| Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
| Open Forums for ExChristian.Net > Sex and Christianity > So, you want Gay Marriage legalized? |
| Posted by: Lokmer Jan 16 2005, 01:40 AM |
| I have, for years, been a proponent of equal rights for GLBT folks - and vocally, even as a conservative Christian. I have also, during the same time, been VERY opposed to gay marriage - a position which has caused quite a bit of consternation among my more liberally-minded friends. Q: Why would I hold such seemingly diametrically opposed positions? A: Because gay marriage is the worst idea to be brought up for serious debate in this country in many, many decdes. It's beyond a stupid issue, it is a dangerous issue that is unhealthy for all Americans. Why do I say this, particularly in the presence of such people as Shadfox, IBF, focino, Blue Giant, and other gay and bisexual members of this board who command the deep respect from me that all of you do? Quite frankly, because I'm sick of such an impressive group of minds blindly toeing the party line (in this case Democratic) on this issue. So, what I'm interested in is a gloves off, books open, honest-to-godless debate on the topic. This is a debate about the politics of sexuality, religion, and liberty, topics that are near and dear to all of us. And while I'm at it, let me make my position absolutely clear: I don't think the government should be permitting heterosexual marriages either. ------------------------- From the Kiosk at the secular web: ------------------------- http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=380 Gay activists should turn the gun on the enemy instead of repeatedly shooting themselves in the foot. Homosexuals, God bless 'em, keep shooting themselves in the foot politically. They seem bound and determined to wipe out any chance of getting what they want out of marriage because they are hung up on the word "marriage." I have been following this issue for some time and now have some advice for my friend-loving friends. In September of 2003, Homosexuals believed they'd won a victory in Massachusetts when the Supreme Court of that state endorsed Gay Marriage. If you call sticking a hot poker into the eyes of the only people who can help you enact a Federal Law endorsing gay unions of any type and raising the ire of the 98% of the population that is not gay a victory, then "good show fellas." Subsequently, Representative Barney Frank came out against the "marriages" that later began taking place in San Francisco on Valentine's Day. Mayor Gavin Newsome should have listened to him. Since then, the California Supreme Court (not exactly a conservative hotbed) has ruled the marriages unconstitutional and the Mayor's political prospectus has gone from reading "the next Bill Clinton" to "has-been pretty boy with no political capital outside of Haight-Ashbury." People with liberal leanings should take Representative Frank's advice and think before they act when dealing with such a politically sensitive issue. Sane liberals of all inclinations should be rabidly paranoid of this movement. The political wrath of the federal politicians and media started almost instantly after Massachusetts. If the chosen path had been to abandon the "M" word and secure the rights and privileges every gay wants to have with some other word, advocates would have been less of a target for the radical right. Civil Unions might have slipped in under the radar and advocates of these rights would be a leg up already. But the insistence on the use of the word "marriage"--with all its attached religious and legal implications--has raised the hackles of almost every religious or traditionalist individual in the country. Using the words "Civil Union" circumvents all the religious arguments, winning half the battle up front. We already know that most Republicans will vote to defeat progress on this issue. Many Democrats may someday be forced to follow suit thanks to the pressure exerted by the decision of the Supreme Court in early 2004 not to hear a challenge to the Massachusetts law. In order to placate the 98% of us who are not gay, lawmakers must now consider laws banning Gay Marriage when they could be considering laws endorsing Civil Unions. If proponents of equal rights for gays continue to insist on using the word "marriage" most of the viable Democratic Presidential candidates for 2008--plus Congressmen, Senators and their challengers from both parties--will be forced to take a position against gay "marriage" in order to get elected. In this climate, passing a constitutional amendment banning gay "marriage" forever will be easy. Joining two persons together for life can be traced back in time without ever figuring out conclusively which authority begat which, church or state. In many early instances they are indistinguishable. The tipping point for me as to who must have originated the concept and who holds the ultimate authority in handing out marriages is that even the weddings of Kings required the sanction of a member of the dominant church. Most Kings or governments throughout history have either claimed or dictated a belief in a god of one sort or another. Marriage has been secularized over time by governments all over the