Gay marriage legal in California

Big happy smile! : D

Then go.

"Can I just say one thing to Republican politicians? Don't insult me this election year with your huffing and puffing against gay marriage. I don't believe you anymore."

But tell me, Rod. Will you still carry water for the GOP when they pull your strings this fall? Because you know they will. The California case is already being used for campaign ads for Congressional races this fall. GOP candidates are getting briefed by anti-gay lobbyists, and money is being set aside to put these ads on TV, radio, print and electronic media throughout the country.

Within 48 hours you should see the first ads, probably in Iowa, where the Supreme Court has a case under advisement that could legalize same-sex marriage.

The GOP is going to play folks like you again, just as they have played you in the past. Will you listen and fall in line, yet again?

The state has always treated marriage as a contractual arrangement. It is not the state's responsibility to give marriage "transcendent meaning." That should be left in the religious sphere.

A far wiser approach is to take the state out of the marriage business altogether. States should recognize civil unions. Religious institutions should recognize marriages. Notably, there need not be a one-to-one correspondence between the two. That is, persons may be religiously married but not have a civil union, and vice versa. This already occurs. The RCC would not recognize my marriage, which was performed in a Lutheran church. The state does not recognize the "spiritual marriages" of the polygamist FLDS.

I agree with Rod, in part. If conservative Christians are so concerned about marriage, why don't they stop divorcing and remarrying so much themselves? Perhaps if they lived out in their own lives that which they try to force on others, they might actually sway a few folks that their position has merit.

But I have a hard time listening to lectures about the sanctity of marriage from folks who have divorced and remarried themselves more often than Britney has changed underwear.

For years Christians preached that the Bible supported slavery and prohibited interracial marriages. Today Christians look back on those folks with disdain, saying that they twisted Scripture to fit their own prejudices.

100 years from now Christians may look back on today's anti-gay advocates who use the Bible to justify their prejudices with he same disdain.

I say good for california.

As far as infringing on religious freedoms -- That only applies if the religious freedom doesn't infringe on anyone else. And 2 state supreme courts now agree that it does infringe on others.

Just exactly how does homosexual marriage threaten heterosexual marriage?

"On what basis will the state now limit marriage to only two people? That's the next frontier."

Or marriage between human and animals, or humans and fenceposts, or any of the other scarecrows put up by conservatives after the Loving decision was issued.

Same arguments...same scare tactics.

I disagree that polygamy is the next frontier. That venerable institution is well-attested in the Old Testament.

Polyandry. The true next frontier.

As for as I am concerned, GOD will be their Judge if you believe in HIM or not ! I know that gay life style offends HIM, living together does not. It's the sex between same sex that is wrong,not love.You can love the person and still not judge them. That is GOD'S Job.They will stand before GOD one day, all alone, to be judged, as we all will.

I see something beautiful, namely people like myself standing up and saying we want to make commitments that come with obligations, with responsibilities, that we want to build families, that we want to be part of society in a meaningful, productive way.

But sadly some will simply never be able to see that beauty.

This seems like a perfect day for me to rejoin the mayhem that is CC commenters.

The California Supreme Court just handed McCain the biggest present he could ask for--an issue that will enflame his base but in the end he can always blame the courts for their failures.

First, great news from California!!!

Rod: "Can I just say one thing to Republican politicians? Don't insult me this election year with your huffing and puffing against gay marriage. I don't believe you anymore."

Rod, you sound like a teen-age girl whose parents won't let her date. No one forced you to believe Republicans, and if you and your fellow social conservatives displayed a lick of common sense in the past 30 years, you would have called this for the shell game that it was, is and always will be.

Don't blame the politicians. Republicans have been pulling the strings of the religious right for 30 years. Why? Because they can. Because it works. Because in the Republican mind, religious conservative is spelled S-U-C-K-E-R. Hell, you got a big old Republican icon on your blog banner!

The truly sad thing is, everyone who's not a social conservative sees this as plain as day. No matter how many time Lucy pulls away the football, you guys line up to try to kick it again. Blame yourselves. You sold them your votes. Then you sold them your faith. When you tried to nominate one of your own (Huckabee) mainstream Republicans kicked him to the curb, and after some minor grousing most of you came back to lick the boots of Caesar.

So, keep on enjoying those benefits of Republican Leadership!

"The other question is what about polygamy? If the state is going to allow civil marriage for gays, I don't see any reason why three or more (though I'm sure there should be a limit to how many) consenting adults who love each other shouldn't be allowed to marry as well."

Neither did God. David, a man after God's own heart, had three wives according to Scripture, even before he took the throne.

1 Samuel 25:41-44

"She bowed down with her face to the ground and said, "Here is your maidservant, ready to serve you and wash the feet of my master's servants." Abigail quickly got on a donkey and, attended by her five maids, went with David's messengers and became his wife. David had also married Ahinoam of Jezreel, and they both were his wives. But Saul had given his daughter Michal, David's wife, to Paltiel son of Laish, who was from Gallim."

Three wives...Abigail, Ahinoam, and Michal. Clearly polygamy was not outlawed by God, otherwise he would have punished David for taking this second or third wife, just as he punished him for taking Bathsheba by murdering her husband.

Prohibitions against polygamy are cultural, not religious in nature. Even in the New Testament Paul acknowledges this in his instructions to Timothy and Titus regarding the selection of elders and deacons for the new church. They were to be "husbands of but one wife" because a man who had more than one wife would not have time to minister to the church properly. He would not be able to manage his house well while fulfilling his duties in the church.

How many other liberties should be put to the vagaries of public ballot, Derek? Freedom of speech? Freedom of the press?

Everything and anything not enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

Any other answer comes only from an enemies of representative government.

I agree with Rod on most of what he's said. Sometimes I can't believe how little was accomplished by GWB for religious conservatives when he had a Republican controlled Congress. However, I'm also surprised that anyone expected him to do anything about this issue considering that Cheney is a friend and his VP. Religious conservatives are right to be miffed. McCain isn't going to help on the issue, and even if he was so inclined, there's no chance that Congress would support it.

