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.
And now gay men can marry other gay men and 1esbians can marry other 1esbians in California and soon the entire nation.
Marriage has been redefined several times through the ages to reflect the changes in societal norms. Biblical marriage allowed for polygamy but in the West civil marriage was redefined to be limited to one man and one woman of the same race. In the 1960s it was redefined again to include 1nterracial couples. In the last few years marriage has been expanded in several countries, and now two US states, to include same sex couples. I’m sure that in the future marriage will be further redefined.
I’m talking about civil marriage which is recognised by the US government. Clergy are granted the power to marry couples by the state not by the church. Why do you have so much trouble understanding that distinction?
The town idiot wrote this
I propose that we restrict marriage to be between one human and one goat. None of us would be “prevented from marriage”. We could all marry any old goat we want. … Something tells me Phreeky already has.
Comment from: alexatheist
Wow…believing in another myth I see…
I heard that coporations can marry. Would that be gay or straight?
DeepDiver,
Would it fix things if they wrote on the liscence that it was specifically for a heterosexual marriage or a GLBT marriage?
Sorry, I still can not wrap my head around the selfish attitude of some people. I could understand the knee jerk reactionary responses we see from some people on the subject of gay marriage if Activist Judges? were trying to force straight men to marry gay men.
Here is the point some folks may be missing, gay marriage is optional. If you do not like gay marriage, you are free to refrain from marrying someone of the same sex. It’s freedom. I’m all for freedom for people that hate me and people that don’t hate me.
Since marriage licenses are issued by the state, and not a vendor of fairy tales, marriage is a civil matter. Don’t like it? Too bad.
I can’t believe I’m doing the leg work for the phreakshow (and I can’t believe how ignorant he is about this), but there are numerous examples of polygamy in the buybull:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/polygamy.html
One of the hundreds of reasons why I loathe religion.
Oh, and you keep talking about myth.
Sadly, you believe in the biggest myth of all.
Wow…believing in another myth {polygamy is biblical} I see…
Gen 4:19 Lamech married two women…
Exodus 21:10 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.
Deut 21:15 15 If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love
2 Samuel 12:8 God tells David that if his 700 wives and 300 concubines arent enough he will provide more
Isa 4:1-2 And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, we will eat our own bread and wear our own clothing; only let us be called by your name, to take away our shame. In that day shall the Branch of Jehovah be beautiful and glorious, and the fruit of the earth excellent and comely for those who have escaped from Israel.
alex, I actually enjoy discussing these things with you. At least you debate logically without being controlled by anger or other emotions.
I disagree with you on this basis.
A does not equal B. A union between and man and woman, is not the same as a union between 2 men or 2 women. I don’t see how anyone can say that they are the same exact thing. No matter what you call the union.
septos came close to hitting the nail on the head, but it smacks too much as being sarcastic. I don’t think he was being sarcastic, but it could be read that way.
I would just like to be able to have my child be able to say, my parents are married, and it to mean that they are man and woman. Saying they are ‘heterosexual marriage’ just doesn’t sound right and is kind of weird. Don’t know the word I want to use.
I enjoy discussing the issue with you too even though your position is totally indefensible.
Why does it matter? are you so threatened by the idea of gays or the thought that someone might mistake you as gay that you must constantly assert your heterosexuality? most people who meet me assume that I’m straight which I think is funny and not bothersome at all because I am totally secure with my sexuality. I think you might want to recognise that you have homophobic feelings and try to learn why. In any case the word marriage will continue to be regarded by default as meaning heterosexual marriage, unless otherwise stated, just due to the fact that straights far outnumber gays.
Maybe I’m off the mark here but I’m guessing that you probably don’t have any close family or friends who are openly gay so you don’t really see the marriage issue in terms of the impact it has on real people’s lives. If you got to know me, or someone like me, very well I think you would change you opinion.
You are 100% correct.
I had a very good and close friend that was gay. Died of AIDS. He was extremely open about it. Loved him more than you would believe. (But not that way)
DD
In that case, I’m sure that you can understand the positive impact that your friend might have had if given the choice to marry. Marriage encourages men, gay and straight, to grow up, become responsible, and be less promiscuous.
alex, why are we labled homophobics when we have a disagreement?
We don’t call gays heterophobics.
And, if he had a chance for full rights under a civil union, I am sure he would have been very happy.
By the way, he was married to a woman to start with and had 3 daughters. After his divorce, he continued to be a great father to them.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,356592,00.html
Critics Slam Boston Doctor Who Offers Sex Change Treatment to Kids
It’s ludicrous to say that there’s a single correct definition of the word “marriage.” If that were true, then state legislatures wouldn’t be able to define it in the first place, any more than they could define the speed of light.
I said you seem to have homophobic feelings and then I suggested that you might want to try to figure out why. If you were religious it would follow that you would have had these attitudes punded into you but as an atheist who can think for himself it makes no sense to me why you seem so upset that gays can now marry in CA or that someone might mistakenly think that you are gay. I have certain xenophobic tendencies too but I recognise them and I understand exactly where they come from.
I’ve never heard of any gay person who advocated for restricting the equality of straight people based solely on their sexual orientation.