world. The fact that a religious establishment (marriage) is endorsed by government in direct violation of our Constitution is the root problem for us here in America. The Separation Clause in our Constitution was an attempt to secularize government, an attempt to eliminate interactions between church and state in order to protect each from undermining the other (to try something new). Marriage was simply allowed to "fall through the cracks" because of tradition. I argue that these "cracks" never existed and that the current political storm over gay marriage is what will force us to finally correct this oversight. If true separation of church and state existed, we would not be having this argument. We should secure equal rights for gays who want to get "married" without using the term "Marriage." It gets gays what they want without further blurring the line between church and state. I would venture that most folks who endorse gay "marriage" also support the Separation Clause of the Constitution. If the Supreme Court takes any position on this matter either way, it will by its action inject government into what should be a purely religious debate. Make no mistake; "Marriage" is a preponderantly religious institution. It has been adopted into U.S. law over the years in clear violation of the Separation Clause of the Unites States Constitution. If the Supreme Court of the United States is forced into making a decision pertaining to "Marriage," gay or straight, it will enshrine for the first time, constitutionally based case law binding church and state. What gays are trying to do now and what everyone else has been doing all along clearly violates the implied separation of Church and State set out in the First Amendment. The ACLU to my astonishment appears to support the gay agenda. If they would just look past the end of their noses to the long term consequences they would be backing "Civil Unions." You would think that these words, uttered by every leader of a Church who performs a marriage, "And now by the power vested in me by (insert your local jurisdiction here)," would be prima fascia evidence of this ongoing traditional violation of the First Amendment. The only one that should be vesting power in the Church is God. So, let religious types keep "Marriage" as a religious pact. Let the church win the semantic argument. Let them call it (as President Bush has done) a "sacred" institution. This adds weight to the argument to apply the Separation Clause to "Marriage." Force government to treat all Americans the same with respect to legal and civil rights by using a different word that the Church has no historical authority to exercise sanction over. By doing this you categorically eliminate the Church's right to participate in the argument. Without the church's ideologically driven fanatical input, working out the details of enforcement of ordinary rights between individuals and the state would be relegated to an obscure committee somewhere on Capitol Hill and then passed by Congress as a "Bill that benefits everyone in America." Renaming the government's description of marriage and letting the church keep performing religious "Marriage" ceremonies is far more desirable than fighting to change the traditional definition. It will give equal rights to everyone under the law without any religious taint or blessing and further delineate the bright line the First Amendment draws between church and state. The Congress needs to pass legislation as soon as possible separating marriage from any codification by government. All "Marriages" previously endorsed by government should revert to "Civil Unions" and the ability of anyone to enter into these unions in the future should be broadly allowed. Whether gay or straight, couples "Married" in a church by a member of the clergy can call themselves "Married." The "Civil Union" (the nomenclature of both state and federal governments for "marriage") would provide the underlying rights and legal implications. Everyone would likely still use the word "marriage" to describe a "Civil Union" contract or a church sanctioned "Marriage" ceremony that includes an underlying "Civil Union" contract, no-one can stop that, but that would just be traditional, not legally binding. The current path being followed by radical supporters of gay marriage will seal the deal on the Supreme Court making the final call. The Court will not vote in your favor and in the process, may damage the First Amendment that helps protect all of us. In fact, when the politicians see that day coming, the Supreme Court won't even get the chance. They will pass a constitutional amendment that will destroy most of the fruits of years of activism that will have occurred by then. If they do that, the First Amendment won't have been damaged--it will have been shredded. Try to have some foresight people. You're winning battles that will likely cost you the war--and hurt everyone. If we don't soon get back to the secular view of government our forefathers intended to set in stone by adopting the First Amendment, "God help us all." -------------------- -Lokmer |
| Posted by: Asimov Jan 16 2005, 03:00 AM | ||
