 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Family Forum / Marriage / Marriage / November 2008Gay Marriage
Who supports, who doesn't? - Jeeff > Who supports, who doesn't? > - Jeeff Group A supports it. Group B doesn't. Currently, group B is larger than group A, but it varies by state. And then there's the third variable: Civil Union. Maybe that's group C. Some of these groups (including D, E, and F), are not mutually exclusive, but can overlap, just like in a Venn diagram. Next? >> Who supports, who doesn't? >> - Jeeff [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Next? Lol, nicely put. My personal latest use of the Venn was with my first grader and her Halloween candy. Chocolate, orange, or both. (wrappers included:-) Vickie >>> Who supports, who doesn't? >>> - Jeeff [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Vickie And as I said to Rog', the OP probably wants to know which group is the trend, so that he can support it and be trendy. Nothing like borrowing others' intelligence, when one doesn't have any of one's own. The facetious statement "A nation of women rose up and said 'We will not be dictated to' then became secretaries" has a serious moral. All rebels against social customs adopt equally rigid norms of their own. They aren't liberating, but conformist. The Hippies are the most obvious example. I didn't study Venn, but I have heard of it. My teachers called those diagrams Euler. Doug L.  SignatureIt is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Albert Einstein > jeff.w.h...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Currently, group B is larger than group A, but it varies by state. > And then there's the third variable: Civil Union. Maybe that's group C. Actually, group A understands that "state marriage" means a different thing than "church marriage". Besides, one doesn't need to have an opinion about the matter to want others to be allowed to express a commitment to each other voluntarily. Gotta bet divorce lawyers are drooling over the prospect. ;^) And so group B lacks that simple understanding of how word meanings work. It's true that some in group A actually want to go in and change what churches mean by the word. Whatever. Crazy folks can be found pretty much everywhere. Or folks who haven't reached the simple conclusion that freedom of religion means they can pick a religion that doesn't care about such topics. It's also true that some in group B have the outright evil attitude of wanting to impose their own religious law on others when there is no moral basis for it other than words in their book. Eat lots of bacon while you can, folks, because if this trend of imposing religious law by dint of majority votes continues you won't be able to for long. That's the precedent that's been set as anyone who would have bothered to think it through should have known. It's not about what the surface words mean when you understand how precedents work. In news:247b52af-35e5-4bd6-82a9-255223ca0da6@e38g2000prn.googlegroups.com, jeff.w.hunt@gmail.com <jeff.w.hunt@gmail.com> mused: > Who supports, who doesn't? Anyone can have whatever relationship they want with anyone else. > In > news:247b52af-35e5-4bd6-82a9-255223ca0da6@e38g2000prn.googlegroups.com, > jeff.w.hunt@gmail.com <jeff.w.hunt@gmail.com> mused: >> Who supports, who doesn't? > > Anyone can have whatever relationship they want with anyone else. Fair comment. Isn't it just like "How much sex is 'standard?' Am I a clone of everybody else? I know I should be."? The sig puts it nicely. Doug L. SignatureOrthodoxy is my doxy; heterodoxy is your doxy. - Wm Warburton, 18th c. Bishop of Gloucester. >> In >> news:247b52af-35e5-4bd6-82a9-255223ca0da6@e38g2000prn.googlegroups.com, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Fair comment. Isn't it just like "How much sex is 'standard?' > Am I a clone of everybody else? I know I should be."? No. It isn't the same at all. > Who supports, who doesn't? I have no problems with specialized laws to insure they have the same rights; but will NOT support redefining what constitutes marriage. > > Who supports, who doesn't? > > I have no problems with specialized laws to insure they have the same > rights; but will NOT support redefining what constitutes marriage. Once again you contradict yourself in a single sentence. I do respect conciseness. But surely you realize that "the same rights" for homosexuals would include the right to marry each other. You can't really have it both ways. Either you think they should have the same rights, or you think they shouldn't. Not both. >> > Who supports, who doesn't? >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > You can't really have it both ways. Either you think they should have > the same rights, or you think they shouldn't. Not both. I suspect he meant that he thought there should be another route to getting the same legal rights that marriage confers. As in a civil union that is really the equivalent. Though I think the only way a civil union will ever be really equivalent in the USA is if they are available to both heterosexual and homosexual couples. The problem seems to be that we've rolled civil marriage and religious marriage into one package. There are other countries where the civil marriage and religious wedding (which confers no legal rights) are kept rigorously separate. >>> > Who supports, who doesn't? >>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > other countries where the civil marriage and religious wedding (which > confers no legal rights) are kept rigorously separate. I think people get hung up on the word "marriage". I argue about this with my husband all the time. To me, marriage is the joining of two things, any things, to make another (like flour and butter makes a roux), to my husband, it means a man and a woman, period. What would stop heterosexual couples from getting civil unions if they decided "marriage" wasn't for them? >>>>> Who supports, who doesn't? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > What would stop heterosexual couples from getting civil unions if they > decided "marriage" wasn't for them? Perhaps nothing. But why wouldn't they want a "marriage", per se? And I'm not sure of how much the "legal" definitions for each is all that different, anyways. >>>> > Who supports, who doesn't? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > What would stop heterosexual couples from getting civil unions if they > decided "marriage" wasn't for them? The fact that in this country civil unions do not give the same legal rights? That is what I was saying - as long as there are separate systems for heterosexual and homosexual couples, they will never be equal - but if both are operating on the same system, then equality is vastly more likely. > But surely you realize that "the same rights" for homosexuals would > include the right to marry each other. How many times does it have to be said, legal rights... But, if you can't see the difference between having legal rights and redefining marriage so it's an accepted norm - oh well. Whether gays folks like it or not - it's an alt-lifestyle that isn't normal by my standards. >> But surely you realize that "the same rights" for homosexuals >> would include the right to marry each other. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Whether gays folks like it or not - it's an alt-lifestyle that > isn't normal by my standards. 1) There is no reason to have a "legal" meaning to the term "marriage" if not to confer certain rights and privileges upon those who have their union recognized by the government. Therefore, if you're referring to legal rights, then the argument stands that everyone should be equal under the law. 2) Whether or not it's 'normal' has nothing at all to do with rights under the law. Being in a wheel chair isn't normal either, but people bound to them have every right to have the same legal rights. 3 I think gay folks will be very disappointed to hear about your personal standards of 'normal', but I think they'll get over it. > > But surely you realize that "the same rights" for homosexuals would > > include the right to marry each other. > > How many times does it have to be said, legal rights... But, if you > can't see the difference between having legal rights and redefining > marriage so it's an accepted norm - oh well. Let's see... "redefining marriage" you mean like passing Proposition 8 in California? That redefined marriage. You seem to be missing the point that marriage _is_ a legal institution. (Yes, it is also a religious one, and no one is discussing making religious institutions change what they do.) I don't see how you can possibly hold simultaneously the point of view that homosexuals should have the same rights as others but homosexual couples should not be allowed to marry even though heterosexual couple _are_ allowed to marry. To keep both of those beliefs in your head seems to require a very special kind of compartmentalization. Maybe your left brain doesn't know what your right brain is thinking? > You seem to be missing the point that marriage _is_ a legal > institution. (Yes, it is also a religious one, and no one is > discussing making religious institutions change what they do.) This is a fight over a word. The problem is that the government insists (as all governments have always insisted) that they get to be the only authority which matters. The government is fine with religious people as long as the religious leaders want things which are consistent with what the government wants. As soon as a religious leader says "The government is wrong", then the government doesn't like that so much. Martin Luther King, jr, wrote his letter from the Birmingham Jail -- not as an invited guest at the Governor's Mansion. Since the government reserves for itself