I agree that lawyers for religious liberty are going to be pretty busy over the next couple of decades. It's only fair that churches not be forced to marry people whom they don't think should be married, but I think that activists will try to force them. However, churches have the right to refuse to marry heterosexuals whom they don't think should be married. I couldn't have been married to my husband in a Catholic church or an Orthodox synagogue. I chose to have a civil union, but most people think that I'm married. I think of myself as married, and so does my husband. We even act married. Now I feel like making jokes about what it means to act and feel married, but I don't want to discourage any gays or lesbians that might be reading.

RJohnson: How many other liberties should be put to the vagaries of public ballot, Derek? Freedom of speech? Freedom of the press?

Simon: Everything and anything not enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

Any other answer comes only from an enemies of representative government.

-----------

Excellent! When are we putting slavery back on the ballot? Are you starting the petition?

"Omigod," says my husband. "Our 43 years of marriage are for nought. We might as well split up and move back in with our respective parents. Oh, wait, our parents are dead, aren't they? Could we move in with our daugher?"

Ok, let us assume that this war is virtually over and all that remains is desultory combat around the fringes. If we look at history, at least for the last couple hundred years, the social conservatives never win in the long run. They may win a battle and then have that victory not only reversed but demolished in a generation or two. If you list the major battles, the ones at least that we can think of, you cannot find one that the social conservatives won.

Popular vote--lost (and that battle is forgotten now but it was a big one in its day)

Slavery--lost

Artistic and literary expression--lost

Prohibition--lost

Birth control--lost

Abortion--lost

Divorce--lost

Non-marital sex--lost

The gay issue is virtually lost and cloning will be next.

The list goes on and the result is always the same.

This is just another defeat in a continuous stream of them. Given the wording of the California decision, it is unlikely that the same court will uphold even a state constitutional amendment reversing it and that language is probably what is going to ultimately decide the federal rulings to come.

It is difficult being on a losing side, but the side of social conservatism is the side of absolute defeat. And Benedict's solution won't work either. Just think of Waco.

So what do gays want next?

I want to respond to Dave, who fears the state does not respect his marriage. I can understand his concern, but would proffer a different perspective. The state has two people before it. One wants to end the marriage, the other does not. For whom will the state choose? Based on our current social values, the state currently chooses for the person who wants the marriage to end. That does not mean the state does not respect the other party. It simply means that between the two parties, the state has chosen the position of the party who wants to end the relationship.

Although many now complain about "no fault" divorce, proving fault in the context of a legal proceding is dehumanizing. When fault needed to be proven in the past, many couples chose one party to take the blame so that the divorce could proceed. Often the man would agree to pretend to be an "adulterer." An infamous book, "I Was the Blond Bimbo in 100 New York Divorces," recalls those days. Do we really want to go back to the days where people hired fake "bimbos" so they could divorce?

Again, if the state were dissolving domestic partnerships (gay or straight), not marriages, there would be much less emotion regarding the topic. The sanctity of marriage can be preserved by the various religious traditions as each sees fit.

"So what do gays want next?"

The 2,100 rights and benefits guaranteed under federal law to married couples.

Don't forget that blame goes to "Christians" who have used and promoted artificial contraception in marriage.

RJohnson,
Socialism doesn't involve "selling" your possessions and "sharing".

I'm just waiting for churches to be threatened with the loss of their tax-exempt status if they won't officiate over gay marriages. Priests and ministers are already restricted in their political speech from the pulpit. Frankly, I'm afraid that freedom of religion will be gradually done away with as a matter of social/political policy.

(1) Rod, blaming the GOP is both unfair and impractical. The Federal Marriage Amendment actually passed the GOP House in July 2006 on a 236-187 vote. It failed to get the 2/3 majority required. But ask yourself: How many Democrats voted for it and how many Republicans voted against it? And what do you expect to get from a Democratic-controlled House? Rod, they would never even let it come for a vote. Rod, they'd spit in your face. And, then they'd respond to urgings from the gay rights extremists in their base and find a way to outlaw half the things you dare to say, Rod, under the category of "hate speech."

(2) Yes, we all had better get more acquainted with the prescient writings of the brave and tireless Maggie Gallagher. And, perhaps too, re-read our history of the French Revolution. The most militant of the gay rights activists are among the most vicious and hateful people you'll find in this world. They'll stop at nothing. As a Catholic New Yorker, I vividly remember their attacks on our beloved John Cardinal O'Connor and their desecration of the Holy Mass. Yes, they'll keep pushing and inching along until they manage to put people like you and Maggie Gallagher (and me) in jail for daring to speak of natural law and Gospel values and their significance to issues of marriage and morality. If you don't believe me, just read some of the comments that have been posted here since the news came out.

(3) It will only get worse before it gets better. Does anyone think it stops with gay marriage among consenting adults? How long will it be before we're talking about marriage among multiple partners? Or recognizing so-called "man-boy love" as suitable for the sanctity of marriage? How about inter-specie? Or man and robot? Laugh all you want, but can anyone here who was around even only 25 years ago imagine that we would be seriously talking today about a 4-3 decision by the California Supreme Court to legalize gay marriage?

(4) Back to basics (and, maybe the Benedict option). Rod, you've been tireless in raising the Benedict option as something for the orthodox to pursue. And, yes, you're quite right that the sacramental meaning of marriage was eroded (if not debased) a long time ago and that it began with the sexually ordered. This horrendous decision today by the California Supreme Court is just another wake-up call for the orthodox to more effectively work, like a seed beneath the snows, to bring about authentic cultural renewal beginning at the family and neighborhood levels.

Why does everyone seem to think that "religious persecution" means "priests being forced to marry gay couples?" It doesn't. What it means is that expressing the thought that homosexual acts are sinful, that the desire to commit homosexual acts is disordered, and that thus gay 'marriages' are not only not marriages but the public display of a relationship based on deeply sinful and disordered acts, will no longer be tolerated in society--yet this thought is simply a quick statement of Catholic teaching on the subject.