I have no argument with you if you think heterosexual marriages shouldn't be permitted. As long as you're not singling out a specific group for some odd reason, I'm fine with that. |
| Posted by: ficino Jan 16 2005, 06:44 AM |
| I have thought it more expedient for GLs to shoot for civil unions/domestic partnerships for the time being. Since the state, however, provides civil marriage with more legal privileges than have been accorded domestic partnerships, I agree with Asimov that the disconnect between heterosexual civil marriage and domestic partnership leaves gays and lesbians in a position of inequality. If all marriages and domestic partnerships are redefined as civil unions with the same rights, as the quoted article advocates, and then religious institutions confer the additional status "marriage," to which no civic privileges pertain, I guess I could go with that-- i.e. a couple applies for a civic union license not a marriage license. But I see no reason to believe that the generality of heterosexual (or homo) married people will want their marriages redefined as something else. Don't married people have emotional attachments to their status? On the Right, won't that provoke even more ranting about how marriage necessarily is a religious institution before it's a political one, that the basis of society is religion, blah blah blah? Anyway, I haven't thought through all my views on this. It's a worthy topic to explore further. A good friend of Ken's and mine worked very hard to help get New jersey's domestic partnership bill passed in the legislature. Something unthinkable even fifteen years ago. |
| Posted by: TexasFreethinker Jan 16 2005, 08:00 AM |
| Inequality is inequality. If it's right for homosexual relationships to have the same benefits and responsibilities as heterosexual relationships, then those relationships should have the same name. Otherwise we're dealing with the old "separate but equal" ploy. I happen to agree that government shouldn't be in the marriage business. Marriage should be a non-secular institution that can be granted by various social groups (such as churches, country clubs, whatever), but should have no legal status. Governments should grant civil unions (or some similar name) that have no religious connotations but which carry legal responsibilities and benefits. It may very well be true that gay marriage could have come in under the radar with a different name, etc. and been accepted sooner. However, that's like saying equal rights for black people could have been accomplished sooner if they just hadn't been called equal rights. Martin Luther King wouldn't have stood for a back door approach to equal rights, and I don't think homosexuals are better served by that approach either. It sometimes helps the middle-of-the-road folks to see the anger and hatred stirred up among the fundamentalists when the real objective is described. There can be benefit in saying we want "marriage" for homosexuals as long as "marriage" is the term of the legal relationship. That way it's clear what the goal is, and it's not perceived as a sneaky, back door approach to acheiving the goal. It may take longer, but I think it's likely that the result will be more solid when it's achieved. I think history shows us that too. As long as blacks accepted the "separate but equal" standing in the US they remained second class. It was only once they insisted on just plain "equal" that things really changed (both practically, and in the hearts and minds of much of white America). |
| Posted by: Tocis Jan 16 2005, 08:14 AM |
| Whether churches want to marry homosexual couples or not, and how they want to call that religious union, is basically up to them. A secular government that upholds human rights and justice, however, has to at least grant homosexuals and heterosexuals the same amount of privileges. I wouldn't have that much of a problem if homosexual unions would just be called "civil union" while hetero unions get the name "marriage", because at least both sides would then get the same... but that's my personal point of view with which the reader is free to disagree. |
| Posted by: pitchu Jan 16 2005, 08:39 AM |
| Ideally, no part of American government would have anything to do with sanctifying anything, nor with eliciting "I do" oaths from people (other than Constitutionally required oaths administered to those about to take certain offices). Contracts only. That's what we have a judicial system for. Contracts for all manner of life-and-mutual-interest-joining undertakings suitable to the involved parties should be what the government backs and, when necessary, adjudicates. I don't care what the contracts are called. Benefits and responsibilities accruing to those who enter such contracts might further tie up the courts for awhile, until there becomes clear law on such things as survivor's benefits, adoption rights, etc., but people in a free society must be free to associate and to have those associations protected -- whether they're the broadest or most intimate of associations. Start from scratch, I say. If we aren't prepared, as a society, to totally re-examine and reconstruct in this area, then we have no choice, morally, but to extend the muddled and imperfect state/church laws we currently have to all people. |
