10 Commandments in federal court houses)

<-

views sex for only the purpose of reproduction; and since homosexuality is the SEXUAL attraction of two people of the same sex; and since reproduction has no play in homosexual sex; then homosexuality is considered immoral; thus should not be accepted in a civilived, moral, lawful, American society.

I hope that is not too confusing for you all.

[FastNed]

I think you state it well, Tigerbait, and those who disagree are not confused by it, they just do not wish to agree with it or be limited by it.

There has long been a philosophical/theological discussion or dispute about "absolute" morality and there are real life circumstances that put these issues in sharp focus. How do you "honor" a father who is a vicious abuser or a pederast? A mother who is trailer-trash or a thief? How do you observe the Commandment against "killing" when you are a policeman or a member of the military and are the first line of defense of our civilized way of life? It is easy not to "covet"

your neighbor's wife when he is single but when he has one and she is attractive and exciting and gives you a look, what then? And vice versa!

We appear to be going in a direction where there is a sharp distinction between public and private morality and perhaps it must be that way or perhaps, it always has been that way.

I can see the problem, but I can't see the answer.

[djpark121]

I agree with TigerBait. The founding fathers of our nation established many of the laws including the Constitution on Judeo-Christian foundations. Though the Supreme Court sometimes distorts the meaning our founding fathers intended, the religious background is still there. As a result, this gay marriage should not be backed legally.

[Nuclear]

My question is where will the line be drawn? If you allow two men or two women to marry, what about three men and a women, or two women and a man(I know several people who'd LOVE that) or a cat and a man and a horse? Where will the line be drawn?

And all this time I thought the purpose of sex was procreation....

[FastNed]

Hi Nuclear - You have put your finger on one of the inevitable outcomes of this particular controversy. If moral laws of the Judeo-Christian heritage cease to be the guideline for "marriage", then polygamy, group marriage, contract or term marriage and an alphabet soup of living arrangements must become legal in time. The arguments advanced to justify homosexual "marriage" as a matter of "rights" work equally as well for such other arrangements.

Is this the society we wish?

[Lost in Manitoba]

Interesting points brought up. The idea of the country and it's laws being founded on J-C beliefs is accurate. But are we limited to that? I mean by that, is are laws perfected and is there no room for any change or evolution? Look at the 20th century; how things were done at the beginning and at the end. Things change, not necasarily improve, but change. Medical treatment, treatment of the mentally ill or prisoners, the role of women in society, etc. Taking the last example, a womans role was also determined by J-C people, Back Then. I'm not saying we should give up our heritage, but we must be open minded enough to contemplate change. Not necasarily do it, but at least do it.

Here's my stance: I don't think homosexuallity is a mental illness or a moral deviancy, I think it's just an attraction to members of the same sex, or a deep affinity to members of the opposite sex (transgender). Maybe its genetic, maybe hormonal, maybe just a choice, I don't know and ultimately don't care.

Because I don't see anything wrong with homosexuallity, I don't see anything wrong with them being allowed to be legally married. I will say though I do think of marriage as a civil institution, not a religious one. I will give you that I'm not a religious person so the fear of my Religious beliefs being spit on is not there. I am for the protection of religious freedom and belief, however.

The question of where it will end: I too am not willing to accept polygamy, no that is not the society I wish to live in. I do see the path of argument for polygamy and truthfully the letter of the law might favor them. Perhaps it is just an alien concept to me, a husband with multiple wives (or vice versa). Many people were raised in multi-generational homes where maybe Grandma and Mom shared tasks; or kids with remarried parents might have two different moms and dads. Would a child raised in a polygamist household be much different than that? I don't know. Is it a matter of time before we see and hear more of polygamy, and eventually we have the same debate then? Or will our cultural definition of a married couple being only two people stand, and perhaps become the universal cultural standard?

