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.
Finally:
As far as MY preferring “Marriage? as a title to our relationship, it has nothing to do with religion, for us. It is simply a tradition of a man and woman.
Santa Clause to us is a tradition. To me, it too has nothing to do with religion.
Easter to us is a tradition. To me, it is the goddess Ester. A fairy tale.
There are many traditions that may have in the past had some religious history intermingled. So what!
Some here wish to destroy these traditions. You are the ones that are intolerant.
I will continue to celebrate Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, and my Marriage of man and woman. If you don?t like it, go to hell.
I not only like it, I agree with you 100 percent.
DD,
Thanks for your honesty even though you are dead wrong. I’m still waiting for you to answer my question why you support civil unions but not marriage. I’m curious to know the reason.
Thanks
Alex:
Tradition
Alex, why do you want a christian tradition?
I asked how my marrying my girlfriend would harm anyone posting here and didn’t get an answer.
So, one kid being raised by a gay is messed up? Not news. I work for Social Services and see tons of messed up kids and families as the result of hetro marriages. So what should be done about that then?
Of course, the usual criticism that two gays can’t raise a well balanced child. BS. What about single parents that can’t raise a well balanced child?? So what should be done about that then???
At least diver admits he just doesn’t like it. Well tough shit and he can got to hell, too.
Carol, you are one that uses emotions to control your thought processes. Obviously you are a very angry person.
Seing how you work for social services, I can see how it is so messed up now.
Next time, don’t put words in my mouth. I said ‘uncomfortable’, not ‘did not like it’. I also did not say harm. You read what you want to read, not what is said.
So what should be done with these kids? I sure as hell would not put them with a couple that is full of hate for the opposite sex.
AND before you convort what I just said, most gays do NOT hate the opposite sex, but there are a few that do. These couples need to have kids denied and they are the ones I have issues with.
That was said in anger and sorry about that. The SS is in disarray, but obviously I don’t know if she is really part of the problem.
But the rest stands.
Gee diver, I don’t think I’m the one with anger issues.
Not to mention stereotyping. I don’t think you have missed a single one attributed to gays.
And yes, I am single handedly distroying SS. Evil athiest, man hating, dyke that I am.
DeepDiver,
The civil right I was referring to is marriage. Your whole argument seems to be based on an extremely erroneous allegation.
If we assume that the context of this discussion is marriage in the USA, it is a perfectly clear fact that marriage is a civil matter.
When I wish to get a marriage license, as a resident of California, I must go to the County Clerk’s office for my county. Marriage licenses are issued by the state, not by faith-based fairy tale vendors.
I have now demonstrated to you that marriage is a civil matter, so your assertions to the contrary do not align with objective reality.
Further, a false claim often made by people suffering from religious delusions is that Jeebus or Yahweh or Allah or some other sky fairy invented marriage in the first place. This claim is as false and manufactured as all other Fundamentalist dogma. Marriage was around for thousands of years before any of todays popular sky fairy characters were invented. Families have survived despite the existence of religions and other forms of parasitic organizations.
Since marriages existed before the comic book-character God of Abraham, it is hardly a religious matter in its origins.
Apart from Fundamentalist-style baseless assertions, your arguments don’t seem to have much meat.
As a Unitarian Universalist, most of the UU clergy I’ve talked with is in agreement with the position that Dave stated,”The only true solution to the Gay Marriage issue is to separate a religious institution from a civil one.”
I agree that it is a separation of church and state issue, the government shouldn’t be in the business of declaring that the marriages performed by one religion are recognizable by the state while those performed by another religious institution are not.
As a denomination, UU’s (both atheist and theist) have a long standing history of fighting for equal rights for same-sex partnerships.
Here’s a link to a brief synopsis of some of the nearly denomination-wide support for same-sex marriage amongst Unitarian Universalists:
http://archive.uua.org/news/2004/freedomtomarry/
The right to preside over the marriage of whomever they choose is exactly what many of these clergy have been saying for a long time. The UUA’s stance on issues like these are exactly the sorts of thing that make me proud to be a Unitarian Universalist.
I am having trouble understanding why denying same-sex couples the title of marriage is important for maintaining the “tradition” of marriage. How does the state conferring the title of marriage on same-sex unions in any way change anything about anyone’s heterosexual marriage? It reminds me when Jon Stewart was on Larry King — he said he was upset about gay marriage until he found out it wouldn’t be mandatory.