So it will quickly become illegal (under discrimination laws) to express this Catholic teaching other then in a Church during Mass--and even then, there's a chance that churches that do so will lose their tax-exempt status. Then it will be illegal for Catholic schools to keep pro-gay textbooks out of the classroom if they want to remain accredited or receive any government aid or recognition. Catholic schoolchildren will *have* to read and study books which show gay married couples, etc., and both teachers and students will be forbidden to express any part of the Catholic teaching outlined above aside from religion class--and again, even then, it will be extremely risky to do so. It won't be long before even homeschooled students, in the states which regulate homeschooling, will be required to do a unit on the 'gay family' as a way of proving that they don't discriminate.

It will be illegal to speak, act, or otherwise express anything other than total acceptance and approval of gay marriage. I can foresee the possibility that just *being* Catholic will put you at odds with the human resources departments of most companies, on the grounds that your admitted Catholicism proves that you belong to a Church that 'discriminates' against gay couples. Anyone want to bet that Catholics seeking corporate employment will eventually have to sign some sort of statement expressing their personal approval of gay marriage, in opposition to their Church's teachings?

I'm saddened by the California decision, though not surprised--if there's been any surprise here it's that "starchy Massachusetts" put the stamp of public approval on sexual depravity before "wild California." But anyone who thinks that this isn't going to devolve into full-scale religious discrimination and persecution should the SCOTUS eventually follow suit is just kidding themselves.

Which has led me to a rather serious question. Most of my ancestors fled their home countries because of religious persecution. They came from revolutionary France; they were also Catholics from Ireland and Wales. They came because the promise of religious freedom meant everything to them, and made risky voyages and the severing of old ties worth while.

We are closer now than we have ever been to betraying the trust of people like my ancestors. Will we reach the point where we have done so? Will I find it necessary in my lifetime to make the same choice they did, and seek another home where my children and their children can live their Catholic faith without fear of punishment merely for accepting, believing, or expressing the part of it that deals with the sin of homosexual activity?

Simon, allow me to teach you a bit about the Constitution.

I asked the following question:

RJohnson: "How many other liberties should be put to the vagaries of public ballot, Derek? Freedom of speech? Freedom of the press?"

You responded with the following answer:

Simon: "Everything and anything not enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

Any other answer comes only from an enemies of representative government."

In response to my remark about putting slavery on the ballot, you responded:

Simon: "Perhaps you missed the three Constitutional Amendments by which the American people specifically rid themselves of slavery and its concommitant evils.

Or did you think that was achieved by some Court decision?"

The Bill of Rights includes the first TEN amendments to the US Constitution. Proving John Stuart Mill's assertion regarding conservatives, you clearly do not understand this. The three amendments that came in the aftermath of the Civil war were numbers 13, 14 and 15, and clearly NOT IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS.

It's sad that conservatives seem to know so little about the actual laws of our nation, or the documents that are the foundations of that law. Might I suggest that you set aside the "American Spectator" magazine, turn off FOX News, and quit listening to Rush Limbaugh long enough to actually bother reading the US Constitution and its Amendments?

Check with your local ACLU chapter. They have a nice pocket sized copy of the US Constitution and all of the Amendments.

I just wanted to let everyone know that I have not targeted Rod. I very much enjoy his perspective. I grew up in a traditional, devout family in rural North Dakota. Although I now live the life of an urban professional, I have a great deal of "crunchy con" in me.

I have jumped into this conversation because I practice family law. I am very familiar with how this topic impacts day-to-day decision-making in the courts.
The only other topic on which I have commented is fertility/life issues, on which I am much more conservative.

I think Rod attracts a lot of readers who have wide ranging opinions, and who do not fit a left/right stereotype.

"Even supposing that the narrow Republican congressional majorities of recent years could have passed major social conservative legislation, any such legislation would have been rendered null from Day 1 by the courts."

The GOP sat on the Human Life Amendment for those years they held control of both Houses. It was more valuable to them as a tool to win elections than an amendment to save unborn life. Had they brought it to a vote when they had the majority (and the public support) it would have either passed or built a huge amount of heat under those opposing it.

No...the GOP values winning elections, not saving lives. They toss evangelical conservatives a bone now and then to appease them, but nothing meaningful.

Strange how they fall all over themselves bring tax cuts to vote. Could it be that they love money more than unborn children?

RJohnson,

Thanks for yet another of your "scholarly" posts. I am familiar with the Bill of Rights, whose protections would be inapplicable to the states if not for the subsequent 14th Amendment.

My earlier point was simply that if the People of the United States have not specifically shielded a right from what you call the "vagaries of the public ballot," then the invocation of such a "right" by courts in order to override the public ballot are inconsistent with representative government and unconstitutional.

Perhaps something could be done to encourage California to secede? We'd get rid of this farce and Hollywood at the same time, to the benefit of all concerned.

"Polygamy is obviously next. It has more historical precedent, it is already being practiced via divorce and child support laws, and there's no argument left against it."

I predict it will be pederasty, achieved by reducing the age of consent. There's already a homo contingent that wants this, and there's no legal reason now why it shouldn't happen. After all, if I can "marry" my 21 year old homo lover, why can't I "marry" my 14 year old homo lover?

"I am continually surprised that the majority of commentors in the comment boxes on these hot-button issues are liberal. Or atheist when there's an issue of faith."

I have a theory about this: Beliefnet has certain rules about posting, debating, etc., that encourage secularists, liberals, and atheists to post here -- it's more of an open-forum type of blog, with Rod as moderator. On a harder-core conservative Christian blog, they'd last about 5 minutes before getting their clocks cleaned. I've seen it happen at several other blogs, such as 'Mere Comments' and 'What's Wrong With The World,' and undoubtedly there are others. Hence you seldom see their ilk show up there, and when they do, they generally default into temper-tantrum ad hominem attack mode, and then they get banned.

"We are closer now than we have ever been to betraying the trust of people like my ancestors. Will we reach the point where we have done so? Will I find it necessary in my lifetime to make the same choice they did, and seek another home where my children and their children can live their Catholic faith without fear of punishment merely for accepting, believing, or expressing the part of it that deals with the sin of homosexual activity?"