| Posted by: I Broke Free Jan 16 2005, 09:05 AM |
| Lokmer, I have lost no respect for you regarding your position on gay marriage. Thank you for bringing the topic up. My current position on gay marriage is dependent on the strength and merits of the last person who argued the issue. I’ll admit it! I waffle back and forth. I lost my first partner of eight years back in 1987. He died in an aviation accident at the age of 29 and we did not have any legal documents cementing our relationship. His mother who had disowned him and his father, who he had not seen since the age of 12, received a $360,000 wrongful death settlement and most of our acquired assets. I was left with the debt on our car. Today my current partner and I have loads of legal documents between us, but in the eyes of the law he is still not part of my family. So yes, this issue is very important to me. How do I stand currently? I am willing to take what would be viewed as second-class status and accept a civil union. I need to have my relationship recognized at the federal level NOW! I can’t wait until the minds of people change and are willing to accept us as married. Hell, I don’t even want that label anyway. Eventually as the nation sheds its religious past, most heterosexual couples will opt for civil unions too and that form of union will gain all the rights afforded marriage. (I believe it is already happening in New Zealand) |
| Posted by: AggieNostic Jan 16 2005, 01:07 PM | ||
The term "Gay Marriage" is a religious term. It has no impact on whether people receive the rights and privileges afforded them by the civil law. You can get "married" in a church, but if it is not legal (defined by civil law), it doesn't mean a damn thing. Conversely, you can be legally recognized by the civil law without having to step foot inside a church. With all that said, I am in favor of civil recognition of same-sex unions. That means they are afforded all the same legal benefits as different-sex unions (inheritance, visitation rights, insurance coverage, etc.).
While I certainly sympathize with that sentiment (having my own battle with humanist organizations over how "liberal" freethinkers are "supposed" to be), I don't think this characterization is completely accurate. Until recently, I was a Republican. And, many Libertarians have no problem with civil unions. |
| Posted by: unchainedhillbilly Jan 16 2005, 03:00 PM |
| You make a good point, Lokmer, but I don't think that asking for a second-class label is the answer. As a libertarian, I'd ideally like to see governemnt having little or no role in the institition of marriage, other than contract enforcement. Each state could write up a standard marriage contract... any church could modify that one or write up their own. ANY couple could go down to the courhouse and pick up a 'civil union' contract to be used in a ceremony of their choice, OR they could show up at a church and let a preacher hand them his version. Everybody could have either a "civil union" or a "marriage" in the eyes of the governent- doesn't really matter what you call it. Baptists could refuse to marry gays all day long, and rail against how illegitimate those marriages are... to no avail. Family law would now be only a matter of contract enforcement, which would be a vast improvement over what we have now. That's what I'd LIKE to see, but in addition to being a Libertarian, I'm also a realist. The fact is that government in this country has always sanctioned marriage, and complete overhauls of entire institutions or segments of law are highly unlikely. I think that shooting for the goal of equal rights under a less-than-perfect system is a better strategy than shooting for less-than-equal rights under a more perfect system. I don't disagree with you that marriage is one case in which our government is still tied to the church, and that this gay issue may bring the church/state issue to a head- and I'll run a little further with this line of thinking. I'll have church separate from state however I can get it... but I agree in a technical sense with lots of christians who point out the fact that there is no "separation" clause in the constitution- only the "establishment" clause. The much-cited words "separation of church and state" appear only in supreme court case law. I'd personally LIKE to see a clarifying amendment specifically separating church and state, much like the French concept of secularism. Of course, in today's political climate, that's pure fantasy, so I'll take what I can get. |
| Posted by: Fweethawt Jan 16 2005, 07:57 PM |
| I don't have anything of any real value to add to this interesting topic other than the words of a recent church sign that was put up in my area that reads, "How can a civil right be a moral wrong?" |
| Posted by: BlueGiant Jan 16 2005, 08:09 PM |
| Yeah, the whole marriage issue is one of those things that at first glance seems to be a no-brainer, and that everyone should have access, but at second glance is counterproductive. I am with you on the civil unions for the government end of all the marriage/partnership/legal convienence business, for heterosexual and homosexual relationships. The setting of an abstraction between the civil and religious aspects of this sort of relationship between two people seems to be the common sense answer, once one gets past the semantics and shouts of "separate !equal." The unfortunate thing about common sense is that it, apparently, isn't. Maybe cooler heads will prevail, but I don't think this is going to happen any time soon. I am not insulted in the least by this. |