the right to run jails and armies and police forces, it can be unpleasant to be on their bad side. SO, if the government says "Gay people can get married", it will not be long before some gay couple wants to get married in a fancy pretty old church building -- and sues the church when they are denied. And even if the courts rule that it's a First Amendment issue whether a church has to marry a gay couple, it's still going to cost the church a fortune to defend themselves in a case where the government has its bills paid for with tax money. The government will assert it's right to define for all religious groups what "marriage" is, and override any religious teachings about it. Maybe YOU aren't discussing making religious institutions change what they do, but somewhere out there is somebody who's going to say "Hey, that's a gorgeous building! Why can't we get married there? It's discrimination -- the government has already ruled that we can get married just the same as straight couples. The only reason they won't let us use that building is anti-gay descrimination. Let's sue!" It doesn't matter how ridiculous you think it is that such a lawsuit would be filed -- people file ridiculous lawsuits all the time, and a stupid lawsuit costs just as much to defend as a reasonable one. (Some psychotic loser has filed a writ with the Supreme Court trying to have Barack Obama declared a non-native-born US citizen and thus overturn his election to the Presidency. You and I both think it's ridiculous, and David Souter rejected it -- but Clarence Thomas has accepted it, and off it goes to the Justices. Is suing a church for not hosting a gay marriage really any more ridiculous? Are you willing to pay the bills for a church which gets sued in such a fashion?) The solution is to get the government out of the marriage business, and restrict itself only to the legal matters of who is next-of-kin to whom. That's it's only proper job anyway. Everybody should get a civil union, and the loaded word "marriage" should be off the legal books. Darren Provine ! kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy "In fact, except for protecting individual rights, no valid reason for government exists." -- Frank Wallace > > You seem to be missing the point that marriage _is_ a legal > > institution. (Yes, it is also a religious one, and no one is [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > religious people as long as the religious leaders want things which > are consistent with what the government wants. I guess I don't completely agree with this. For example, the Catholic Church doesn't consider second marriages to be "marriages." The government generally does. These institutions seem happy to go their separate ways on this issue peacefully. > As soon as a religious leader says "The government is wrong", then > the government doesn't like that so much. Martin Luther King, jr, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > long before some gay couple wants to get married in a fancy pretty old > church building -- and sues the church when they are denied. The problem with this argument is that the legal definition of marriage _already_ disagrees with various religious definitions. The Catholic Church is still not marrying divorced people, even though such people are legally allowed to marry. They aren't marrying atheists either, at least not unless the atheists make a convincing attempt to be Catholic. I could not (assuming I was single) currently pick my favorite pretty building to get married in and have any assurance that the owners of that building would allow me to marry there even though they might allow others, and I'm straight. So why should things be different for people who are gay? > And even > if the courts rule that it's a First Amendment issue whether a church [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > married just the same as straight couples. The only reason they won't > let us use that building is anti-gay descrimination. Let's sue!" If you could point to examples where non-adherents to a religion had successfully made a nuisance of themselves in this way, I'd be more convinced. Otherwise, unless you have a case that gay people are more litigious than straight people, I think the fact that the Catholic Church still doesn't marry any of the tens of millions of divorced people in the US undercuts this argument. > It doesn't matter how ridiculous you think it is that such a lawsuit > would be filed -- people file ridiculous lawsuits all the time, and a [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > civil union, and the loaded word "marriage" should be off the legal > books. I have no objection to that, though I don't really think the idea of excising the word "marriage" from the law and substituting "civil union" or some other stand-in is really going to change things much. I'd be happy to be proven wrong, but I can _really_ see the "defense of marriage" folks going to town against the proposal that the institution of legal marriage be abandoned. Logically your position is sensible. Emotionally (and this issue is about emotion, not logic) I'm not sure if it doesn't move things from the frying pan into the fire. The point of lawsuits isn't that the lawsuit actually has to be filed: it's that people need to *fear* such a lawsuit *could* be filed. That alone will get people pretty riled up. And some strange lawsuits have been filed -- or threatened -- in the past, including some over sex discrimination involving ordained women. I think many conservative religious people are already willing to count the "civil unions with legal rights" for gay people as a ship that has sailed. If civil unions had all the legal recognition of marriage (including in federal law), so gay people have everything married people have except for the word "marriage", the air would likely leak out of the fight pretty quick. You'd have two identical things with different names. My idea is that eventually the government would shift to using only "civil union" on the forms. I note that there's already a distinction: here in NJ, you have to present lots of paperwork to get a driver's license. Civil marriage certificates are accepted, but not one signed by a clergyman. So to some extent, the government has already set a civil union apart from a religious marriage. One thing that reduces my sympathy for some very public advocates of gay marriage such as Andrew Sullivan is that when people bring up polygamy, he says (in effect) "that's icky, that shouldn't be legal". One wonders how it would work to have a "marriage allows more than one person of the same sex" law proposed in Utah, thus explicitly allowing polygamy and gay marriage both. Would the LDS be conflicted about how to handle that one? * I note that this could cost a fortune in terms of paperwork and reprogramming of computers: http://qntm.org/?gay Darren Provine ! kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy "Don't try to be like Jackie. There is only one Jackie.... Study computers instead." -- Jackie Chan > The point of lawsuits isn't that the lawsuit actually has to be filed: > it's that people need to *fear* such a lawsuit *could* be filed. That [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > polygamy and gay marriage both. Would the LDS be conflicted about how > to handle that one? I think you could have civil unions for gays and for polygamy and/or polyandry. > The point of lawsuits isn't that the lawsuit actually has to be filed: > it's that people need to *fear* such a lawsuit *could* be filed. That > alone will get people pretty riled up. And some strange lawsuits have > been filed -- or threatened -- in the past, including some over sex > discrimination involving ordained women. That really doesn't address the point that churches have been picking and choosing who they want to marry for a long, long time. I don't want to beat to death a topic on which I think we mostly agree, > That really doesn't address the point that churches have been picking > and choosing who they want to marry for a long, long time. And you haven't addressed the point that the government -- even in the USA, where the First Amendment supposedly protects freedom of religion and keeps the government out -- has interfered with churches choosing who they want to marry for a long, long time. Prior to "Loving v Virginia", states were free to imprison those who were involved with "interracial" marriage, never mind that the idea of "races" is completely stupid. Your church says you're married, God Almighty has been asked to bless your union, but Virginia is still going to throw you in jail because Virginia (as far as they were concerned) outranks God Almighty. When Pullen Memorial Baptist Church first blessed a same-sex union in 1992, they didn't use the word "marriage", because the state of North Carolina considers its claim on the word superior to any church's. Muslim men who move to the USA and bring their wives with them are told they have to pick which wife counts -- because Islamic religious teachings, the legal marriage in the country where they were born, and the First Amendment all carry no value whatever when the question turns to who is married to whom. The government dictates what it wants, and no other considerations matter. The Mormon church was effectively told that statehood for Utah required them to ban polygamy, again with no regard for the First Amendment. The government set for itself the right to define "marriage", and wasn't happy with anyone who disagreed. I note that Mormons donated a lot of money to the recent defeat of Proposition 8 in California. Given their history with just how benevolent and hands-off the government is when it comes to religious institutions, can you blame them for worrying about more