Erin...can you show me a law that prohibits Bob Jones University from teaching that race-mixing is immoral, even though we have the Loving decision on record? Can you show me a prosecution in the US for a religious leader who has spoke from his house of worship that women should be kept barefoot and pregnant? Or, more in keeping with this subject, can you show me a prosecution of a minister or congregation here in the US for refusing to marry ANY couple, even a heterosexual couple?

No doubt you will point to Canada and the minister who was allegedly prosecuted there. It's a story that has been all over the conservative blogosphere for some time, and actually predates the blogging revolution. And it is false, as this website illustrates:

www.religioustolerance.org/hom_hat6.htm

You see, Erin, we have the First Amendment's free speech protections, which protect the speech of those who say that Wiccans should be burned with napalm or rounded up and executed (as the Rev. Jack Harvey did in Texas in 1999). And, thankfully, we have the ACLU available to offer legal counsel in those cases where officials go bonkers and try to violate the right to free speech.

But what about the religious rights of those who wish to offer marriage to same-sex partners? What about the rights of Unitarian-Universalists, for example, who hold according to their tenets that ALL persons, regardless of sexual orientation, should have the same right to marry the person of their choosing? Should their right to freely practice their religion be subject to the government control?

The best solution here is for the government to make civil marriage available to all, and let the churches offer the sacrament of marriage to those who agree with their beliefs. If your church does not wish to bless the unions of same-sex couple, they should maintain that right. Other churches that wish to bless those unions should enjoy the same right. But the government should, and must, treat all citizens equally under the Constitution.

Simon: "My earlier point was simply that if the People of the United States have not specifically shielded a right from what you call the "vagaries of the public ballot," then the invocation of such a "right" by courts in order to override the public ballot are inconsistent with representative government and unconstitutional."

Simon, are you familiar with the clause in the 14th amendment commonly referred to as the "equal protection clause"?

"I predict it will be pederasty, achieved by reducing the age of consent. There's already a homo contingent that wants this, and there's no legal reason now why it shouldn't happen. After all, if I can "marry" my 21 year old homo lover, why can't I "marry" my 14 year old homo lover?"

How old do you think Mary was when she conceived Jesus? Many scholars think somewhere around 13 or 14 years old.

Should God have waited until she was 18?

That's a two-way street, Simon. The legislature of California TWICE--after the voter referendum--voted for gay marriage only to have the bill vetoed by the Governor. The representatives of the people have spoken twice in California, only to be told by the Governor that he wanted to wait until the Supreme Court ruled.

Just because the voters want it doesn't mean it is legal or Constitutional. There needs to be a constitutionality check on mob rule. Otherwise, voters could just eliminate Free Speech, or freedom of religion. The courts play that role as a check on that power. Civil rights and the rights of minorities will almost always routinely lose in voter referendums, thus the need for a constitutionality check.

Would Evangelicals or Catholics want to put their relgious rights up for a popular vote? I wouldn't want to, given how much animosity there is to religious believers. So there may come a time that religious believers are thankful for the power of the courts to protect them from the whims of the angry masses.

Simon, I'd ignore 'rjohnson' if I were you. You'll get nowhere -- he is a troll, albeit one who's somewhat more loquacious than the common garden variety.

"The idea that someone would have to move because of threats to religious liberties is absurd and alarmist, completely divorced from the reality of our laws and traditions."

...as the Bolsheviks explained to the Russian Orthodox, and the Jacobins said to the Catholics.

>We're talking about a law enacted overwhelmingly by California voters.

Current polling in California is about 47% in support of gay marriage. Public opinion moves about 1% a year, in favor.

When all opposition to same-sex marriage is described as "bigotry," religious or otherwise, there is really no argument to be had. People who say that are not interested in discussing and debating the issue. They're interested in calling the other side evil, and delegitimating their point of view. There's no point arguing about this.

Spiritually, "the issue" amounts to whether adult gay people have souls.

You can generate all kinds of sophistry out of religious texts to obscure and deny that core, and call the assertions made "religious". But it's just deception and selfdeception.

"But what of the right of a business to only give benefits to married couples? This isn't just about churches, it's the right of every individual, every business, every organization, whether expressly religious or not, to think and live as they please."

Can a business that provides benefits for married couples of the same race deny benefits to interracial married couples?

Erin Manning: "Will I find it necessary in my lifetime to make the same choice they [my ancestors] did, and seek another home where my children and their children can live their Catholic faith without fear of punishment merely for accepting, believing, or expressing the part of it that deals with the sin of homosexual activity?"

Erin, I sympathize with you. But where the heck are we going to go? The "New World" was a one-time "get out of jail" card for those seeking religious freedom. This is the end of the line, buddy, and here is where we have to make our stand :-)

simon:

The case centered around the California Constitution, not the US Constitution (although both apply); this means whether the US Constitution secured the right isn't relevant to the decision itself, and it also means the proposed amendment would override the decision easily.

The judges more or less found that:
1) The California constitution secures a right to marry, therefore any limitations on this right need to pass strict scrutiny;
2) The distinction between heterosexual and homosexual marriage doesn't pass strict scrutiny.

I don't know much of California Constitutional Law, so I don't know how valid (1) is, although (2) is fairly reasonable - strict scrutiny is, well, fairly strict. I don't think this would count as an act of "activist judges" under any definition that doesn't translate to "decision I don't agree with" - and I agree that there have been some decisions (see NJ Supreme Court's educational decisions) that fit a reasonable definition of "activist".

Adding a wrinkle here, the California Legislature has passed gay marriage legislation twice, but the governor vetoed it both times, oddly saying "I'm deferring to the court" (which he's said again now that the court has decided).

That's a two-way street, Simon. The legislature of California TWICE--after the voter referendum--voted for gay marriage only to have the bill vetoed by the Governor. The representatives of the people have spoken twice in California, only to be told by the Governor that he wanted to wait until the Supreme Court ruled.