[FastNed]

There is a good deal of common sense in what you say, Lost, and I suspect that is the approach we are going to have to take but we are going to have to take baby steps first. I believe there will be less opposition if the rights of those who have a different opinion are clearly protected. In fact, without such protection, no progress is going to take place without great civil unrest.

We could debate forever "What's in a Name" but the historical truth is that such things are important. "Marriage" has some six thousand years of religious history in its meaning and those in our society who are religious are adamantly opposed to use of that term for a Gay union/partnership or whatever. First, all of the Judeo-Christian faiths hold as essential tenets of their belief structure that homosexual marriage is forbidden; there are no exceptions for the vast majority of religious people.

Second, because of the historical record of the use of Courts and Civil or Human Rights Commissions to use a claim of violation of "Rights" to push matters to the extreme, they justly suspect that if Gay "Marriage" is authorized, eventually some Judge or Commission is going to issue an order to them to violate their religious beliefs by performing a Gay "Marriage".

Third, they believe that "Hate Speech" Laws will also be abused to attack Freedom of Religion. We have already seen this happen in a number of areas. Whatever happened to the old rhyme "Sticks and stones....."? These religions hold that homosexual conduct is immoral and the State has no right to order a change in our moral views. Neither can it use "Hate Speech" Legislation to silence or mute our expression of the tenets of our faiths. Publication of an anti-abortion statement is not held to be "Hate Speech" nor should it be so why should anyone be allowed to say that quotes from our Bible or statements from religious persons constitute "Hate"?

I really question the entire rational of "Hate Speech" Laws and believe they are either pointless or redundant. I believe an excellent lesson of how this matter should be treated can be found in the abortion controversy. It is a legal activity but is held to be an immoral act by many religious people. Yet Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion have prevailed. No one suggests or obtains Court Orders to mandate that a Religious Hospital must perform them; neither is any religious figure silenced or charged with "Hate Speech" when they preach against such practices. This must be our approach in this homosexual controversy. Our Faith requires that we condemn the sin but not the sinner - that religious right of expression may not be taken away from us.

The concept of "Marriage" is essentially religious, leave this for use by religions. If a particular faith wishes to perform such ceremonies, that is their right as it is the right of others to refuse them. Civil Union/Partnership are currently used or suggested as an alternative designation for such status and each jurisdiction can determine what "Term" it wishes to use to formalize such relationships. If the civil outcome of such relationships has the same legal effect as a "Marriage" (which we should remember is the stated desire of homosexuals) why should we needlessly start a war among ourselves over religious beliefs?

[Lost in Manitoba]

If it made it easier for people to swallow, I could probably tolerate the term civil union, with the absolute understanding that civil union and marriage is exactly the same thing. (baby steps is the key)

Neddy, I think you said you were a lawyer, can you tell me of any case in the US that involved the court ordering a priest to perform a religious ceremony? Someone brought up the fact that a Jew can't be married in a Catholic church (without approval of the priest or bishop). Why would gays be any different?

[FastNed]

Lost, to date (to the best of my knowledge) no Court in the USA has attempted to order any religious denomination to perform a Gay Marriage. That is a step too far, too big a reach for any Judge to attempt, at least at this moment. What has people concerned is that a great deal is happening right outside the Church Doors, so to speak. The Institutional Church has a long memory of the history of religious intolerance and persecution; many of the founders of America (as well as Canada) fled to these shores because of the progression of intolerance experienced in England and Europe. The Church of England was relentless in various historical periods in its persecution of those who did not follow their "Dogma" . Not that the Catholic Church has a better record in areas under their domination. Every religion in the Old Country and Middle East and the governments which supported them persecuted those whose beliefs ran contrary to the "Official Religion". The prohibitions in the US Constitution against the establishment of a religion was to prevent adoption of an "Official" Religion and the mandate of religious freedom was to allow every faith the freedom to worship as they choose. It is this background that people of faith have in the forefront of their memory; attacks upon religious freedom are nothing new in an historical sense and many see history repeating itself.

