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.
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!