A very odd interpretation of how the representatives of the people "have spoken." The people spoke directly on this question in 2000, when nearly 62% of the California electorate voted to prohibit gay marriage.

Constitutional Law 101: Legislation requires (i) bicameralism and (ii) presentment. The fact that legislative majorities vote for something is immaterial, absent the Executive's approval (or legislative override of a veto).

Just because the voters want it doesn't mean it is legal or Constitutional. There needs to be a constitutionality check on mob rule. Otherwise, voters could just eliminate Free Speech, or freedom of religion. The courts play that role as a check on that power.

Yes, there is a check. It's called the Constitution (state and Federal). And the Federal Constitution, along with every state constitution, enshrine religious freedom and freedom of speech as rights. Those rights were enshrined in those constitutions via the very same democratic process you deride as "mob rule."

The Constitution does not address questions of homosexuality or marriage, so those are within the vast realm of issues on which the People are free to act as they wish. D-E-M-O-C-R-A-C-Y.

Civil rights and the rights of minorities will almost always routinely lose in voter referendums, thus the need for a constitutionality check.

Nice the way you regard the American public as composed eternally of a bunch of oppressive bigots.

For all the ignoramuses spouting variations of "How does this impact your marriage / the society / etc .. ?", read the writings of Stanley Kurtz.

Suppose one homosexual is married to another. Then he claims spousal abuse. What was the abuse? "Fisting." The alleged abuser claims it was consensual. What should law enforcement do?

No fault divorce shows a lack of respect for the institution of marriage. It's treated as a disposable commodity rather than one of the cornerstones of civilization.

Very good point, dave. When the divorce rate for heterosexuals (currently hovering around 50%) comes down, perhaps we'll all listen when those same persons preach about the "sanctity" of marriage.

When the divorce rate for heterosexuals (currently hovering around 50%) comes down, perhaps we'll all listen when those same persons preach about the "sanctity" of marriage.

And what if it is not the same persons preaching about marriage, but those who have remained married and reject divorce? Will you listen then?

This "fight" was lost with the advent of no fault divorce. My marriage can be ended against my will and based solely on my spouse saying that there are "irreconcilable differences" that led to an breakdown in the marriage. I think this shows how little the state actually thinks of the institution. No wonder no one was able to present the court, or at least one more justice, with a compelling state interest in limiting marriage to a man and a woman.
Posted by: dave | May 15, 2008 3:26 PM

Huh? Isn't the marriage over for all practical purposes once one in the couple has decided that he or she doesn't want to be married anymore?

It will be illegal to speak, act, or otherwise express anything other than total acceptance and approval of gay marriage.Posted by: Erin Manning | May 15, 2008 4:12 PM

Just like it is illegal to disapprove of mixed race marriages - oh, wait, it isn't.

While a diversity of opinion on a blog that deals with public issues is a good thing, I am continually surprised that the majority of commentors in the comment boxes on these hot-button issues are liberal. Or atheist when there's an issue of faith.
Posted by: James P. | May 15, 2008 4:08 PM

You'd be bored without us - and this blog would be a dull place with not nearly as many page hits.

So, again, anyone want to tell me how gay marriage threatens the sanctity of my own marriage, because I just don't see how that does...

You're either lying or being dense, Susan. This act pushes the issue one step closer to the Supreme Court, making it a national problem.

So, suppose it becomes a national "problem." I still don't see why anyone is upset about it. You can take out the "live in California" part of my statement, and I still stand behind it.

For the record, I have several times challenged the opponents of civil same sex marriage to debate (off the forum) on why exactly this is a problem for us straight folks, and in every case my adversaries have dropped out.

However. I am a straight woman, mother to four, grandmother to three, married to the same man for 42 years. I don't have a personal horse in this race. I just like to see people make sense once in a while.

I just plain don't get it about why civil marriage of homosexuals is a problem in a society which (wisely) keeps the State and the Church separate. You may think such marriages immoral, as the Catholic Church thinks re-marriage after divorce immoral, and that is your right. You may say so; that is your right also. But to impose your version of morality in this situation on other people? Where there is no victim, where it's an alliance between consenting adults? I'm stumped.

And what if it is not the same persons preaching about marriage, but those who have remained married and reject divorce? Will you listen then?

Certainly. If they also include the argument about why divorce should be illegal.

I'd be very interested in hearing both arguments.

"As a Christian I preparing for persecution from the totalitarian left."

This will start as what people have called 'soft totalitarianism' (indeed it's started already -- that what PC is) but may slowly devolve to the more solid sort. I don't think we have to worry about the guillotines being greased up just yet, but still...

"So, again, anyone want to tell me how gay marriage threatens the sanctity of my own marriage, because I just don't see how that does..."

First of all, I don't recognize the term "gay marriage." In my mind, it's not marriage unless it is between a man and a woman. No court can change that. If that makes me "bigoted" to some, so be it.

As far as how a man's relationship with another man, being given the term "marriage," threatens my own, I would say it doesn't directly. But it does confuse the issue. Marriage involves two counterparts, a man and a woman. Believe it or not, the two genders are different. There are masculine instincts, and feminine instincts. When children are born, through a marriage as it is properly understood, there are paternal instincts, and maternal instincts. To call something marriage that rejects the necessity of these instincts, that pretends a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, can have a relationship that is comparable to a marriage between a man and a woman, is a confusion of the term.

My marriage is healthy, and will go on just as strong as it has been. But I am concerned for my two children, who will potentially grow up in a world where the word "marriage" has been expanded to mean something that it can never truly mean.

And the word "sanctity" is related to the word "sanctified." I believe my marriage to my wife is sanctified. While I believe that God loves homosexuals, I don't believe that He can ever bless or sanctify a "gay marriage." I think, instead, that His will is to save people from following their baser instincts and indulging in sinful behavior.

Concerning the popular view that Jesus never said anything condemning homosexuality, the fact is that He didn't need to. His audience was Jewish and knew that the law forbade it. Thus Jesus would often use the phrase, "You have heard it said... but I say unto you...." But when the gospel came to the Gentiles through the apostle Paul, he was very specific to name homosexuality as a sin, and as something that would keep people from the kingdom of God. It is not enough to say that Jesus never condemned homosexuality. The Spirit did, through the apostle Paul.