government interference? It doesn't seem very likely to me that churches would be forced to host same-sex unions. I think it unlikely that somebody would file a lawsuit, but not outside the realm of possibility. But your posts seem ridiculously Panglossian, given the history of how the government has failed to respect the independence of religious groups as regards the institution of marriage. Darren Provine ! kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy "What most people don't seem to realize is that there is just as much money to be made out of the wreckage of a civilization as from the upbuilding of one. I'm making my fortune out of the wreckage." -- Rhett Butler > I don't want to beat to death a topic on which I think we mostly agree, > > That really doesn't address the point that churches have been picking [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > and keeps the government out -- has interfered with churches choosing > who they want to marry for a long, long time. I'm not maintaining that the government keeps its hands out of marriage. It doesn't. But unless I misunderstood you, you were concerned about the chilling effect on churches of potentially being sued by gay couples who want to get married in that pretty building across town. I have trouble taking that concern seriously since churches already pick and choose who they allow to get married in their building, and this hasn't resulted in a chilling climate of lawsuits (in spite of the fact that, for example, there are many more divorced people in the country than gay people). Now I think you are making a different point, that the government _does_ interfere in who a church can marry. I suppose that is true in the sense that the government does not consider marriages valid just because a church says they are. But even here, I can't find any chilling effect of the government's interference on churches, since as far as I know the interference has been with the couple, not with the > Prior to "Loving v Virginia", states were free to imprison those who > were involved with "interracial" marriage, never mind that the idea of > "races" is completely stupid. Your church says you're married, God > Almighty has been asked to bless your union, but Virginia is still going > to throw you in jail because Virginia (as far as they were concerned) > outranks God Almighty. Did Virginia imprison any ministers or fine any churches? > When Pullen Memorial Baptist Church first blessed a same-sex union in > 1992, they didn't use the word "marriage", because the state of North > Carolina considers its claim on the word superior to any church's. Certainly a logical decision, but I'm not clear on whether the church had anything to fear had it used the term marriage. > Muslim men who move to the USA and bring their wives with them are told > they have to pick which wife counts -- because Islamic religious > teachings, the legal marriage in the country where they were born, and > the First Amendment all carry no value whatever when the question turns > to who is married to whom. The government dictates what it wants, and > no other considerations matter. True, but not relevant to your original argument about the possible effect on churches of making gay marriage legal. > The Mormon church was effectively told that statehood for Utah required > them to ban polygamy, again with no regard for the First Amendment. The > government set for itself the right to define "marriage", and wasn't > happy with anyone who disagreed. That's an interesting case. One of the complexities was that the non-federal civil and religious authorities in Utah prior to statehood were virtually identical. Also, in the 19th century there were prosecutions for practicing polygamy. (This no longer seems to be the case, 120 years later, though certainly polygamy is not viewed with enthusiasm.) > I note that Mormons donated a lot of money to the recent defeat of > Proposition 8 in California. Given their history with just how > benevolent and hands-off the government is when it comes to religious > institutions, can you blame them for worrying about more government > interference? Yes. I don't know of a single example where a government has forced a church to marry a couple the church was unable to marry. I also don't believe there are many examples of couples suing a church to force the church to marry that couple against church practices. > It doesn't seem very likely to me that churches would be forced to host > same-sex unions. I think it unlikely that somebody would file a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the government has failed to respect the independence of religious > groups as regards the institution of marriage. Perhaps it would be Panglossian if I was basing my statements on a rosy idea of the role of government. But since I was basing my statements on what government has actually done, I think they are reasonable. Again, I was reacting to your specter of people suing churches because they wanted to get married in some pretty church and the church refused. But with the exception of the LDS, although government has interfered extensively with _couples_ I don't believe government has interfered extensively with churches on the topic of marriage. Given the large number of divorcees, and the lack of such suits against the Catholic Church (and the good number of pretty churches in the hands of the Catholic Church), I don't see why we should expect such suits to start as a result of legalizing gay marriage. > I have trouble taking that concern seriously since churches already > pick and choose who they allow to get married in their building, and > this hasn't resulted in a chilling climate of lawsuits (in spite of > the fact that, for example, there are many more divorced people in the > country than gay people). Yes, but divorced people have not become an activist group the way gay people have. I think it's much more likely that a gay couple would sue than a formerly divorced couple would. Xorra > > I have trouble taking that concern seriously since churches already > > pick and choose who they allow to get married in their building, and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > people have. I think it's much more likely that a gay couple would sue than > a formerly divorced couple would. Sure, divorced people haven't formed groups agitating for the right to get married. Guess why? Because they _have_ the right to get married already. I can't see why, if gays are allowed to get married, they'd be more likely to sue to marry in a church that doesn't want them than anyone else. >>> I have trouble taking that concern seriously since churches already >>> pick and choose who they allow to get married in their building, and [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > likely to sue to marry in a church that doesn't want them than anyone > else. No one can predict what will happen. I'm just saying that as Gay Rights groups are well established and have a long history, I believe that they are more likely to take legal action. Xorra > >>> I have trouble taking that concern seriously since churches already > >>> pick and choose who they allow to get married in their building, and [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > groups are well established and have a long history, I believe that they are > more likely to take legal action. I always find these hypothetical objections people bring up (gays will sue churches!) bizarre when they are so unrooted to examples. Let's say you are right. Let's say that gays are ten times more likely to sue than divorced people. But there are ten times as _many_ divorced people. So since divorced people don't sue churches to allow them to marry, it seems likely that gay people won't either. >>>>> I have trouble taking that concern seriously since churches >>>>> already pick and choose who they allow to get married in their [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > divorced people. So since divorced people don't sue churches to allow > them to marry, it seems likely that gay people won't either. Well, first you have to understand that I am for gay marriage. So I'm not bringing up an objection so much as I am disagreeing with your response to Darryl's objection. I don't think that what divorced people do predicts in any way what gay people will do. And no, I don't think that picking a random number as to how more or less likely gay people are to sue is at all meaningful. Xorra > >>>>> I have trouble taking that concern seriously since churches > >>>>> already pick and choose who they allow to get married in their [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Well, first you have to understand that I am for gay marriage. I understand that. > So I'm not > bringing up an objection so much as I am disagreeing with your response to > Darryl's objection. I don't think that what divorced people do predicts in > any way what gay people will do. And no, I don't think that picking a > random number as to how more or less likely gay people are to sue is at all > meaningful. Whether divorced people are a good predictor for gay people is hard to say. But there is zero evidence that gay people will start suing churches to be allowed to get married in a church whose religious principles don't allow gay marriages. Pick whatever analogous group you want. Divorced people don't sue Catholic Churches for the right to marry there. Jews don't sue Baptists for the right to hold a jewish wedding in a baptists church. Moslems don't sue Mormons. Etc. Unless you think there is something more litigious about gay people than any other group you can think of, it is hard to justify Darren's fear. > Divorced people don't sue Catholic Churches for the right to marry > there. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > than any other group you can think of, it is hard to justify Darren's > fear. Hmm.... Your examples don't really make a lot of sense. Why would a Jewish couple want to marry in a Baptist church? Or Muslims in a Morman one? But I can see why a Christian gay couple might want to marry in their own church. So the divorced person is more analogous since they are the only ones in that list that might be refused marriage by their very own place of worship. Xorra > > Divorced people don't sue Catholic Churches for the right to marry > > there. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > I can see why a Christian gay couple might want to marry in their own > church. Darren's examples was "I'd like to get married in that pretty church over there." It is true that people might want to get married in their own churches - one hopes that most people are members of churches that would marry them, but I don't know. Are parishioners going to _sue_ their own church? Exciting congregation! > So the divorced person is more analogous since they are the only > ones in that list that might be refused marriage by their very own place of > worship. OK - I'll settle for that analogy. Sheesh, don't you people ever log off? I spent yesterday helping my son make a Cyborg Turkey out of old circuit boards and other gizmos. You need an off-line life, too, you know. (We didn't get it to talk. He would prefer something like "You will be assimilated. Gobble gobble.") I often end up dropping discussions because 20 replies a day come in, mostly point-for-point replies full of included text that have lost any sense of trying to look at the overall point. So let's go back to that: my original point is that it's wasteful to spend so much energy fighting over a *word*. In terms of actually getting things done, and ensuring the same rights for everyone, getting the rights without the word "marriage" (and its variants) would be much simpler than having piles of lawsuits. Part of the reason that anti-gay-rights people are fighting so hard over the word is that some homosexual groups are intensely litigious, and there are people worried that if the state says "Gays can get married", the government will require churches to hold gay marriages. I believe that this fear is overblown, but it is not *completely* ridiculous. First, there *are* people who care *only* about the building. Some friends of mine in the state where I grew up were members of a church that was one of the oldest buildings in the city, built on the highest point of land, back when legislators wore powdered wigs. Some years ago, in response to people who they felt didn't respect the sanctity of marriage, the church adopted a new policy: only church members in good standing may be married at the church. I don't remember the exact details, but I think the minimum was six months. ANYWAY, a couple joined the church, came every Sunday for at least six months, went to Bible classes every week, the whole thing. They got married in the church, had the reception at fancy restaurant a few blocks away -- and then changed their home number and never went back. An old friend of mine from high school had been in town for his sister's wedding at about that time, and I later put together that it was his sister who was the bride. I called him to ask about it, and he said that "They wanted the wedding pictures to be perfect". They weren't Christians at all, let alone the denomination of the church in question. But they had an appreciation for the old-style architecture, and the big old trees, and it was close to the fancy restaurant. So they pretended for six months. Now, the fact that a church can set such a policy is one of the reasons that I think it's overblown to worry about gay people suing. On the other hand, having such a policy is a temptation to people to do what my old classmate's sister did -- lie about your religious beliefs to get some material benefit. Suppose some some church *doesn't* have such a policy in place, due to bad planning, or lack of foresight, or concerns about tempting people into the sin of pretending in order to get access. They allow members of the general public to be married if they meet with the pastor and he is satisfied that the couple has a proper intent as regards marriage. Is it *totally* ridiculous to suspect that somebody might decide that makes you a "public accomodation", and thus sue? And, once the suit is filed, if you try to adopt a new policy, to be sued over *that*? Before you answer, consider the case of eHarmony, the match-making website. Not long ago, a gay man went to sign up, and they didn't have a choice for "men seeking men". So he sued -- eHarmony discriminates against gay people. There is no lack of dating sites on line, some catering explicitly to gay people. There are many sites that specialise in particular categories, such as "J*Date", for Jewish people. But he sued, and eHarmony was ordered by a judge to match up gay people. This isn't even a case where the eHarmony website is particularly beautiful and has nice old trees planted next to it -- it's just a website, like millions of others. The guy in question didn't lack access to on-line matchmaking, either. He sued, so far as I can make out, so that they wouldn't be able to exclude him. It may be years before enough gay people sign up to eHarmony that he has any hope of meeting someone, but that doesn't seem to matter. (Maybe next he'll sue J*Date, demanding that they allow non-Jews in.) Will the eHarmony matchup system have to be redesigned to do a good job matching up gay people? Will such redesign cost a lot of money? Given how many more straight people there are than gay people, is the gay community even a profitable avenue of business for eHarmony at all? Could an offline match-making service be sued for not taking gay clients? I don't know the answers to any of those questions. Why would somebody with access to a wide variety of dating sites sue to be accepted at one that didn't welcome him? I don't know that either. But is it *totally* ridiculous to suspect that a gay couple might be just as shallow as the straight couple who liked the old church with the old trees, and just as willing to sue for access to a group that doesn't welcome them as the guy who sued eHarmony? Remember, this isn't about what's *going to happen*, which no one can know. This is about what people are *afraid of*, which motivates them to spend millions of dollars fighting "gay marriage". If that fear could be alleviated, gay rights could probably go forward much more simply. I've seen it argued (fairly well, as I recall), that conservatives who were unhappy with Bush in 2004, and who might not have voted at all in the election that year, showed up in many states because anti-gay- marriage provisions were on the ballot. As long as they were there, the pulled the lever for Bush, about whom they were lukewarm. So, per this author's argument, it was fears about gay marriage that helped get us four more years of George W Bush. Fear is a powerful motivator. Blindly ignoring people's fears can get us way more trouble than we need. Yes, the present fear is overblown. But it's not *totally* ridiculous. The USA is a litigious society, an observation that goes back at least to de Tocqueville, and litigation is expensive. I am absolutely for legal-next-of-kin status for anybody competent who wants it with someone who wants it back, and I believe that gay people, and straight people -- and polygamous people, who are strangely ignored in most of these discussions -- should all be treated equally before the law with the same legal rights and responsibilities. We'd get there much faster if the fight was about the *rights* than about the *word*. So far, all 30 states that have put anti-gay-marriage measures on the ballot had them pass, even states that have "civil union" measures. (Probably would've passed in MA too, but the state Supreme Court kept it off the ballot.) Perhaps you'd appreciate this more if you had something to fear as well: suppose Obama puts a progressive on the Supreme Court, and someone from MA sues to demand that TX recognise his gay marriage, and they end up going to see the Supremes. SCOTUS rules, 5-4, that "Loving v Virginia" applies to gay people too. Then you'll have the situation that nine people -- four judges in MA and five in DC -- have "redefined marriage" for the entire USA. The backlash against liberal activism in 2004 gave us four more years of Bush, but this time the backlash in 2012 gives us President Sarah Palin. Darren Provine ! kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy "My concern has been the atrocities there in Darfur and the relevance to me with that issue as we spoke about Africa and some of the countries there that were kind of the people succumbing to the dictators and the corruption of some collapsed governments on the continent, the relevance was Alaska's investment in Darfur with some of our permanent fund dollars." -- Sarah Palin "It's admittedly a rare gift to produce a paragraph in which whole clumps of words could be removed without noticeably affecting the sense, if any." -- Dick Cavett, commenting on above > Sheesh, don't you people ever log off? I spent yesterday helping my son > make a Cyborg Turkey out of old circuit boards and other gizmos. You > need an off-line life, too, you know. (We didn't get it to talk. He > would prefer something like "You will be assimilated. Gobble > gobble.") I did manage to do just a few things this weekend besides post on ASM thanks! > I often end up dropping discussions because 20 replies a day come in, > mostly point-for-point replies full of included text that have lost any > sense of trying to look at the overall point. > > So let's