Julie Lyons is one brave woman

The Religious Institute agrees with your conviction that GLBT people "have a right to live and work and prosper in this country," a right that includes the freedom to marry. We also affirm the value of marriage -- for all committed, loving couples, as God has designed THEIR lives. For more thoughts, read Rev. Debra Haffner's blog at www.debrahaffner.blogspot.com.>

Good suggestion, Brent, but I couldn't go there. It's because I believe marriage is not solely a religious institution -- an expression of religious conviction -- but a social one as well. Deprivileging traditional marriage has had deleterious consequences for our society, and if that deprivileging becomes further institutionalized in the law, I believe there will only be more chaos.>

So why is her column only on the DO blog? I read the DO print edition every Wednesday, but I've never seen her column in it (unless they hide it among the strip-club and massage ads). Am I just overlooking it?>

So the Dallas Observer is to the cultural right of the Dallas Morning News on one of the defining religious and political issues of our time?

Knock me over with a feather.

Smart business move, in that town.>

Who are these conservatives and supporters of marriage who have been hurt for their beliefs? She has a column in an alternative newspaper and you control the Sunday opinion sectin of a large metro newspaper. Yet, the gay liberal cabal hasn't stopped you.

The idea that these ideas are suppressed in the media is a myth. Your beliefs are expressed in every major and minor newspaper in the country without people losing their jobs, as it should be.

There's nothing terribly brave at parroting the status quo position.>

Rod
interesting that "That's exactly how I feel" is not in tune with Catholicism..one either is or is not.. the current trend to be liberal, modern and feminist is not in step with Catholicsim!
Thansk>

Ed, I meant that I believe that traditional marriage follows the divine and natural law, and should be protected and privileged. But I also believe that gays should not be unduly burdened by law (or frankly custom), and should be free to live their own lives and prosper. And I respect their right to dissent from my point of view, and don't consider them anti-Christian bigots for doing so; I expect them to respect me and my views in the same way.>

Steve -- You're right: "symbolic" explains a lot.>

Now that I've actually read the column Rod linked to ... Tks for the link, fascinating piece, life is amazing, etc. Unsure what to make of it, really. But definitely impressed by one of her claims, which (if I was reading correctly) is that she has given up having sex fantasies. Now that's some serious self-control!

Wait ... She gives up sex fantasies ... She finds God ... She's happy ... So she's saying (maybe) that her sex fantasies were making her miserable?

My cheapo probably unfair analysis: She was taking her sex fantasies 'way too seriously. Many people take their sex fantasies too seriously, it seems to me. Hey America: 99% of the time, your sex fantasies aren't trying to tell you anything!

But, we're Americans, we're literalists, and that's what we do.>

Our editorial position is quite confused, and confusing, but in my view it comes down to this: We're not exactly in favor of gay marriage, though we can't quite say why; we like civil unions, and we pretty much wish the courts would just declare gay marriage so we can come out in favor of telling our readers the courts have spoken, let's accept it and get on with our lives.

The general position of the newspaper -- as distinct from the editorial page stance -- is very pro-gay. The paper runs gay marriage announcements. The coverage is overtly positive throughout the paper, and intentionally so. The paper publishes a "National Coming Out Day" special section, filled with stories extolling gay life in myriad ways. This is all very up-front at the paper, and intentional. In fact, the News is proud of its commitment in this regard.>

Frankly Susan, if the editorial page is viewed by progressives as merely pandering and bowing to conservative pressure, its leftist sympathies must be fairly obvious.>

I almost laughed out loud when I read Susan's remark about our editorial page bowing to suburban Evangelicals. You'd sooner see the NYT taking dictates from the Catholic League!