| Posted by: Lokmer Jan 16 2005, 08:20 PM |
Thanks everyone for being such good sports about the deliberately provocative nature of my post  I also am of a Libertarian bent, and I think government should be out of the marriage business for reasons of church/state seperation, but also for reasons of social engineering. The current laws regarding marriage in this country are flawed in more ways than just that they bar same-sex couples from being joined. They equally prohibit the creation of households (or by their effects erect unneccesary barriers) between joint families, extended families as dependants, poly families, Boston marriages (non-sexual life/financial unions between filial soulmates), and the like. All of these different types of households are currently part of the social fabric, and while homosexual unions form only a miniscule portion of the populous, the aggregation of all of these different types of social units is vast - at the least a sizable minority. "Marriage" is an institution that has always - with the exception of a brief time during the late 19th century and a brief time during the late 20th - been a religious institution. There have always also been common-law marriages and de facto arrangements that serve the same social function. It is illigitimate of the government to recognize one long-established social convention but not others. But on the flip-side, we have this issue of a "second class" status afforded the theoretical civil union that has the full legal advantages of marriage. And I think, frankly, that this complaint is coming out of a terrible confusion of the meaning of "second-class." A Second-class citizen is unequal before the law. If the government enforced private contracts that granted certain powers of access, community property, and attorney, then it is not a "second-class" or a "seperate-but-equal" situation if one couple is "married" and the other is "joined." The government is ensuring equal protection and equal rights. The social status of married is something people can claim on their own (and do) without the benefit of a government license. The word is irrelevant to the reality. I am convinced that what has happened is that GLAAD and ACTUP! and other gay activist groups have made the fatal mistake of confusing a symbol (the word "marriage") with the reality that it represents (the conjoining of two adult lives in a financial and social union that forms a cornerstone of a stable society, entailing certain legal stipulations and priviliages). By fighting for the word "marriage", activists are picking the wrong hill to die on. What SHOULD be happening is the strengthening of gender-blind civil unions to the point where heterosexuals won't bother with "marriage" except where their churches require it. But instead of trying to evolve the culture the smart and natural way, they are instead trying to force a change that the culture is unprepared for, in a manner that is constitutionally dangerous, and in a way that is guarranteed to eventually fail - and cost us all much more in the long run. IBF, what happened to you is unconscionable. I have had other friends and aquaintances go through similar problems after the death of a partner. But "Marriage" isn't the answer. The Gov't honoring private contracts IS the answer. "Marriage" has too much baggage to be redefinable in the ways it should be redefined. The basic idea ain't bad, but it can -- and should -- be done better and more rationally. -Lokmer |
| Posted by: Merlinfmct87 Jan 16 2005, 08:49 PM |
| That's a facinating idea Lokmer. I have to consiter it a bit further(right in the middle of something right now) but it sounds wild. Merlin |
| Posted by: Cerise Jan 16 2005, 08:58 PM | ||
What can I say? Words hold more importance then people think. Which means they aren't quite so irrelevant to reality afterall. As long as those in "civil unions" are treated differently then "married couples" because of the social status implied by word choice, then there will continue to be a problem. No matter how equal the legal stipulations and privileges between the two options are, I'm afraid. |
| Posted by: Lokmer Jan 17 2005, 03:41 AM | ||
