This is very good, and very important, and the AU had a great press release, so here it is.
Religious Groups Remain Free To Make Decisions About Marriage In Keeping With Their Theology, Says AU’s Lynn The California Supreme Court decision in favor of same-sex marriage respects the boundaries between religion and government, says Americans United for Separation of Church and State In a May 15 decision, the court majority held that the state constitution mandates that same-sex couples have the same right to the benefits of civil marriage as opposite-sex couples. The justices made clear, however, that the ruling applies only to civil marriages. Religious communities remain free to marry same-sex couples or not, in keeping with their theology. Said the court, ?[A]ffording same-sex couples the opportunity to obtain the designation of marriage will not impinge upon the religious freedom of any religious organization, official, or any other person; no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs.? The court cited Article I, Section 4 of the state constitution, which says in part, ?Free exercise and enjoyment of religion without discrimination or preference are guaranteed? and ?The Legislature shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.? The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director, said, ?This decision is an important victory for church-state separation. The court majority made it very clear that civil marriage is a secular institution governed by principles of freedom.? ?The court also made it clear that no congregation can be forced to marry people in violation of their theological standards,? Lynn continued. ?That?s a strong reaffirmation of religious liberty.?
One important note that I feel has been ignored in the issue: If churches can not be forced into marrying gay couples because it violates their religion, cannot the same be said for churches that WANT to marry gays? Shouldn’t the Unitarians (or someone else) be speaking up here, demanding the right to marry gays, under their Constitutional right to freedom of religion?The only true solution to the Gay Marriage issue is to separate a religious institution from a civil one. Any church should be able to marry anyone, or refuse to do so, based on religious grounds. But the STATE MUST “join” any two adults who so desire. That’s the only way everyone gets what they want.
Tim:
I know you well enough, old son.
Oh, I remember this waltz.
Still cruising the NAMBLA sites? That was the last time we had this argument, you managed to conflate pederasty w/homosexuality, if memory serves. Or @ least you tried.
People are people. They’ll consistently try to piggyback off someone else. Regardless of rationale. Or apples being equal to oranges.
Fact is, your side is losing. Gay people have a RIGHT to get married. I can define civil rights, you won’t listen. I can dredge up all sorts of quotes from the Founding Fathers to disprove your ‘majority rules!’ dreck. You still won’t listen. Likely you’ll pull the ‘some of my best friends are gay!’ canard. Still you’d deny them the right.
My personal theory on your hero, Michael Savage, is that him & Allen Ginsberg were having a fling, & AG left him for a younger man.
Hell hath no fury, as they say.
You’re not looking for any serious discussion. You just want to start trouble for the sake of it. You’ve admitted as much in the past.
If we’re allowing gays to marry under the guise of
“equal protection,”
then why can’t the mormons have multiple wives
under the same laws?
And,
there?s absolutely NO reason gays should be
allowed to escape the misery of matrimony
and the excruciating agony of alimony.
Hook ?em all up.
KA,
OK, let me try making my point another way.
For the sake of argument, imagine a tribe of Indians isolated from the world as we know it. The tribe has norms and standards of behavior regarding how people interact as sexual creatures, ie. coming together for the purpose of pleasure and/or procreation.
The social norms of the tribe dictate that a man and a woman coming together is acceptable in the right time and place. Two men or two women coming together is not.
Now imagine yourself visiting this tribe and trying to inform them that their social norms are wrong and that anyone in the tribe can come together with any other, it is their right. Would you be successful? What do you think they would say?
All I am trying to get across is that is that the “civil rights” line of reasoning regarding marriage is fatally flawed. After many attempts, I have yet to have someone be able to argue convincingly that individual civil rights include a right to marry!
Instead of dodging the challenge, why don’t you make your case convincingly that natural, civil rights of citizens includes marriage?
Atheistud,
My point exactly. Why isn’t polygamy recognized as a “civil right”?
I’ll tell you why. Because it is OUTSIDE the norms and standards of the society as a whole!