Susan: "The secular state already recognizes the remarriage of the divorced, which the Catholic and Orthodox churches (depending on various wiggle-factors) do not."

Just wanted to make a quick observation that this is not correct. For the most part, the Orthodox Church allows and recognizes remarriage. There are some restrictions; a second marriage is liturgically much more subdued, and the divorced are for the most part banned from the diaconate and the priesthood.

Bless,
Doug

Susan: One wants to end the marriage, the other does not. For whom will the state choose? Based on our current social values, the state currently chooses for the person who wants the marriage to end. That does not mean the state does not respect the other party. It simply means that between the two parties, the state has chosen the position of the party who wants to end the relationship.

That's right. The alternative is to force people to remain married against their will. If a relationship is over, it's over. Marriage laws such as these worked when married women weren't allowed to own property or their own wages; when if a woman did leave her husband, she gave up all rights to the children; where adultery and premarital sex were illegal. Some might want to go back to that, but my guess would be that the majority do not.

I can't see the benefit of forcing people to remain legally married when they are not even living together.

The biggest losers in this decision are probably in Orem, Provo, and Salt Lake City.

Yeah, now that gay marriage is legal, there's nothing stopping LDS believers from getting their polygamous marriages approved. The fundamentalists will overthrow the pragmatic leadership, or there will be a major scism.

Just wanted to make a quick observation that this is not correct. For the most part, the Orthodox Church allows and recognizes remarriage. There are some restrictions; a second marriage is liturgically much more subdued, and the divorced are for the most part banned from the diaconate and the priesthood.

Please excuse my ignorance. Isn't there some limit in Orthodoxy to how many times you can marry and divorce and remarry? Three? I could be way off base here. Perhaps 20 times is all good.

The Catholic Church does not recognize a re-marriage after a valid marriage and a civil divorce, and the parties to such a "marriage" are denied communion. And are held to be living in sin.

But I am concerned for my two children, who will potentially grow up in a world where the word "marriage" has been expanded to mean something that it can never truly mean.

And I have the opposite concern. When my children look at our gay friends, relatives and neighbors who have been together for decades, they ask why these loving people can't get married. My 12-year old once asked if society is really interested in people staying together and raising kids, why don't they let our neighbors Susan and Wanda get married so they can protect their son Jeremy.

One wants to end the marriage, the other does not. For whom will the state choose?

I don't think that's it. It's just that the state accepts that in a situation where one person wants out of the marriage and other one doesn't, the one who wants out has the upper hand.

The person who wants out badly enough can, and generally will, destroy the marriage by refusing to obey its boundaries and ruining its basis.

IOW, the issue of whether states can legalize gay marriage has been litigated and there is no national problem.

Well, duh. The question isn't whether CA can legalize "gay marriage", but whether the rest of us have to recognize it, and that's purely a matter of how 5 judges happen to feel that day.

I agree, Alicia. If you could contact me at chrismaca (at) yahoo (dot) com I'd like to ask you about something related without taking up more space here.

I'm one of the ones who dropped out (well, never started actually) after an exchange of emails strongly indicated to me that there was not enough common ground between us to even begin engaging in a debate on this subject. Don't make it sound like you whipped all comers, Susan.

That was not my intent, Rob. But I wrote several very long, very detailed emails to you and everyone else, analyzing the materials you had suggested, and you never answered. Saying that "there isn't enough common ground between us to debate" is a cop-out. You didn't even try.

But I didn't whip you, because you walked off. You're right on that one.

I was disappointed. I am disappointed. I'd like to hear a defense of your position which makes sense.

You know, it is possible to make sense without causing me to agree with you necessarily. I can understand, for example, the rantings-and-ravings of my right-wing schismatic "Roman Catholic" friends without agreeing with them. But I do see where they're coming from, and I sympathize with that. I think the "intelligent design" guys are nutjobs, but I can understand where they're coming from too.

But you don't give me a chance. You stalk off as soon as it is apparent to you that you might not change my mind. But why? I don't really think I'm going to change your mind, I just want to understand why you see it the way you do.

I've asked this question over and over, here and all over. What exactly is the problem here? What I get is, assuming the conclusion ("marriage is between a man and a woman, so a marriage between a man and a man is not a marriage"), off-topic discussions ("well, polygamy is horrible, so there you are!"), appeals to Scripture ("the Bible says it's wrong, so does it say that divorce and remarriage is wrong but we'll ignore that"), and arguments I just can't make sense of ("men are no longer inspired by women").

When my children look at our gay friends, relatives and neighbors who have been together for decades, they ask why these loving people can't get married. My 12-year old once asked if society is really interested in people staying together and raising kids, why don't they let our neighbors Susan and Wanda get married so they can protect their son Jeremy.

Sure, this happens right before the director yells "Cut!"

So, Daniel, does Jeremy have a father?

He. His married father and mother were drug addicts and abusive, and the child was taken away from the married couple when Jeremy was an infant as were three other children.

So, according to what our Church teaches, Daniel, Jeremy was taken from one abusive situation and placed in another; the official Catholic position on gay adoptions is that such adoptions involve "violence against children."

"So, according to what our Church teaches, Daniel, Jeremy was taken from one abusive situation and placed in another; the official Catholic position on gay adoptions is that such adoptions involve "violence against children.""

That is what the Vatican says. I think the exact words were "moral violence."

Fortunately for Jeremy and his moms, we don't live in a country where the Vatican gets to control who can adopt and has little say over the actions of non-Catholics. I see an incredibly happy child who was destined for a life of misery if he'd stayed in the home of his married, heterosexual parents.

Our church is misguided in its teaching, but I agree that Catholic Charities should not be required to allow gays and lesbians to adopt. Fortunately, none of that has any consequence on this blessed child and his loving parents.