The truth is, our collective point of view is what I'd call "business Republican," but others call "progressive conservative." We're generally (but not dogmatically) conservative on fiscal issues, supportive of the administration (we endorsed former Texas Gov. G.W. Bush twice), but liberal on social issues. We don't have a uniform opinion -- the people I work with are fairly diverse, and I like them all very much. What's interesting is I meet both liberals and conservatives all the time who profess to despise our editorial stance. We're either arch-liberals or arch-conservatives. It depends on which issues are important to them, though. We're liberal on some things, conservative on others. The one thing we're most definitely liberal on is social issues -- which puts us very much at odds with Evangelicals. So we're a mixed bag -- there's something for most people to cheer for, and something for most people to object to.>

Julie's argument suffers from a bone chilling self-contradiction. At root, the value she espouses: "stinking self-absorption of this age." So she looks to her OWN, SELF-DEFINED heterosexualism and posts this as normative for all. She never rises to the point of seeing gays as human beings whose diverse expressions are every bit as healthy and whole as her own. In other words, she's espousing prejudice and bigotry. Oops! It's not PC anymore to call anyone prejudiced (even when they are). Strike that. Forgive me, thought police of Dreher world!

I wish the self-avowed narcissist well, but find that morally, she's basically a few stones above the stone age. We need moral development, not moral regression.>

Two things:

1) For those of you who want to separate the legal aspects of marriage from the religious aspects of marriage by calling it something else...don't worry...that's the way it currently is. Churches generally refer to marriage as, well, marriage. The government, however, refers to it as civil marriage. There is a distinct difference between the two, and neither is dependent on the other. If it's too much for people to differntiate, oh well, that's their problem...not the government's, because the government's very clear on the matter.

2) For those of you who believe that legally recognizing the marriages of gay couples is somehow "symbolic"...do you think the 588 state statutes regulating marriage in my state are "symbolic"? Do you think the over 1000 federal statutes regulating marriage are "symbolic"? Do you think all of these statutes were passed by legislatures for "symobolic" purposes? Or do you think, perhaps, they were enacted because of a certain need for them?

As a gay man in a loving, committed, monogamous marriage with another man, I can tell you that there isn't ANYTHING "symbolic" about it. There is only NEED. My partner and I need the same protections, priveleges, benefits, and rights that every other marriage needs. We need the same decision-making powers of legal marriage, just like you. We need the same retirement security protections provided by legal marriage, just like you. We need, just like you need. All we're asking for is what we need. We have no need for "symbols".>

MNW: Turn it around. If it's a contract then call it a contract then.>

Mr. Dreher,

contempt: The feeling or attitude of regarding someone or something as inferior


Bible girl proclaims "marriage is sacred. Leave it alone."

I am married. But, it's quite obvious from her statement (and from your statement regarding "disagreement") that you both see my marriage as inferior.

Is my marriage "sacred" or is my marriage inferior?>

Let me clarify that a bit. I wouldn't expect you to come to agree with me on the moral status of homosexuality, and I doubt very much that I could be persuaded to your side. We're dealing with fundamentally irreconcilable moral positions. But while our positions may be irreconcilable, we as people are not irreconcilable, which is why it's so dangerous and self-defeating to start by presuming the malice of your opponents. Which seems to be the default position in American public life on any number of issues...>

But while our positions may be irreconcilable, we as people are not irreconcilable, which is why it's so dangerous and self-defeating to start by presuming the malice of your opponents.

Then stop presuming the malice of your opponents.

As for reconciliation...

You are free to choose what you deem to be "sacred" in regards to marriage. As am I.

My marriage, to me, is sacred.

It appears to me that you believe that sacred marriages should be recognized legally. I agree.

Why is my sacred marriage not legally recognized?>

when you said that Julie Lyons "convicted" herself of contempt by asserting her belief in the inviolability of traditional marriage. If you'd care to clarify your statement, by all means do.

Oh, so it's not that you read all of that gobbledy-gook about hating you, etc. into what I wrote...I need to make sure I put a disclaimner on everything that I write that states that this should not be taken to mean that I think you hate me.*

*this should not be taken to mean that I think you hate me.