go back to that: my original point is that it's wasteful to > spend so much energy fighting over a *word*. I think this is true. > In terms of actually > getting things done, and ensuring the same rights for everyone, getting > the rights without the word "marriage" (and its variants) would be much > simpler than having piles of lawsuits. This, I'm much less sure about. If the government were to eliminate the official status "marriage" and its derivatives from laws and regulations (and if necessary replace it with "civil union" and its derivatives) then I think you would be right. But unless that happens, I think we are doomed to continue fighting in order to avoid continuing the status quo of separate but non-equal. > Part of the reason that anti-gay-rights people are fighting so hard over > the word is that some homosexual groups are intensely litigious, It is worth thinking about this claim. Is this true? Are those working for civil rights for homosoexuals more litigious than other groups working for civil rights for someone? If true, is it because these groups are inherently litigious, or is it because they are using legal means to fight for their civil rights rather than (for example) violent means? > and > there are people worried that if the state says "Gays can get married", > the government will require churches to hold gay marriages. > > I believe that this fear is overblown, but it is not *completely* > ridiculous. I guess this might be where you and I differ. If by "not completely ridiculous" you mean that "it is within the realm of possibility that someone might sue a church" I agree with you. But absent any history of any couple (gay or straight) sueing a church, even unsuccessfully, to be allowed to be married there, it seems like something so unlikely that those who bring this fear up as a reason to oppose allowing homosexuals to marry are engaging in fear-mongering (an old and hoary tradition in our - meaning yours and mine - republic). (snip story of the absurd length that a heterosexual couple went to to get the wedding of their dreams.) > Now, the fact that a church can set such a policy is one of the reasons > that I think it's overblown to worry about gay people suing. On the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > makes you a "public accomodation", and thus sue? And, once the suit is > filed, if you try to adopt a new policy, to be sued over *that*? Not *totally* ridiculous, no. After all, I can get sued if someone trips and falls while trespassing through my yard. But too ridiculous to base policy on, yes. > Before you answer, consider the case of eHarmony, the match-making > website. Not long ago, a gay man went to sign up, and they didn't have [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > in particular categories, such as "J*Date", for Jewish people. But he > sued, and eHarmony was ordered by a judge to match up gay people. No judge ordered this. eHarmony (do I capitalize that "e" - with luck I'll never know) settled out of court. I suspect that eventually they decided (they are a business after all) that it was more cost-effective to take gay people's money, than to have a legal battle. It would have been more interesting had the case gone to court. I think eHarmony should have won. I don't like them discriminating against gays, and I don't think they should, but I also don't think they have any legal obligation not to discriminate against gays. Note that the terms of the settlement are actually pretty weak. That is, homosexuals _still_ won't be able to use eHarmony's site. They'll be able to use a companion site "compatiblepartners.net." So I'm not sure what has been gained by this settlement except by eHarmony who will presumably be able to sell a little bit more snake oil. (snip essay on fear) Yes, I agree fear-mongering is a powerful political process. Even those of us who have forgotten that Hitler was elected based on fear-mongering may be able to remember that Yugoslavia was torn apart by politicians who used fear to turn neighbor against neighbor in a quest for greater political power. And certainly politicians and religious leaders in the US in recent years have been able to take advantage of fears about homosexuality. (With the somewhat tragic inclusion of conservative politicians and religious leaders who are secretly gay.) I'm hoping this is the last generation where that will be a productive tactic. But those who seek to gain power through the politics of divison will always be able to find new issues. > Sheesh, don't you people ever log off? I spent yesterday > helping my son make a Cyborg Turkey out of old circuit boards [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > married", the government will require churches to hold gay > marriages. I've spent a lot of time on the front lines of the sexual orientation debate, and for all of the 'anti-gay' arguments I ever heard, not one of them was that. > Before you answer, consider the case of eHarmony, the > match-making website. Not long ago, a gay man went to sign up, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > "J*Date", for Jewish people. But he sued, and eHarmony was > ordered by a judge to match up gay people. I never heard of the doctorine of the 'separation of dating site and state'. > Why would somebody with access to a wide variety of dating sites > sue to > be accepted at one that didn't welcome him? I don't know that > either. I do. Why would someone sue an employer who has access to a wide variety of other emplyoers? Why would someone sue the owner of an apartment house, who has access to a wide variety of other apartments? Why would someone sue to use a water fountain when they have access to another one right next to it? It's for that same reason. > But is it *totally* ridiculous to suspect that a gay couple > might be > just as shallow as the straight couple who liked the old church > with > the old trees, and just as willing to sue for access to a group > that doesn't welcome them as the guy who sued eHarmony? But in that case, it's not about wanting to get married in the building. It's about wanting to get the blessings of that particular religion, and there's little if any chance that a lawsuit would ever be entertained that would require people of a certain religious belief to 'bless' a marriage that ran against their religious beliefs. I've have never, ever heard that argument raised by any anti-gay marriage person or group. It's a red-herring. Discussing the concern expressed by some religious groups that they might be sued for refusing to host a gay wedding, "AllYou! <idaman@conversent.net>" wrote: > I've spent a lot of time on the front lines of the sexual > orientation debate, and for all of the 'anti-gay' arguments I ever > heard, not one of them was that. When you're on the front lines, do you visit both sides? I skim the National Review Online, the Huffington Post, and Reason.com daily, and visit The American Conservative% and The Nation weekly or so. (I also like ArabNews.com and a few other international news sites, along with "Watching America".) I promise you I have read, in more than one place, people talking seriously about gays suing churches for refusing to host gay weddings. -- % If you don't like George W Bush, _TAC_ is the place to go. Their criticisms of the Administration and the President have often been much more forceful than anybody else's. The current on-line edition is brutal. As fears go, the "suing for a gay wedding" is really low the "probability" scale (probably < 1%) , but it's staggeringly high on the "importance" scale. So while it's overblown, I understand why those who worry about it do so. On the question of eHarmony being sued for not serving the gay > I never heard of the doctorine of the 'separation of dating site and > state'. Do you believe that J*Date, which caters to Jewish singles, should be required to accept non-Jewish people as well? How about gay dating sites, or atheist dating sites, or Indian (as in "India") dating sites, or Hindu dating sites? Should all such websites be required to accept non-gays, and theists, and whites, and non-Indians, and non-Hindus? Suppose some guy who isn't Hindu wants a wife who can read the Kama Sutra in the original language, and so he wants to sign on to a Hindu dating site. Should they be required to accept him? I vaguely remember hearing that there's a dating site for millionaires; should they be required to accept non-millionaires? Do you believe that *all* dating sites must cater to *all* comers, and that no site should be permitted to restrict itself to a particular market which they believe gives them a business advantage in a particular niche? If not, on what grounds do you say that eHarmony should be singled out for special treatment? They were denied the right to pick a niche and try to focus on that segment of the market -- why should others be allowed to do what eHarmony was not allowed to do? If you do think all dating sites must accept all comers, do you have some rule for when a company can try to get a competetive advantage by focusing on a particular market segment and when it cannot? Would the rule be different for in-person matchmakers? If so, why? Darren Provine ! kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy "Every reform, however necessary, will by weak minds be carried to an excess, that itself will need reforming." -- Samuel Taylor Coleridge (snip) > If not, on what grounds do you say that eHarmony should be singled out > for special treatment? They were denied the right to pick a niche and > try to focus on that segment of the market -- why should others be > allowed to do what eHarmony was not allowed to do? Let's not exaggerate. They were denied no right. They settled out of court and in the settlement eHarmony _still_ doesn't accept men looking for men or women looking for women. Instead they've set up a different website with a differet name. Now, I'm not saying that they should accept gay customers - I think they ought to have the right to refuse. But I am pointing out that no one has actually denied them that right, and the end result of this litigation is that the company has established another revenue stream. So this may be an example of litigation convining someone to do something they didn't want to do. It is not an example of someone (or even some corporation) being denied any right. > Now, I'm not saying that they should accept gay customers - I > think they ought to have the right to refuse. I don't see any difference between a dating site being allowed to refuse gay customers than for a restaurant, or a hotel, or the Boy Scouts for that matter, to be able to do the same. It's shameful, and bigoted. > > Now, I'm not saying that they should accept gay customers - I > > think they ought to have the right to refuse. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Scouts for that matter, to be able to do the same. It's shameful, > and bigoted. Absolutely. Much shameful bigoted behavior is nevertheless legal. >>> Now, I'm not saying that they should accept gay customers - I >>> think they ought to have the right to refuse. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Absolutely. Much shameful bigoted behavior is nevertheless > legal. Yet you were not asserting what the law is. You said that they 'ought' to have the 'right' to refuse gay customers. No one 'ought' to have any such 'right'. > >>> Now, I'm not saying that they should accept gay customers - I > >>> think they ought to have the right to refuse. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > 'ought' to have the 'right' to refuse gay customers. No one 'ought' > to have any such 'right'. My opinion is that bigots ought to have the right to be bigots. This includes the opinion that dating services ought to have the right to define their clientele. Certainly you also ought to have the right to your own opinion. >>>>> Now, I'm not saying that they should accept gay customers - I >>>>> think they ought to have the right to refuse. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > This includes the opinion that dating services ought to have the > right to define their clientele. How odd that you seem to confuse what someone believes with how someone behaves. > Certainly you also ought to have the right to your own opinion. If by 'right', you mean free from prosecution by the government, then everyone has that right. Strange that you either would not now that, or that you'd find it necessary to state the obvious. However, if by 'right', you mean free from criticism, then surely you, of all people, know that this isn't true at all. But I accept that it is your opinion that the law should not prevent people from acting out their bigotry to the disadvantage of their victims. I'm sure you have your reasons for supporting bigotry as the basis for denying people equal access to services that would otherwise be available to anyone else, but this seems to be at odds with your previously stated 'opinion' that marriage should not be denied to gays on the basis of their sexual orientation, and at odds with the principles upon which public accommodations are not to be denied to minorities. > Discussing the concern expressed by some religious groups that > they might be sued for refusing to host a gay wedding, "AllYou! [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > When you're on the front lines, do you visit both sides? Absolutely. Virtually every public debate in which I participated on this issue was not only strident and serious, and hard fought, but was done with respect and civility. > I skim > the National Review Online, the Huffington Post, and Reason.com [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > on the "importance" scale. So while it's overblown, I > understand why those who worry about it do so. I understand why a lot of people do what they do, but I do not believe it's valid to base public policy on irrational fears. > On the question of eHarmony being sued for not serving the gay >> I never heard of the doctorine of the 'separation of dating [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > cannot? Would the rule be different for in-person matchmakers? > If so, why? That's a cliché red-herring. If there are minorities of people out there who would tend to get lost in the great ocean of the majority, or even get discriminated by it, then I think it's perfectly fine to have sites whose aim to cater to those minorities. However, for a site that purports to cater the masses at large to exclude just certain minorities is discrimination. I also think there's a huge difference between making it known that the aim of a site is to cater to a minority, and having a site that caters to the majority which then explicitly forbids just certain minorities. In a perfect world, any exclusions would be unnecessary. But in this world where discriminations and prejudices run rampant, then I think some remediation of that problem is acceptable. Discussing fighting over the word "marriage", "AllYou! <idaman@conversent.net>" wrote: > I understand why a lot of people do what they do, but I do not > believe it's valid to base public policy on irrational fears. We're not talking about public policy: we're talking about a word. So far as I can make out, you, and Mr Anderson, and myself, agree completely about what the *policy* should be. What I am saying is that those on the other side care deeply about the word. They are prepared to fight for the word. And there are more of them than there are of us. So far, 30 states have had "no gay marriage" rules on the ballot. All 30 have passed. The "no gay marriage" provisions have passed even in states where there are legal civil unions for gay people. They aren't "no civil union" provisions; I haven't ever even heard of such a thing. Mostly people don't seem really to care that much about homosexuals -- but they do care about the word "marriage". In the words of Sun Tzu, speaking of the enemy, "If he is in superior strength, evade him." Those who do not want gay marriage are in superior strength: so far, they have 30 victories out of 30 tries. Instead of fighting them for the word, evading them by getting the rights without the word seems like the better choice. Okay, so we're agreed that many of those who don't want gay marriage are irrational and their fears are overblown and maybe some of them are just nasty. There are still more of them, and they are still 30-0 at the ballot box. You can say all the mean things about them you want, and many of those things may even be true -- it won't change the fact that they are *winning*. * > In a perfect world, any exclusions would be unnecessary. > I suspect that if we were to live in a world where there homosexuals > were as accepted in society as heterosexuals [...] Which makes me wonder whether he cares about the *people* or he cares about the *principle*. We don't live in a perfect world. We're never going to. We do not live in a world where homosexuals are as accepted in society as heterosexuals, and we are not going to in what's left of my lifetime. My position is that homosexuals should have access to the same rights as straight people -- and that they could get those rights better by pushing not for gay marriage in the courts, but by pushing for civil unions in the legislatures and in the Congress. It would probably be faster, and it would certainly be more secure. After all, if the SCOTUS does rule one day for gay marriage, all that means is that one day they might take it away. This is why so much money is spent on anti-abortion campaigning -- Roe v Wade can be taken away by five people. If abortion rights had been haggled out in legislatures, it wouldn't be possible for five people to remove them. IIRC, Ruth Bader Ginsberg has said that she supports abortion rights, but she thinks Roe v Wade did more harm than good, exactly because it came from the court instead of the legislature. So far as I can make out, you equate the word "marriage" with the policy, and believe that it's stupid to push for the rights without the word. But how long should homosexuals have to wait to live in your "perfect" world where they are as accepted in society as heterosexuals before the get the rights that they should have had all along? Because so far as I can tell, pushing for "gay marriage" is just going to mean gay people stay second-class citizens for decades to come. And whatever progress they make is always going to be at the whim of five justices, who might take it away at any time. Now, if you want to whine and moan about bigots and whatever else, go ahead. But whining and moaning isn't going to get people rights. If we focus on the *goal* of equal treatment, and we ask "What is the best and most secure way of achieving this goal?", I don't think you can defend the answer "Sue for gay marriage piecemeal across the various states and then hope the Supremes make it nationwide". My objection has nothing to do with POLICY: my objection is that it's really really stupid to spend so much time and money fighting over a WORD, especially when (a) it's a word that the other side cares deeply about, and (b) you're outnumbered. Darren Provine ! kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy "Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat." -- Sun Tzu > Discussing fighting over the word "marriage", "AllYou! > <idaman@conversent.net>" wrote: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > We're not talking about public policy: we're talking about a > word. Of course not. We're not debating definitions here. We're