I find it surprisingly naive that anyone who would try to make the argument that gays should be granted all rights except the right to raise children would be indignant about being called out as a bigot. All of my real-life experience shows me that same-sex couple raise kids who are just as well-adjusted, healthy and emotionally stable as their opposite-sex couple raised peers. This is by no means a scientific conclusion, since real-life experience is just another term for anecdotal evidence.
Even if we question the legitimacy of the AAP study, I have yet to see a scientifically valid study proving the opposite conclusion -that gays are doing worse at parenting than straights. I mean, the straight community sets such a ridiculously high standard in child-rearing, doesn’t it?
Waltdakind,
A very dear gay atheist friend of mine hangs around at the UU church in his town. He is full of praise for the group.
I believe it was the UU, a few years ago, that ran a TV ad welcoming gay couples. I hope I’m not attributing this incorrectly. Anyway I was moved nearly to tears to find a religious organization (if it is indeed religious) in my home country (USA) that was not scapegoating me like the vast majority of religions and political organizations so dearly love to do. IIRC there were some TV stations that refused to run the ad in question. I had never known before that religious messaging on TV station was required to meet some certain base level of anti-gay bigotry.
I’d bet there are more people who hate the opposite sex in hetero-marriages.
carol, whatever.
ungodly,undisputed, civil unions have been around for many thousands of years. this entire discussion is around gays wanting to redefine the WORD marriage. Wedlock, civil unions, whatever you want to call it is fine. Give the same rights to gays no matter what you call the ceremony. The word marriage comes from xtianity for a union between man and woman. Even though language has changed over the years, and the word “Marriage” probably did not even exist a thousand years ago, the concept of that word is the union of man and woman. Why can that not be accepted? If a couple is united and have the same rights, where is the problem?
UnGodly,
Glad that the UUs near you were able to touch you so deeply, just sad that it is the result of so many other organizations being so close-minded and intolerant.
I call UUism my religion, but in these circles usually religion implies supernaturalism and dogma, two things that I abhor.
A significant portion of UUs I know are atheist, so in that regard it’s non-religious (at least when it comes to expecting someone to accept belief in a deity). Non-UU atheist friends tell me that they don’t consider it a real religion, and from them I know they mean that as a compliment, so I take it in stride.
It’s so disappointing that the message, “you’re allowed to be gay and go to this church” would be worthy of controversy.
DD
Slavery was a tradition in this nation for a long time too but we decided that it was wrong just as CA decided that second class citizenship based on sexual orientation is wrong. Not all traditions are worth hanging onto.
Anyway, expanding the right of marriage to same sex couples in no way infringes on straight peoples right to the tradition of marriage so your argument really isn’t valid..
The problem is that separate but equal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separate_but_equal) does not work in practice and there is absolutely no secualr argument for creating parallel institutions like civil unions or domestic partnerships. Anything less than marriage means that gays really aren’t equal to straights in the eyes of the law. What you seem to be unable to grasp is that marriage is a civil institution which has been “redefined” throughout the ages to reflect the changing reality of people’s lives. Until the 1960s in this country couples of different races were forbidden to marry because people cited tradition and biblical passages to justify their bigotry but now most of us look back in shame at this prohibition.
There is nothing divine or unchangeable about a civil arrangment such as marriage and in the end it really doesn’t matter if you are uncomfortable with gay marriage or not since it is now the law in the most populous state in the country and will eventually be the law in all fifty states. I suppose you will just have to adjust to it and hope your marriage can somehow survive if two men in your neighbourhood decide to get married.
We are talking about real people’s lives here who have an unfair tax burden because of not being able to file joint tax returns, being left out of medical decisions or visiting a loved one in hospital because they are not considered family, or having less legal protection when it comes to raising kids.
I’m just perplexed that an atheist could be opposed to marriage equality!
Comment from: UnGodly
Prove it…
And again I’ll say…gay men are not prevented from marriage. A gay man can not marry another man. Neither can a straight man…
Comment from: alexatheist
No Alex…you’ve asked the courts to redefine the definition of marriage. A clear violation of your so called “myth”…
On what grounds would Christians sue in order to change the legal definition? The legal protections extended to citizens by civil marriage has to be given equally to all citizens because of the constitution. I don’t see how you can make a constitutional argument to restrict it in the way you suggest.
Legal definitions change all the time, and are not necessarily equivalent to regular English definitions. For example, a tomato is legally a vegetable, despite the fact that it is a fruit. I think you’re confused about this issue, phreedm, because you’re fixated on the whole “redefining a word which the Christians own” issue. The real issue is all about the right to equal protection guaranteed by the constitution. If they changed all marriages (even the straight ones) to “civil unions” or “Marklars” would you feel better?
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.