I respect your belief that you are involved in a marriage, but I don't believe it is a marriage ... nor do I believe that we are at liberty to define marriage. I suspect that within my lifetime gay marriage will be declared a constitutional right by the Supreme Court, and of course we'll accept that as the law of the land. But it still won't be marriage.

You're free to believe whatever you want. But your continued contempt for my marriage is quite obvious.

I get that when you say my marriage still won't be marriage, TO YOU, even when it's legally recognized.

You make no sense, Mr. Dreher. In one sentence you write "nor do I believe that we are at liberty to define marriage"...then by the end of the same paragraph you've defined marriage.

Nice attempt at dodging the question. But it's very apparent that you believe my marriage is inferior to YOUR definition of marriage and that you do not define my marriage as "sacred"...especially given that you don't even define my marriage as a marriage.

Do you define the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, nth legal marriages of Catholics that have never had an annullment but a plethora of legal divorces as "marriages"? Why should the government recognize these as legal marriages if you don't recognize them as marriages? I'd just like to know how Catholics get the benefit of the doubt and are still allowed to legally marry even though their marriages are not deemed marriages, much less sacred, by the Catholic church? It seems pretty hypocritical to me that the Catholic church and Catholics in general are so adamant about their positions regarding my marriage, but turn a blind eye and do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to condemn or shout their contempt about these other "non-sacred" marriages and their legality, don't you agree that that's blatant hypocrisy?>

I think it's pretty clear where you're coming from, MNW, and that it's a waste of time to continue this exchange with you. Stomp your feet and make faces all you want. It's a free country. I've got better things to do.>

you've got perfectly legitimate questions, but you're not posing them in a spirit of honest inquiry, seeking to understand my point of view, but in an accusatory and emotionally demonstrative way.

Why is it that "Christians" like you, always assume people are trying to attack you or accuse you of something? Being the "Good Catholic"(TM) that you are, I can only assume that it has everything to do with that well-established guilt and a conscience that refuses to let it go you've got going on.

Basically, Rod, when "Chrisitans" like you are confronted with "legitimate questions" about your faith, or anything for that matter, you prefer to attack the questioner, rather than answer the questions. It's rather clear that the reason you do this is because it's not so much that you want to answer the questioner...it's that you, yourself, don't want to ask yourself such "legitimate questions".

So go right ahead, Mr. Dreher...accuse away...it isn't me that refuses to dialogue and find solutions to these problems...it's you and the rest of the so-called "Christians" like you who just can't stand it when your silly beliefs are held to account in the world of reality.

Have a nice day.>

And by the way, Rod...

It's not my "style" of asking questions..or the tone...or the supposed "accusatory and emotionally demonstrative way" in which I ask them.

Be honest, Rod.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with that. It has everything to do with the fact that the questions I ask are difficult questions for you to answer...if you can answer them at all.

So you choose to be defensive instead, making accusations that I have been "offensive". It's as old as the books, Rod...and blatantly obvious to anyone with half a brain.>

I mean, if you truly wanted to find solutions to these problems, you'd resolve them in your mind and in your beliefs, yourself.

But you choose instead to ignore the difficult questions...much less ever ask yourself these questions...and choose instead to revert back to the same old, tired idea that faith is all that matters and resolving the difficult questions should be left to God to figure out...or at least some pompous self-righteous "leader" with a pointed hat you believe was appointed by God to dictate to you what you're supposed to believe...even if that creates even more legitimate questions to be asked. It's all so absolutely silly...and is the reason why nothing ever gets resolved.

Things will only get resolved when people, like you, find the courage to confront the fallacies, foolishness, hypocrisy, and injustice of your religion and your religious beliefs.>

And so we see that I was right, and that this line of inquiry proposed by MNW was only designed to get me to "confront" the idiocy of my religion. Didn't you just see that coming? Hissy fits don't count as reasoned dialogue. Just so you know.