I don't believe there is much bad that can be said against the Boy Scouts and their experience these last dozen years is illustrative of the progression of this problem. It is a precept of that organization that all Boy Scouts must profess a belief in God and this has brought many attacks from those who deny the existence of such a being. Ditto on homosexuality, in the position of Scoutmaster where supervision and control of young scouts is concerned. In both situations, various claims and court cases have been filed on the basis that "Human/Civil Rights" were being denied by exclusion from the Scouts. While the Scouts have been successful so far, vast sums of money have been expended defending their religious stance to the detriment of their other activities. They are being litigated into the Poor House and many see this as the handwriting on the Wall for Churches if Gay "Marriage" is permitted.

With the understanding that I claim no expert knowledge of Religious Law and am certainly no theologian, the difference in the Catholic Church concerning marriage with those of other Faiths is that those of other faiths are not, per se, sinners. What was is it that is attributed to Christ: "My Father's House has many rooms!"? Belief in God and membership in a different Church is not against the tenets or dogma of the Catholic Church so if one complies with the requirements, the Sacrament of Marriage will be perform with one participant who is not a Catholic. The Catholic Church, like other Biblical Religions holds homosexuality as a banned activity, a sin as it were, and excepting only the "Last Rites" all sacraments are forbidden to unrepentant sinners.

Please note this is my understanding of Church Law and it is subject to correction by those with greater knowledge of the subject.

[Lost in Manitoba]

Actually Neddy, I was asking more along the lines if a hetero couple have ever gone to court for the right to marry in a Church, or more specifically a Catholic marrying a Jew fought for marriage in his Church?

I was at the gym today and I saw something on one of the TV's about 74% of Calif. supports gay marriage(I think). Can't find it on the CNN website though. Anyone else hear this?

[FastNed]

Hi Lost, no knowledge of any such problems involving people other than Roman Catholic. While no doubt there were more, I observed just two cases over the years in Massachusetts involving the RC Church declining to marry couples. In both, the State Court declined jurisdiction - the Catholic Church has an internal Religious Court and appeals process which goes all the way to the Vatican. In each case, the Plaintiff's had not pursued their claim through the existing Church process and both Courts declined to act as the claims were not "ripe", not ready for civil court adjudication.

That presumes that any sort of jurisdiction did in fact exist in the face of the Establishment Clause of our Constitution but that question was not reached as the facts did not reach far enough for jurisdiction to be decided.

As to the Poll results you heard, Cali is both liberal and Democratic and there are significant clusters of Gay populations. Please keep in mind, though, that polling in America has become a slanted liars game when the purpose is social or political. The figures could be correct or could be junk - there is no way to tell without complete knowledge of the polling methodology and the exact questions asked. As a generalization, the Costal Areas from Berkley above San Fran. down to Mexico are quite liberal while the interior, the "Inland Kingdom" and Northern Cali are conservative.

And I must add that so many of us in America are so annoyed by the constant intrusion of these pollsters by phone and eMail that we make a great effort to lie and fudge up their polls. Bother me at supper time, will you! Take that!

[Craig Read]

Ned, right on about Polls - "do you believe that killing young children and raping women is bad ?" - If you said Yes, the result; 80 % of Americans are against war!

Polls are political proxies and the questions that are asked are so vague, dumb or superficial as to be meaningless.

I have a problem running gov't by Polls. That is not the job of people who lead, who have information you don't have, who have experts you don't have, who have resources and material references you don't have, who have staffs to produce analyses that you don't produce.

May 1940: "Who do you want as PM - that fat, war mongering, German hating, racist, imperialist, drunken, talking too much Churchill, or the effete, clean, sober, nicely dressed, caring, compassionate Lord Mr. Halifax who also loves trees, baby seals and little children ?"

Give me a break. Forget about Polls, the world should be run by adults with brains, not some moronic tele marketing firm, asking Grandma in Tulsa her viewpoints on the Iraqi occupation. Frankly I don't give a damn about Grandma and her ideas.