If the Kurtz argument is being posted accurately,
Posted by: Old Susan | May 15, 2008 5:23 PM

It was, I can't make this stuff up...

Here's the link:

http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz043003.asp

Our Church isn't misguided in her teaching, Daniel; you're misguided in rejecting this teaching.

But you're going to be one of the people that gets used to crucify the rest of us, e.g.: "If person A is Catholic and says he has no problem with gay marriage, then person B must accept it also, and be silenced. Because clearly this teaching isn't universal, since so many dissenters from it can be found."

I don't see much hope for the future of Catholicism, or of Catholics, in America. Oh, people like Daniel will be fine, but those of us who think the Church's teachings aren't optional and actually matter will have to find somewhere else to be.

Well, it's more a question of what degree of further enabling the engrained cheating of the letter and spirit of the Equal Protection Clause they think appropriate.

Given the abuse of that clause over the past century, I got to give you credit for chutzpah, if nothing else.

Charles:

But what the individual social conservatives face is the problem of dealing with the neighbors and relatives who embrace things that they do not approve of. Their position is, at best, a difficult one. They cannot effectively isolate themselves and they cannot be constantly disapproving without being involuntarily isolated.

I don't agree, obviously, with your characterization of the situation, but if the "social conservatives" of whom you speak are indeed "isolated," well, perhaps they can regard it as suffering for the gospel. Pretty mild compared to being burned at the stake, yes?

So what do you want? Do you want to force everyone else, whatever their own opinions, by the power of the law, to conform to your ideas about morality? And if you can't you have to leave?
Posted by: Old Susan | May 15, 2008 6:35 PM

That is a pretty fair summary of the attitudes of some of the religious sects that settled here in the early days of America.

Marriage has been under attack from heterosexuals long before this ruling, i.e. no fault divorce, the invention of palimony, domestic partner benefits for STRAIGHT couples. I think as the country slides into decadence things will only get worse for religious believers.
Posted by: Zeke | May 15, 2008 6:44 PM

How do any of the things you have listed harm religious believers?

Young Susan (I like that!) back again.

It is wonderful to discuss these issues in the abstract. I would like to put some leaves on the trees.

Dave again asserts that no fault divorce has diminished the institution of marriage. Here is an example of what divorce looks like.

Husband and wife are married 15 years. The wife has Borderline Personality Disorder. When the parties married, the husband recognized that she had some "issues," but certainly did not see the landmines that were on the road ahead. The parties have two children. The wife's behavior worsens with time. The children are clearly being damaged by the wife's crazy-making behaviors. Finally, the husband decides he needs to leave, for the welfare of everyone.

What will the court need to do? Well, the children are a mess and are in need of counseling. They may be aligning with mom, even though she is mentally ill, because they are unconsciously furious at their father for not protecting them. The father needs counseling. The wife will need long-term economic help, because she is highly unlikely to get any better. BPD cannot be helped by meds, and it is notoriously difficult to treat in therapy. We have to keep the husband solvent, because the only way everyone stays afloat is for him to continue to bring in a decent income.

How would a finding of fault help this mess? Let's say the court says the wife is at fault. She's mentally ill, and her mental illness is probably partly genetic and partly based on a very abusive childhood. She doesn't seem to be at fault for either of those things. Let's say the husband is at fault. Probably the biggest fault on his side was not ending the marriage sooner so he could protect his kids.

If you think that the above example is unusual, you are mistaken. Abuse, addiction, and mental health issues are the biggest causes of divorce.

Now let's look at an older lesbian couple who have a large estate and three adopted children. Ever try to do estate planning for a couple who isn't married? When I was a new associate, an older partner came up with all sorts of crazy ideas to help this couple, including having one partner adopt the other. How would this protect marriage?

We can believe in the nobility of marriage. But ultimately, it is entered into by human beings. Acknowledging human frailty does not diminish the institution of marriage. Further, decoupling civil unions from religious marriages would clarify and enhance each.

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and He placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with His arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that He separated the races shows that He did not intend for the races to mix."

This is from the decision rendered against the Lovings in Virginia state court by Leon Bazile, as he issued a verdict finding that the Lovings were in violation of sections 20-58 and 20-59 of the Virginia Code.

---
20-58 Leaving State to evade law. If any white person and colored person shall go out of this State, for the purpose of being married, and with the intention of returning, and be married out of it, and afterwards return to and reside in it, cohabiting as man and wife, they shall be punished as provided in 20-59, and the marriage shall be governed by the same law as if it had been solemnized in this State. The fact of their cohabitation here as man and wife shall be evidence of their marriage.

20-59 Punishment for marriage. If any white person intermarry with a colored person, or any colored person intermarry with a white person, he shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by confinement in the penitentiary for not less than one nor more than five years."
---

In upholding this verdict the Virginia Supreme Court turned to wording frmo an earlier decision regarding mixed-race marriages, Naim v. Naim.

Justice Archibald Chapman Buchanan writing for the majority in Naim said, "No such claim for the intermarriage of the races could be supported; by no sort of valid reasoning could it be found to be a foundation of good citizenship or a right which must be made available to all on equal terms." He could find nothing in the U.S. Constitution, he wrote, that would "prohibit the State from enacting legislation to preserve the racial integrity of its citizens, or which denies the power of the State to regulate the marriage relation so that it shall not have a mongrel breed of citizens." Rather than promote good citizenship, he suggested, "the obliteration of racial pride" and "the corruption of blood" would "weaken or destroy the quality of its citizenship."

It's unfortunate that I hear the echo of those arguments in today's posts regarding the California decision. It was once argued in our nation that God Himself prohibited mixing of the races...mongrelization of the white race. Today we look back on that and realize how wrong that argument was. And then so many turn around and use the same logic to deny equal rights to GLBT persons.

How sad. I pray that in 60 years we look back on these opponents of same-sex marriage with the more mercy than we look upon the opponents of interracial marriage.

MDavid, How long do you think people like Charles & Bill will continue to leave us alone to freely associate? Homeschooling will be the first ting they attack.

I do agree with you about the baby boomers - however the kids they are leaving behind are even worse.