debating the effects of denying government sactioned marriage to one group of people while making it available to others. > So far as I can make out, you, and Mr Anderson, and myself, agree > completely about what the *policy* should be. What I am saying [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > than > there are of us. I completly disagree. It's not the spelling or the definition of the word, but rather, hos that word affects public poilicy. > So far, 30 states have had "no gay marriage" rules on the > ballot. All 30 have passed. The "no gay marriage" provisions [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Which makes me wonder whether he cares about the *people* or he > cares about the *principle*. What makes you think those are mutually exclusive? In fact, priciples are important specifically because of how they affect upon people. > We don't live in a perfect world. We're never going to. We do > not live in a world where homosexuals are as accepted in society > as heterosexuals, and we are not going to in what's left of my > lifetime. Ae you under the impression that I disagree with that? > My position is that homosexuals should have access to the same > rights as straight people -- and that they could get those [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > society as heterosexuals before the get the rights that they > should have had all along? I take it that you think I was suggesting that they should wait for that world to exist. Those kinds of misimpressions happen when only small snippets of what someone says are taken away for the context in which they were made. [snip more comments based entirely upon inaccurate presumptions about my position] I wrote that the argument isn't over policy, it's over a word, and "AllYou! <idaman@conversent.net>" replied: > We're not debating definitions here. We're debating the effects of > denying government sactioned marriage to one group of people while > making it available to others. We all *agree* about the effects of this. We all *agree* that this is bad. What we don't seem to agree about is *how best to fix it*. I wrote >> What I am saying is that those on the other side care deeply about >> the word. They are prepared to fight for the word. And there are >> more of them than there are of us. > > I completly disagree. Do you disagree that gay marriage opponents are prepared to fight? If so, what do you make of the time and money they spent ensuring that Proposition 8 passed in California? Do you disagree that more people oppose gay marriage than support it? If so, how do you explain why every time there's a "no gay marriage" provision on the ballot, it has passed? If those who support such provisions are in the minority, why do the provisions win at the ballot box? * My position is pretty simple: 1) Gay people should have equal rights. 2) What they've been doing to get equal rights hasn't worked very well. 3) They should try a different strategy. I'm pretty sure we agree about (1). But for all the replies you've sent, I can't tell whether it's (2) or (3) you disagree with. Darren Provine ! kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy "Insanity is repeating the same behaviour and expecting different results." -- variously attributed > I wrote that the argument isn't over policy, it's over a word, and > "AllYou! <idaman@conversent.net>" replied: [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > 2) What they've been doing to get equal rights hasn't worked very well. > 3) They should try a different strategy. I don't know about AllYou - I'm not certain that I agree about 2). Winning civil rights is a long slow process with setbacks along the way. At some point, enough of the population is swayed so that either the courts, or the legislature, or the people act. If you had asked me ten years ago if I thought gay couples would be able to marry in 2008 in a single state of the US, I would have laughed at the idea. Yet here we are. Connecticut and Massachusetts. Progress in New Jersey and New York. California pretty much on the fence. So if by "working" you mean "resulting in complete success at this moment" I agree that the current strategy hasn't worked very well. But if by "working" you mean "taking steps along a path leading to complete success in the future" I think the strategy may be working. Trying a different strategy may be sensible, but I'm not at all convinced asking for separate but equal is sensible, and I don't know what other different strategy there is toward getting equal rights besides asking for equal rights. I suppose one can sit back, "know one's place" and wait patiently for equal rights to be handed out. I don't think that approach has historically been especially successful. I guess another approach would be through some kind of civil disobedience, but I'm not confident of that working either. > I wrote that the argument isn't over policy, it's over a word, > and "AllYou! <idaman@conversent.net>" replied: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > fight? If so, what do you make of the time and money they spent > ensuring that Proposition 8 passed in California? I explained that with which I disagreed in the part of my comment that you snipped. If you wish to continue an honest dialog, then I think it would be more producti ve to respond to what I actually post, rather than to what you imagine I post. > My position is pretty simple: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > you've sent, I can't tell whether it's (2) or (3) you disagree > with. I think that any fight of these kinds of proportions is a very long and arduous one, and that it's much too early to claim that it isn't working. In fact, I think it is working slowly, but surely. Moreover, I disagree that the strategy which you propose would be either honest, or accomplish the true goal. > SO, if the government says "Gay people can get married", it will not be > long before some gay couple wants to get married in a fancy pretty old [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > married just the same as straight couples. The only reason they won't > let us use that building is anti-gay descrimination. Let's sue!" That is not likely. A church is not obligated to marry anyone. Churches are like private clubs, they are not public institutions, and can restrict non-members from using their facilities. The government has a hard time telling churches what to do. You need to remember that a "church" is not just a building, it is a community of people. If a couple, gay or straight, takes a liking to a particular church building and wants to get married there, they ought to be prepared to join that church, pay dues, and follow all the rules before they walk down the aisle. I grew up in and was married in a church that was very beautiful, set on many acres of land , a perfect setting for a wedding. The priest turned down countless couples who wanted to get married there just because "it's so pretty!" We also attended several weddings where the couple chose the setting for its prettyness and the officiant had no idea who they were and had no history with them, which made the wedding ceremony very impersonal and superficial. > I don't see how you can possibly hold simultaneously the point of view > that > homosexuals should have the same rights as others > but > homosexual couples should not be allowed to marry even though > heterosexual couple _are_ allowed to marry. Because I am catholic... and if you don't understand that then you just don't want to accept there are a great many people in this world that don't devise their values and moral believes based on black and white kitchen table thinking. >> I don't see how you can possibly hold simultaneously the point of >> view that [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > that don't devise their values and moral believes based on black and > white kitchen table thinking. But what does that have to do with LAW in a secular country? Do you have the right to foist *your* morals on others? You have every right to not be gay based on YOUR moral values. You have every right not marry another man. But do you have the right, based on your religion's moral code, to deny the secular legal right to others? (Kind of retard disparagement of other people's moral formulation ignored.... more or less) > > I don't see how you can possibly hold simultaneously the point of view > > that [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > don't devise their values and moral believes based on black and white > kitchen table thinking. So are you saying Catholics are supposed to hold mutually contradictory views? If not, then I still remain confused about how you can simultaneously say "homosexuals should ahve the same rights as others" and "homosexuals should not have the same rights as others." (I'll admit this thing that Catholics are supposed to hold mutually contradictory views is new to me, but it explains a _lot_!) >> But surely you realize that "the same rights" for homosexuals would >> include the right to marry each other. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Whether gays folks like it or not - it's an alt-lifestyle that isn't > normal by my standards. Hey SD, Just curious here. The archdiocese of SF has given warning to all Catholic school's in the area to be aware as threats have come in after the passing of Prop. 8. Yesterday police went to the Star of Sea Elementary School in SF after a suspicious package was delivered. The bomb squad found the battery substance and other chemicals were safe, but are still looking to find where it came from. My youngest is in CCD right now, so I am a bit concerned. Although I have to say I saw the picketers for "No on Prop. 8" in this part of the East Bay and they seem the standard normal non-violent type of protester. I was wondering if there have been any such warnings in the southern part of the state? Vickie > I was wondering if there have been any such warnings in the southern part of > the state? Yes... many are concerned. If there's on thing I will not tolerate is sleazy people intimidating folks. I hope that I happen to be in the right spot and the right time. What I find interesting is Gay's are NOT assaulting churches in Black or Hispanic neighborhoods; and those two groups are why 8 didn't pass. > > I was wondering if there have been any such warnings in the southern part of > > the state? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > What I find interesting is Gay's are NOT assaulting churches in Black or > Hispanic neighborhoods; and those two groups are why 8 didn't pass. Nor do they seem to be assaulting churches in any other neighborhoods. Many are "concerned" as you say. But there seems to be a shortage of actual incidents to be "concerned" about. > Many are "concerned" as you say. But there seems to be a shortage of > actual incidents to be "concerned" about. Depends on what you think is a shortage. Not to mention plenty of incidents that are not reported. I want to give you the opportunity to clarify, but it seems you have a biased view. You seem as though you are underplaying even the few reported incidents because of who (whom?) the acts were made against. Is it still a hate crime to you? Is it different if it were a white christian group who attacked a gay singing group on the corner of a SF street? Vickie > > Many are "concerned" as you say. But there seems to be a shortage of > > actual incidents to be "concerned" about. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > You seem as though you are underplaying even the few reported > incidents because of who (whom?) the acts were made against. Vandalism is bad, no matter who the victim. I've read of exactly one church being vandalized (supposedly spray painted), and that isn't even covered by Fox News, which makes me wonder if someone simply made it up. Now, I think it is bad to vandalize. But I think one (possible) incident of a church being spray painted is not a "rash of violence." Again, even Fox News has trouble coming up with examples. > Is it still a hate crime to you? > > Is it different if it were a white christian group who attacked a gay > singing group on the corner of a SF street? Yes, I think attacks are much worse than spray painting, though I don't like spray painting either. >> > Many are "concerned" as you say. But there seems to be a shortage of >> > actual incidents to be "concerned" about. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Vandalism is bad, no matter who the victim. I agree but I didn't mention vandalism. It's true at least 8 Mormon buildings have been vandalized and spray-painted. And that local authorities have reported a protest or vandalized property nearly everyday since the passing of the Prop. But then there is the envelopes containing white powder that were sent to Mormon temples in LA. That protesters picketed a family owned restaurant where the daughter of the owner contributed $100.00 to Prop 8 and the scene got so out of control police had to be brought in. Or a christian singing group in SF was attacked by gay activists. Or a 75year old woman in Palm Springs gets attacked. Or the suspicious package found at a Catholic elementary school in SF which brought in the bomb squad. > I've read of exactly one church being vandalized (supposedly spray > painted), and that isn't even covered by Fox News, which makes me > wonder if someone simply made it up. At Messiah Lutheran Church in Downey, Calif., a "Yes on 8" sign was wrapped around a heavy object and used to smash the window of the pastor's office. Several "Yes on 8" yard signs were stolen from Calvary Chapel Ventura, as well as a large banner displaying the church's name and service times. Park Community Church in Shingle Springs, Calif., received harassing phone calls and has been threatened with lawsuits by Proposition 8 opponents. The words "No on 8" were spray-painted on a Mormon church in Orangevale, Calif. A brick was thrown through the window of Family Fellowship Church in Hayward, Calif., and at Trinity Baptist Church in Arcata, Proposition 8 opponents vandalized the church's marquee, which encouraged support for the marriage amendment; stole the church's flags; and committed other acts of vandalism totaling $1,500. Eggs thrown on the building of San Luis Obispo Assembly of God and toilet paper was strewn across the property, while a Mormon church in the same city had adhesive poured onto a doormat, a keypad and a window. I don't know Doug, maybe you have to live in CA to get the local reports? > Now, I think it is bad to vandalize. But I think one (possible) > incident of a church being spray painted is not a "rash of violence." see above Vickie > Again, even Fox News has trouble coming up with examples. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Yes, I think attacks are much worse than spray painting, though I > don't like spray painting either. > >> > Many are "concerned" as you say. But there seems to be a shortage of > >> > actual incidents to be "concerned" about. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > I agree but I didn't mention vandalism. Actually, I don't recall you mention anything except that an alarming message was sent out by the archdiocese, suggesting that local schools are unsafe. Based, as far as I can tell on absolutely nothing. That's called fear-mongering. > It's true at least 8 Mormon buildings have been vandalized and > spray-painted. It is? Can you give some reference? I've heard of exactly one church being vandalized in a way that can be connected with Proposition 8. I also heard of the San Francisco Holocaust Memorial being vandalized last week, but that seems unconnected with Proposition 8. > And that local authorities have reported a protest or vandalized > property nearly everyday since the passing of the Prop. Why do you equate protest with vandalism? Protest is a normal part of a pluralistic democracy, and is legal. Vandalism is contemptible and a crime. > But then there is the envelopes containing white powder that were sent > to Mormon temples in LA. Also contemptible if true. What is the connection to Proposition 8? > That protesters picketed a family owned restaurant where the daughter > of the owner contributed $100.00 to Prop 8 and the scene got so out of > control police had to be brought in. Protest is reasonable. If the police were brought in because one party misbehaved, then I hope the legal process is used against that party, whichever party it is. If the police were brought in because both parties misbehaved then I hope the legal process is used against both parties. > Or a christian singing group in SF was attacked by gay activists. Attacked? Do you mean physically? Terrible if true, but unless you know about some story I don't know about it isn't true. It _is_ true that a Christian singing group came to the Castro to sing and pray. They were apparently (after several days) shouted down. Not a nice incident, but then neither was the group's behavior nice. > Or a 75year old woman in Palm Springs gets attacked. That would be contemptible if it were true. > Or the suspicious package found at a Catholic elementary school in SF > which brought in the bomb squad. Again, any evidence that this actually had anything to do with Proposition 8? This kind of thing is simply a smear. You can take every bad thing that has happened to a church and blame it on gay rights supporters. That doesn't make it so. Church vandalism is a regular, depressing and contemptible fact of life. That doesn't make it the fault of those who want the same rights as others. I'm snipping the rest of your reports of church vandalism. Yucky, yes. Related to Proposition 8? Who knows. I can find lots of local incidents if church vandalism in any area the size of California if I start to look. That doesn't make them related to gay rights. Equivalent (as you suggested in your previous post) to a physical attack on a person? No. >> >> > Many are "concerned" as you say. But there seems to be a shortage >> >> > of [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > are unsafe. Based, as far as I can tell on absolutely nothing. > That's called fear-mongering. Maybe you just prefer to turn a blind eye. >> It's true at least 8 Mormon buildings have been vandalized and >> spray-painted. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > also heard of the San Francisco Holocaust Memorial being vandalized > last week, but that seems unconnected with Proposition 8. Did the SF Holocaust Memorial put in significant funding for the passing of Prop 8? Did they put out a video to purposely direct hatred to a specific religious group? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yv_4A1RbA-o Again you want to turn a blind eye at the same time misdirect, your choice. >> And that local authorities have reported a protest or vandalized >> property nearly everyday since the passing of the Prop. > > Why do you equate protest with vandalism? Protest is a normal part of > a pluralistic democracy, and is legal. Vandalism is contemptible and > a crime. I suppose if you ignore the fact that the acts of vandalism have to *do* with the passing of the prop, then you would not equate protest with vandalism. How about protest with violence? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jiwc9ybBiAw&feature=related >> But then there is the envelopes containing white powder that were sent >> to Mormon temples in LA. > > Also contemptible if true. What is the connection to Proposition 8? |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message