And so we see that I was right, and that rather than confront the idiocy of his religion, Rod would rather play the defensive card and have a hissy fit, pretending as if he's been offended. Didn't you just see that coming? Hissy fits don't count as reasoned dialogue...and they surely don't resolve the idiocy of Rod's religion.

And, just so you know, Rod...projecting your weaknesses on others does nothing, except show what a coward you really are.>

Darn it...I forgot again...

Please do not take any of that to mean that I think you hate me.

Shall I continue with the disclaimers?...or do you comprehend that nothing I write to you should be construed to mean that I think you hate me.

I don't think you hate me, Rod. But I do think your religious beliefs do contain a certain measure of hatefulness, prejudice and arrogance.>

You know, no one is forcing her to marry a gay person. She can still marry a straight person. No one will ever hold a gun to her head and force her to.

And, really, the fact that homosexuals are the only people fighting for "teh precious sanctity of marriage" at an age where straight couples have a 50/50 chance of divorce and can be married on national TV at the whim of complete strangers speaks volumes.

No one is meddling in *her* life, she shouldn't meddle in the lives of others. Don't like it? Don't marry a gay person. That simple.

I'm reminded of the brilliant skewering of William Bennet by Jon Stewart.>

Like the saying goes, "The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on."

Rod:

I'll agree that MNW is using an emotional and infamatory tone, and you may even be right in the fact that the questions were not posed in the spirit of honest inquiry...but I found the questions posed were still legitimate and ones I have wondered about.

But even if MNW isn't being intellectually honest, you are not only in a dialogue with MNW, other people (like me) are reading. Honestly, I have always wondered how someone could reasonably answer the questions MNW has posed, but have always had to stop conversations because I didn't want to be rude or hurtful and challenge a friend's faith. Faith I might disagree with and see as irrational, but that saw as an emotional/moral help to a person I cared about.

But if you are having a rational debate, hopefully, I shouldn't have to worry about hurt feelings or social awkwardness here, and asking you to defend your faith (more crudely put ""confront" the idiocy of [your] religion") shouldn't be off the table.

It really does seem like you are avoiding some tough questions by just brushing them off and comparing the questioner to a barking dog. Please, for the lurkers and other genuinely curious people reading, it'd be great to see you answer the questions asked--even if they were asked in sub-optimal way.>

Brent,

You said, "If marraige is sacred, then let's get the government out of the marraige business and make it a strictly reglious institution. Define the secular rights currently accorded to married couples in terms of a legal domestic partnership. Then let each church define marraige in whatever terms it feels is appropriate, including or excluding whomever they feel like."

That has been the argument of the religious liberal/left since the beginning. I was married in my Church, and all I'm asking is that the government recognize my marriage the wame way it unquestioningly recognized all 5 of my 3 sisters' heterosexual marriages which were performed in their churches.>

Rod,

I saw your response later...

"I meant that I believe that traditional marriage follows the divine and natural law, and should be protected and privileged."

Traditional marriage is NOT under a threat from gay people wanting to enter the instituion. Traditional marriages are STILL permited, no?

Still want to know what "privileges" you have lost since I got married though.>

Rod,

"your post is an example of the thing that frustrates me most about what many gays and those sympathetic to them bring to the discussion: the conviction that to disagree with their position is evidence of hatred, of bigotry."

Rod, bigotry imposes its beliefs on others. YOU are not being forced to have a same-sex marriage. Your Church is not even being asked to perform them - nor will any faith if it is contrary to its tenets. However, in your reasoned disagreement, your side wishes to prevent those faiths that embrace quality from performing rites that are fully in line with their tenets.

THAT is 'what frustrates ME'. You are welcome to your beliefs and I hope you will concede that I should be welcome to mine. Why then should YOURS trump MINE in a court of law?