Look, I realize there may come a day when our society as a whole will allow the definition of marriage to change into something different than it is today. That day has not come.
On the subject of Polygamy:
Here’s another aspect that bolsters my argument about the “civil right” aspect as put forth by advocates of “Gay Marriage.”
In Texas they allow that Polygamist sect to have their “marriages”, but they are not recognized under the law. As long as no abuse of children occurred they were left alone.
So why is this so? How can it be that there is a religios definition of marriage that isn’t recognized by the law? Conversely, why aren’t the Polygamists prevented from practicing this form of marriage?
Tim:
I can’t put it to you more convincingly than this: you’re telling ONE SPECIFIC GROUP of people in society as a whole, that they aren’t allowed to do something that EVERYONE ELSE is allowed to do. It’s not polygamy, its not pederasty, it’s not paraphilia. It’s a social contract between two people.
& since you evince a spectacular lack of comprehension, I will give you the definition of civil rights:
The rights belonging to an individual by virtue of citizenship, especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and by subsequent acts of Congress, including civil liberties, due process, equal protection of the laws, and freedom from discrimination.
So, Timmy Wordplay, you can twist the words to suit your needs, but by your very argument about ‘definitions’, you’re utterly wrong.
& you’re using the same arguments used against miscegenation back in the day.
Your comparison of polygamy to same-sex marriage is apples to oranges.
Just as freeing the slaves was, as giving women rights was, child labor laws, the list it do go on.
Much as it makes you bridle, you live in a progressive society.
“If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing” – Anatole France.
Sorry, we don’t live in a country where the mob rules. If we did, you’d get your way.
Time to bellow your war-cry:
BAAAH! BAAAH!
Bigoted sheeple.
KA,
Well, I did more research on the whole civil rights aspect of this issue and also read the recent CA Supreme Court decision.
For clarity, I will re-state my position. Actually, the term “civil rights” refers to rights granted to citizens by virtue of laws enacted by society through their government. These rights are not the same as natural, or inalienable rights that we are born with.
This is an important distinction because civil rights can actually vary from state to state as in the case of marriage. There are also civil rights coded in the U.S. Constitution, although none specifically addressing marriage.
What really shocked me was the basis upon which the CA Supreme Court based it’s finding. They made no judgement on the validity of same-sex marriage. They only concerned themselves with the “separate, but equal” nature of the state law defining the rights to domestic partnerships and marriage.
In essence, what they found was that the state law passed several years ago was unconstitutional because it denied the benefits the word “marriage” gives to a relationship. You see, the domestic partnership rights as enumerated in the law were, in essence, the SAME as those of marriage yet same-sex couples were stuck with the “second class” status of the connotation applied to their relationship – domestic partners!!! Wow!
This is a very powerful lesson for people who don’t believe in same-sex marriage. If the “larger society” (in this case the citizens of a state) do not condone this type of relationship and do not believe that it should be equal to tht of marriage, then they had better make sure that no “separate,but equal” status is created in the first place.
Some time back I actually was in favor of domestic partnerships. I figured it was good to live and let live. This slowly changed as I watched the radical homosexual activists continue to push and attempt to force me to accept their philosophy and their lifestyle.
I now realize that intuitively I was right. I am not in favor of any recognition of same-sex couples having the rights granted to marriage. Hey, they can hook up if they want, sign powers of attorney, whatever. They can live together, I don’t care.
They just can’t be married or change the definition of traditional marriage by judicial fiat. If they can get a majority of citizens in their state to agree with them and codify a whole new definition of marriage then be my guest. I will then choose to live in a state where this has not happened and likely would not.
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2008/05/dsouzas_ignorant_blather_on_ca.php
The California Supreme Court ruled that the only reason not to call a civil union ‘marriage’ when applied to a couple of the same sex when ‘marriage’ is the formally recognized name for such civil unions among heterosexual couples is because of discrimination against there sexual orientation. The day ‘marriage’ became a civil institution is the day the word ‘marriage’ could be redefined by judicial fiat.