Thanx to Phreedm for reminding me that the religious arent the only ones brewing up intollerance.
First of all, i agree with u that marriage is a completely relgious term and i, myself would rather have a secular celebration when the time comes. However, to receive the same respect and recognition we have to take on the tradtional terms. Settling for civil unions (even though thats all i want) is seltting for seperate but equal and thats simply understood. Since marriage is ONLY a religious institution in the eyes of god, then only confirmed Christians should be allowed to enter into this “holy union” huh? Aside from ALL of that, simply put there are those that wish to be married under god (NOT ME) so ask yourself if this is important enough for you to influence a restriction on so many others’ lives that doesnt even directly effect you. I mean this fuckin thing is LEGAL in South Africa. We are so behind!
Also, children with same sex parents suffer no more developmentally, intellectually or emotionally than those of the opposite sex. If there is any additional suffering it is most certainly inflicted by children influenced by parents with minds such as yours. Just live and let live dude, seriously. I cant imagine how this even affects you, and if at all its nothing compared to this restiriction on our lives.
Marriage in America is NOT a religious institution! Only civil marriages are recognised by the government (although many people choose to have a religious ceremony). The power vested to clergy is the same power that the government extends to government officials such as a justice of the peace to conduct a marriage and issue a secular marriage certificate. My parents were married in a non religious civil ceremony at the village courthouse and I know people who have had non religious weddings conducted on the beach in Hawaii, onboard a cruise ship by the captian, or out in the woods here in NC. The fact is that a religious marriage means absolutely nothing legally unless it is officiated by someone who has the government authority and license to do so.
Have I implied that we should restrict your rights? You should have all the same rights that I have. I believe our only disagreement is on what your union and mine should be called. If that is so important to you then call it whatever you want.
Yes that is exactly what you are advocating.
Creating a separate but equal paralell institution to marriage based soley on an unalterable trait such as sexual orientation creates second class citizenship. Blacks in America after desegregation were offered seats on the bus and their space at lunch counters that were set apart from those used by whites which we now know was wrong. Seperate but equal is nothing but instituionalised prejudice and is unAmerican.
Say that 10 times, and then tell Alex he can’t get married if he wants to.
So, I see that Captain Asshat has disappeared now that we have again taught him something about his buybull, and the massive immorality that lives in it.
Fucking read the thing, jackass. It might just open your eyes to the horror that’s in it.
There?s absolutely NO reason gays should be
allowed to escape the misery of matrimony
and the excruciating pain of alimony.
Hook ?em all up.
Marriage is a social institution and there is no inherent “right” to have it apply to just any type of union between individuals. Like it or not marriage receives public support in various forms.
Are the majority of Americans bigots because they do not support changing the definition of marriage? We are not and it’s absurd to cling to such an argument.
-Tim
Basically, four judges have attempted to overrule the will of the people in California. This is unjust on its face and will now require a constitutional amendment to rectify.
The whole argument used to justify the ruling is bogus. There is no inherent “right” to marriage. The institution of marriage is defined by society as a whole. It isn’t subject to the agenda of a minority or judicial fiat.
-Tim
All you need to know about the purpose of altering and therefor nullifying the traditional definition of marriage is this:
It is a deliberate attempt to destroy the traditional family unit so as to usher in a “new” definition of society as envisioned by the Marxist philosophy. It’s all there if you take the time to read.
Marxism is antithetical to our way of life and we ignore its creeping advance at our peril.
-Tim
Tim:
Ummm…’traditional family unit’ is pretty much a myth.
Ummm…yes, you pretty much are.
Telling one targeted, specific group they’re not allowed to have the same privileges everyone else is entitled to is called…drum roll, please!
BIGOTRY.
Really, an argument from numbers is pathetic. It really is.
Do better.
Oh, & this 1?
We already have 2 court jesters here: 3’s a crowd, as the adage goes.
Homosexuality as a gateway political move on the part of communists.
That’s so vastly amusing on so many levels.
Here’s a good one:
KA,
Greetings. It’s been a while since we’ve had a chance to disagree!
It’s pretty funny to see you post a response that itself is pretty “pathetic.” When’s the last time you opened a dictionary? You can’t get by on simply calling everyone you disagree with a bigot.
Anyway, I can’t take you seriously when you say that the traditional family unit is a “myth.” Try taking a look around or perhaps even looking up the data on the makeup of families in the U.S. these days!
alexatheist,
I’m not convinced homosexuality is an “unalterable trait”, but I’m willing to keep an open mind to the research as it progresses.
That issue is really not the reason marriage should stay as it is – between a man and a woman. As I have said many times and will continue to say, society has a vital interest in the institution of marriage. For one thing, if marriage did not provide the benefits of bringing in the next generation of people in a society, then we could pretty much do away with it. That’s oversimplified, of course, but I’m trying to get folks to understand what mariage really is as opposed to what it is not.
Here’s the essence of my argument: Why would a majority in any society want to give special benefits to relationships between consenting adults that holds NO possibility of a larger benefit accruing to society as a result of the union?