The hate speech gays have endured from "Christians" makes my hair go white at times. (See the many examples previously posted)

"But look, quite a few Christians who believe in the Bible's teaching on homosexuality"

Rod, a further thing that frustrates me is that the 'right' refuse to admit that "quite a few Christians" reject your side's interpretation of "the Bible's teaching on homosexuality. It is NOT a clear cut thing for many religions.

"Saying, "You hate me!" is not an invitation to dialogue"

Then I propose that the 'right' stop the hate language (again, listed at length above and elsewhere). When THAT stops, the calls of 'bigot' and 'You hate me' will also stop. I promise.>

Rod,

Your dismissal of MNW's question ("it's a waste of time to continue this exchange with you") is sad.

You say marriage is sacred. MNW asked you a very serious question about Catholics getting legally divorced and legally re-married, but their subsequent marriages are not recognized by your Church (i.e. 'sacred', or 'do not conform to your Church's definition of marriage'), and MNW - and I - would like to hear your response.

It is NOT a 'waste of time'. We really DO want you to explain this to us.>

there is an organization called "the trevor project". this helps suicidal teens who are having a tough time coming to terms with their own sexuality.
the venom verbiage that julie lyons spews will further serve to show these confused souls that you can pray the gay away. IT DOES NOT WORK.
thus, you leave these young people feeling like outcast, sinners, loosers,and fearful of discussing it with those that love them.
the hypocrisy that julie lyons believes all that is of the pentecostal church (for which i am very familiar) yet her paycheck is paid by sex ads, promiscous sex phone lines, vicoden ads to the tune of 2,492 adult entertainment spots listed on the website. it really is a bit jimmmy swaggert if you think about it.
from a personal standpoint, the fact that our only alternative newspaper might as well be run by the christian coalition is a bummer to the 100th degree.
however, now we are stuck with her as no one will fire her for lack of talent as she now has jesus on her side. the entire city of dallas will loose because her extremist views will certainly have a bearing on the type of coverage we see.
i fear that the next thing we will read is that fred phelps and his family will be taking over the dallas morning news and rush limbaugh will become creative director for the dallas voice.

if you want your brown eyes blue..you can make it happen with contacts. it doesn't really change the color of your eyes, and if you wear them too long, it becomes painful. same with sexuality.
you can no more pray away the gay than you can pray away the straight.

this will probably never get posted on this site.

jack jett>

Oops, I mean that I can NOT have with my partner. Not to mention the other financial hurdles like having to hire a lawyer to draw up an agreement so that, after we buy our house, if one of us dies the family of the other can't kick out the survivor and leave her homeless.

How is not being able to be related to the person you plan to spend the rest of your life with and are constantly financially punished for not being married to, NOT important?>

don't listen to julie lyons.

I think it's important that people listen to Julie Lyons.

But more importantly, that they don't buy the garbage she's trying to sell them.>

here is an exerpt from an advertisment that puts the bread on the table of julie lyons

this is about having sex with a
pregnant woman.

WHAT YOU SEE IS WHAT YOU GET...
AND MUCH MUCH MORE. 8 months along..(and yes we still can have alot of fun)
NO DIRTY TALK OVER THE PHONE SAVE IT UNTIL WE MAKE CONTACT - Errrrrrrrrrrr
IF YOU GET HUNG UP ON YOU'VE SAID TO MUCH, PLEASE DO NOT BE OFFENDED IF I DO.
I WANT TO STAY OUT OF TROUBLE, IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO ME.
I'M A FUN LOVING GIRL WHO LIKES TO GET DOWN AND HAVE FUN. I'M ABSOULUTLY GORGOUSE AND WOULDN'T MISS THIS OPPERTUNITY FOR ANYTHING ELSE IN THIS WORLD>

Her book was uterly fantastic and I know she is telling the truth. I hope God will lead me to a great church like that someday. I've been in the faith 18 years and have only found either hyped out or traditionally boring churches. Don't listen to your silly detractors like jack jet. Hell is real and they will unfortunately find that out the hard way. Thanks Julie.