Indeed, to quote a favorite author of mine, "Words have meaning, and names have power." But the symbol remains just a symbol. I fear that you are confusing the substance of the tangible advantages marriages offer with the emotional satisfaction of being approved of. But the government is not going to get fundies to "approve" of homosexuality in any form, nor is it going to get the majority of people to accept that gay marriage is qualitatively relationally similar to "traditional" marriage. Attitudes like that will take another couple of generations to change, but they will change as people become accustomed to legal equivalence. It is the difference between forcing a change in the law, and forcing a change of heart. The state does not (and should not) have the power to change an individual's beliefs. But a sea-change in a culture (such as we have witnessed in the last 40 years) does. The abiding problem with revolutionaries is the tendency to leave work half done - to get close to the goal and grab for it before the time is right. What winds up being won is a hollow victory, as history shows again and again. The pursuit of "respectability" in the courts is misplaced and foolhardy, because the people do not respect what is legal. They respect what they are familiar with - legal or not. Familiarity encourages acculturation. Social engineering does not, and is a tool favored by totalitarians and short-sighted revolutionaries who forget that the system that they use to engineer things in their favor can be used by their enemies to engineer them out of the equation. -Lokmer |
| Posted by: gssq Jan 17 2005, 03:43 AM |
| Marriage is an archaic institution that is not suited to modern needs. |
| Posted by: Tocis Jan 17 2005, 04:07 AM |
| Well, I will grant to any government a certain justified amount of interest in ensuring its nation's survival. Hence, I think it's not all that bad to offer a kind of reward to people who want to try and stay together real long, providing a stable environment for raising children. It's more or less logical... to me at least. Whether the common definitions of marriage fit that logic is another question. |
| Posted by: Biggles7268 Jan 17 2005, 04:11 AM | ||||
And to quote George Carlin in his infinite wisdom...
I don't think that marriage should be a legal institution at all. However I don't see it being changed anytime in the near future, especially not within the next 4 years. I also have a feeling that Christian homophobes would be screaming just as loudly about gay couples being granted the same rights as married couples via civil unions. They would probably be using many of the same arguments against civil unions as they are against gay marriage now. Marriage is just a much more emotionaly charged concept that even the dullest of Americans can at least partially understand. I know several people who form their opinion on this based on what their preacher tells them. If they were told civil unions are bad then that's how they would vote. |
| Posted by: gssq Jan 17 2005, 05:17 AM |
| A hundred years ago they were told it was wrong to give women the right to vote |
| Posted by: I Broke Free Jan 17 2005, 06:02 AM | ||
1) Christian homophobes don't want gay marriage 2) Christian homophobes don't want civil unions for gays with the same rights 3) Christian homophobes don't want civil unions with fewer rights for gays 4) Christian homophobes are currently fighting to keep gays from using legal documents that cement their relationship even at the most basic level 5) Christian homophobes deny that love can even exist in a gay relationship Yep, we have a long battle ahead. |
| Posted by: TexasFreethinker Jan 17 2005, 06:16 AM | ||||
I agree Cerise. As long as you tell two groups of people that one group can have choice A and/or choice B, but the other group can have only choice B, then you have inequality. Period. Even if choice B is supposed to be equivalent to choice A. You have then codified into law the very idea that the second group isn't worthy of all the choices of the first group. Add a little reality into the mix and you've got people continuing to discriminate based on this law. After all, if the law says the second group isn't worthy of choice A, then there must be something wrong with them. Lokmer, I think you're using a false dichotomy here. The choices aren't necessarily to settle for civil unions or forever lose the chance to have legal partnerships for homosexuals. Even if the Constitution is amended to prohibit gay marriage it can be amended again to lift that restriction. It's not going to be an easy fight, but I disagree that the way to conduct the fight is to ask for less than is morally right. Furthermore, gay marriage is not the holy grail of gay rights. It's only part of the struggle. You may be right that gay marriage will be delayed by the tactic of demanding it up front. IMHO, taking the route that awards some semblance of gay marriage the quickest isn't necessarily the best option. There may be more advantageous ways to achieve that outcome that take longer, but deliver other benefits as well and don't require settling for something less than is deserved. In other words, as long as the legal term for government sanctioned relationships is "Marriage", then marriage is what homosexuals should be asking for. When and if that term becomes "Civil Union" for everyone, then we can drop the request for gay marriage and accept the new term. In the end, this will be a battle for secularism over religiosity and acceptance over non-acceptance, no matter what terms are used. Just as the call for equal rights for blacks raised the anger and hatred of many white Americans in the 50s and 60s, the call for homosexual marriage is doing the same today among many groups in American society. It's possible to turn that anger and hatred against the people who wield it. |
| Posted by: TexasFreethinker Jan 17 2005, 06:30 AM | ||
Some related news from today's Dallas Morning News...