I know I’m going to catch a lot of flak for this, but here goes…
If society has no say in the definition of marriage and it is a “civil right”, then let’s take the “gay marriage” argument to it’s logical conclusion. You would have to agree that as a society we should then grant marriage licenses to anyone for any purpose!
For example, three men and a woman. Or perhaps, three women and one man. Why not? It’s their “right” isn’t it?
If you say this is absurd, then you had better be prepared to explain how you are going to deny the “civil right” to marriage to anyone who wants it!
Tim
OK, I’ll take a look around:
My atheist marriage with nuclear family is on the skids after 33 years.
My best friend (believer) is on her second marriage, married to a bisexual man. They have one child together , two from the previous marriage. Her first husband has another child with a woman he has an on/off relationship with.
Another friend Baptist, is in 33 marriage (same anniversary as mine), but husband has been having an affair with neighbor for about 15 years. They stay together for appearances and the children.
Another friend believer, is on second marriage, one son from first, one child from second. Son in constant trouble, kicked out of military school. This friend’s gay brother is married to another man.
Friend X, a pagan, and bisexual, is in on/off relationship with friend Y, a le$bian. Both are divorced from former husbands. Y has children, one gay, one straight. Last year they plannned to get married, but plans fell through.
My father-in-law, (don’t know his beliefs, but he attends church) is on his sixth marriage. Has 6 children by 2 of his wives.
My brother-in-law divorced his catholic wife after having 6 kids and using prostitutes and charging them to his credit card. Blamed the wife for the bad marriage.
Other bro-in-law has been divorced twice–both wives cheated on him. He has one son. Both exes are remarried.
Sis-in-law married someone old enough to be her father-both ministers. Never wants children.
My son has one son with ex girl-friend, and one and one child on the way with his wife. Just got full custody of his son. The ex has 3 other children by 3 other men with a 4th on the way by yet another man(and at least one miscarriage). Her mother had 4 kids by two different fathers and is divorced and remarried-Both of them-(mother and daughter) are extremely religious. Oh, I forgot to say, my son thinks religion is stupid, but his wife believes.
My best friend’s sister is in an inter_racial marriage-very religious, 3 kids of their own and two from his previous marriage/relationships. They were fostering/going to adopt two boys who were taken from his crack-addicted ex-step-daughter, but she got clean long enough to take them back. Those two boys have different dads, as does the one she’s carrying now.
And in my teacher friend’s school, it is not uncommon for a homeroom to have no more than two or three students with both a mother and father in the home. And that’s not always the original parents.
Tim:
Still taking Savage as a legitimate source, I see.
& the dictionary says (drumroll please)
1.
1. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
2. The state of being married; wedlock.
3. A common-law marriage.
4. A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.
2. A wedding.
3. A close union: ?the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comics? (Lloyd Rose).
4. Games. The combination of the king and queen of the same suit, as in pinochle.
Wikipedia says (drum roll please):
“Family values is a political and social concept used in various cultures to describe values that are believed to be traditional in that culture and in support of the idea that families are the basic units of culture. The phrase has different meanings in different cultures. In the late 20th and early 21st centuries, the term has been frequently used in political debate, especially by social and religious conservatives, who believe that the world has seen a decline in family values since the end of the Second World War.[1] Because the term is vague, and means different things to different people, “family values” has been described as a political buzzword, power word, or code word predominantly used by right-wing or conservative political parties and media providers.“
There goes those that set of talking points.
Old Slippery Slope Tim-MAY is @ it again.
Next, you’ll insist on intermarriage between species as a civil right.
I’m happily married to my couch, dammit!
No, we’re talking 2 consenting adults here. This is a specious argument. You may as well argue that shoplifting leads to serial murder.
Tim,
Why do consider this to be the only logical conclusion? Are you perhaps relying on the Slippery Slope fallacy to make your argument?
alatham:
Oh trust me: it gets worse from here. I’ve had run-ins w/Tim-MAY before. He just comes here to play PTA (prod the atheist), & get some negative attention.
He makes jcc look reasonable – I kid you not.
Oh Tim?
A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own.
The origin of the word bigot in English dates back to at least 1598, via Middle French, and started with the sense of “religious hypocrite”, especially a woman. Bigot is often used as a pejorative term against a person who is obstinately devoted to prejudices even when these views are challenged or proven to be false.
If the shoe fits, as they say…
KA,
Aw, c’mon! Give me a break or at least a little credit.
Now are you up for the debate or not? Why is it a “specious argument” to postulate that folks out there will want the civil right of marriage to include what THEY want, hmmmm? Actually, they are already doing so!
Who says we’re talking about 2 consenting adults and nothing else… you? Open your eyes, my friend, perhaps your mind will follow.
I have provided an argument and I’m waiting to hear some serious discussion.
alatham,
I didn’t say my argument was the ONLY possibility. I’m simply following the logic of those who argue that marriage is a “civil right” equal to other natural rights as recognized by the writers of our Constitution.
KA,
I just love being judged by those who don’t know me!
If your gonna rely on pronouncements about the character of someone you don’t even know, you are going to look foolish. Worse, you won’t be able to rely on this to make your points!
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.