And because the ruling of the California Supreme Court was solely based on the state constitution, there will be no appeal to the federal level.
Bull and shit. No-one in their right mind would want to sleep with you.
You, mein freund, are a chinless fuckwit. Obviously, ‘debating’ w/you is a serious waste of time.
It’s ‘radical’ that someone wants to be accepted by society as a whole? Have the same rights, treatment, etc?
To not be discriminated against?
Are you in anyways related to the guy who shot MLK?
KnowledgeIsPower,
But that’s just my point, marriage has always been a civil instution in the sense of a society codifying rights.
For example, if a state such as California has enumerated a right for two people to marry, then that is a civil right.
I guess when you get down to it, it’s a matter of interpretation when it comes to judges!
KA,
I never said that it was wrong for homosexuals to want to be accepted – just that they are going about it the WRONG way!
Do you feel better now after spewing such invective?
As in how? Stay in their little corner? Keep their grubby hands off YOUR definition of marriage?
Ever heard the term, ‘gay ghetto’?
KA,
Never heard of the term, but I’m sure you will enlighten me!
Look, I know that I sound harsh and uncaring at times, particularly when discussing this topic. All I can say is that it’s not personal with me. I accept people for who they are, despite the fact I disagree with them.
I’m not some raving “homophobe” that makes life miserable for gays. I’m just a person who holds strong beliefs about moral issues as they relate to our society.
Tim:
Little invention they just came up w/…Google it.
But you’re willing to slap constraints on them.
Well, for #1, you’re implying that homosexuality is immoral.
#2, you obviously have some ‘vision’ of the seamless society, which is pretty much a crock.
#3, I’m really curious just exactly WHAT you would prefer gay people do to gain acceptance.
#4, again, you’re insisting that marriage be granted to everyone except homosexuals. How is that not discrimination?
& I repeat: the majority doesn’t decide what’s right, it decides what’s acceptable.
The 2 are not synonyms.
KA,
I agree with your last statement to a degree, but the foundation is that people hold beliefs of right vs. wrong. What is moral vs. immoral and therefor acceptable to the society as a whole.
To your points:
#1 I do believe that homosexuality is immoral. Others may not and that’s O.K.. It may be that sometime in the future, society as a whole may come to acccept it as being equal to heterosexuality.
#2 Not sure what you mean, but my vision of society might be considered antiquated by the new generation.
#3 Well, I think that we all operate under a value system; both our own personal values and what is acceptable in society. What you are asking me to do is define a path for people to follow so I will accept them. I can’t really do that because I have a fundamental disagreement with their lifestyle in regards to their sexuality. I can be co-worker or acquaintance, but I can’t be a close friend. Sorry.
#4 I’ve already covered this a few posts back. In essence, we are not in the realm of “discrimination” in the commonly defined sense. To be guilty of discrimination you would first have to define homosexuality as an immutable, unchangeable human characteristic, like gender or race. Another way to do it would be to grant a civil right to homosexual marriage such that it is coded in the U.S. or a state’s constitution. It would then be unlawful discrimination to deny marriage to homosexuals.
-Tim
Tim:
But the majority is wrong w/such regularity, it’s commonly regarded as a logical fallacy.
Why do you regard it as immoral? It’s a minority normative behavior.
I can hear Cher singing “If I could turn back time” in the background.
Again: why?
I refer you to the movie, “Protagonist”. It charts the lives of 4 males. 1 was a “rescued” gay man (Mark Pierpont), who got married & began an evangelical career preaching religion. In the midst of preaching gospel to a huge congregation in Asia, he realized he was gay. Ended up divorcing the woman & entering into a civil union, another guy.
For the larger part of the population, it seems that it’s not a choice.
Dissecting your logic, by its application, you could say that religion/worship isn’t an ‘immutable, unchangeable human characteristic’ (people change religions all the time), so ergo, the right to worship isn’t a civil right. Or politics, for that matter. Any sort of ideology, because after all, 1 can change 1′s mind, no?