|
| Posted by: pitchu Jan 17 2005, 09:13 PM |
| American Civil Rights activists demanded that "Negroes" be able to sit anywhere on the bus, like "Whites." They didn't aim for moving from the back of the bus to the middle. They sat at the Woolworths' counters, not near them. They wanted in the pool, not in a deck chair. Suffragettes fought for the right to have a full vote, equal to that of a man. They might have fought for three-fifths of a vote. There was a precedent for such reasonableness, since the Constitution had earlier seen fit to designate, for census purposes, that a slave was to be counted as three-fifths of a person. I'm not a relativist when it comes to insisting upon what's right and eschewing what you think you might be able to get. If you get what you might be able to get, you'll be told forever and a day that you got what you wanted. I believe in fairness, even if it wears the terrible title of social engineering. |
| Posted by: TexasFreethinker Jan 19 2005, 07:14 AM | ||
Here's an interesting article on the results of federal bans on another type of marriage - interracial ones. I think there are several valid parallels with today's actions against homosexual marriage.
|
| Posted by: sexkitten Jan 19 2005, 09:46 AM |
| I think that we have here at least two separate issues. 1) Gaining equal legal protections and relational status for partnered homosexuals 2) Removing state endorsement and legal protections for what a significant percentage of the populace sees as primarily a religious relationship. These are separate issues with some overlap, but there are different concerns and motivations for choosing one over the other as a primary issue. Not everyone who ultimately supports "gay marriage" or gay civil unions is in agreement that marriage is a primarily religious institution. That is the claim of conservative Christians, certainly, and in recent Western history marriage has been treated as a sacrament of the church. However, in the less recent past marriage has been primarily a legal and property relationship - who owns what, who is responsible to provide for whom, who inherits property in what manner, whose children can legitimately claim inheritance. Aside from the religious rituals that accompanied every significant event in a person's life, marriage was business. Sacrament and sacredness and holy sex didn't enter into it until the 13th century, when Pope Innocent IV included it as a sacrament. Protestants have regarded marriage as NON sacramental until fairly recently. Some of the activists are pointing to the distant past - "Look, even Martin Luther and Calvin said marriage was a secular institution. It has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with love and property and protecting joint finances. Let the homosexuals have the secular protections of marriage, because it isn't really a religious thing no matter how much the conservatives think so." Others are looking to the current attitudes and the attitudes of the recent past and saying, "Look, these people see it as a sacrament NOW. It doesn't matter that they didn't do so historically, the state is still endorsing something that is NOW perceived as religion. It is therefore a violation of church and state and we should be fighting to end the entanglement, not entangle a new group of people in it." Who is to say what the "right" approach to it is? |
| Posted by: pitchu Jan 19 2005, 11:14 AM | ||
So do I, TF. (An aside: I watched the PBS documentary on Jack Johnson, and felt that more than the one thing mentioned in the article you posted was whitewashed in the sort of kinder, gentler, PBS-Burns style we've mostly grown to accept as cutting edge. In the documentary, the point was made that Mohammed Ali, after seeing "The Great White Hope" which was the 1967 play about Jack Johnson, commented that it was his life story if you just substituted religion for white women. In fact, Ali had made clear, and it was common knowledge at that time, that it was his stance against the Vietnam war that had brought about his persecution and prosecution by his/our country. We still can't honestly re-visit that war, can we?) |