RJohnson, even now my oldest, 40, comes to me and says,"Can you make sense for me of this opposition to gay marriage? What is going on here?" He doesn't get it.

I am at something of a loss to explain it to him.

Old Susan, I haven't ever participated in your email discussions because I think you're being incredibly disingenuous here.

You're a lawyer, for heaven's sake. Are you completely unaware of the degree to which the state can interfere in the lives of its citizens on the grounds of "ending discrimination"? What about the father in Mass. who was told he can't exempt his young son from classes in which gay fairy tales are read to the children, that, in effect, his rights to teach his son "bigotry" (i.e. anti-gay marriage religious beliefs) ended at the classroom door?

How long before homeschoolers have to toe this particular line, and agree to indoctrinate their children in the pro-gay marriage party line as the price of being allowed the privilege of teaching their children at home? This is what a lot of people already want (the right of the state to interfere in homeschooling on the grounds that we have to check the kids' standards and ensure that no illegal activity is going on in the home). How long before the gay-rights groups insist that homeschoolers *must* be taught to worship at the altar of gay marriage, regardless of their parent's beliefs?

How long before opposition to gay marriage is seen as the exact same thing as belonging to a white supremacist group?

You know where this is going, Old Susan. You of all people should know how much the average American will be forced to shut up and put up with gay marriage, and how many of our rights we stand to lose in the process. That you claim not to understand any of this seems, as I said, disingenuous at the least.

"When all opposition to same-sex marriage is described as "bigotry," religious or otherwise, there is really no argument to be had."

When all supporters of same-sex marriage are described as "godless," "false teachers," or "promoters of immorality," there is really no argument to be had.

Erin Manning: "You of all people should know how much the average American will be forced to shut up and put up with gay marriage, and how many of our rights we stand to lose in the process."

Erin, do you feel the opponents of interracial marriage are being forced to shut up and put up with them? Do you feel that those who oppose interracial marriage on religious grounds are having their rights violated?

"Suppose one homosexual is married to another. Then he claims spousal abuse. What was the abuse? "Fisting." The alleged abuser claims it was consensual. What should law enforcement do?"

I think it's hilarious you're under the impression only homosexuals engage in fisting.

Old Susan, I haven't ever participated in your email discussions because I think you're being incredibly disingenuous here.

You're a lawyer, for heaven's sake. Are you completely unaware of the degree to which the state can interfere in the lives of its citizens on the grounds of "ending discrimination"?

This is by far the most reasonable argument I've heard so far on this subject.

Don't sprain your arm patting yourself on the back, though. Rob and crew haven't put up much by way of competition. (Telling me that men are no longer inspired by women as Dante was inspired by Beatrice is.....unconvincing. Yikes. Don't get me started.)

There's a fine line to be drawn here, but maybe the teachings of Jesus can help us out.

Jesus says, "Judge not, that you may not be judged. For the measure you mete out to another is the same measure which will be used against you." I'm not sure what this means in this context, but "don't stick your nose too far into your neighbor's affairs" seems the minimum.

Does that mean, as homeschooling moms (or as not-homeschooling moms) that we cannot/should not articulate moral standards to our kids? Of course not, that would be absurd. Does it mean that it's OK to encourage our children to stigmatize their homosexual friends as "sissies" or "homos"? Certainly not.

If the State decides that it's out of bounds to persecute homosexuals, do you have a problem with that? Why? Can you cite me anything from the teachings of Jesus which would contradict that? That makes such persecution OK?

How many children do you have? What are their ages? Statistically, a certain number of children will be found to have a homosexual orientation. Could this happen to you? And if it does, what are you prepared to do about it?

Based on the hysterical reaction, an observer could reasonably conclude that to be a conservative Christian is to be dominated by a spirit of fear and paranoia. The gays are coming, oh my.
My neighbors are a lesbian couple. Here is their radical gay agenda I see every day: 1) walking the dog. 2) watering their lawn. 3) sometimes walking their dogs together (shudder). The latter especially makes me hide trembling under the bed. How can the Church survive such an onslaught?

Great news, everybody! I just became a Hall-of-Famer! "Hall-of-Famer" used to be defined as "Universally recognized as one of the greatest ball-players". But I got it redefined by four geniuses as "Quit playing ball at age 13 when he found out he couldn't hit a curveball". And voila! I'm a Hall-of-Famer!!

Now we can all be whatever we want! Just change the definition!

This thread got very long very quickly, so I'll just offer a brief commentary on friend Simon's writing: The decision is lawless and cuts to the core of representative government: Are we a free people, with the right to govern ourselves within broad constitutional limits, or not?

I believe you are asking the wrong question, or your phrasing is too awkward.

The founders (basing this on a recent reading of The Federalist Papers and current reading of McCullough's John Adams) made it a reversible transaction: democratically elected representatives (republic) are delegated the responsibility and authority to make and implement decisions in the name of the citizens. Their terms are limited to give the electorate due opportunity to reverse the act of delegation in favor of a different representative.

Our votes, Simon, do not govern the nation. Our representatives govern, and if we don't like their performance, we replace them. The plebiscite was recognized as dangerous as a primary mode of governance; it has crept back in subtle ways. The referendum has given ample lessons concerning why plebiscites are dangerous.

It is a constitutional question, Simon, but not in the way you seem to think. Same-sex marriage is just the latest in a long list of issues that are not directly covered by the existing civil protections. I sympathize with the "then what's next" complaint, because precedent has become the lazy judges' path to decisions, but our basic legal structure is designed to make the big issues isolated and independent. It remains to be seen if other relationships will gain the same protections, and each one will (I am hopeful) receive its own time in the judicial spotlight, and ridiculous notions like the 21-year-old having the right to marry means a 14-year-old is next will be given their due, well, ridicule.

Finally, I must disclose that I hold a cynical agreement with you on one aspect of the American legal experience: ridiculous things have been known to result from the process.

I can't figure out what the source of the fear may be, but I see how powerful it is. How irrational.
Posted by: Old Susan | May 15, 2008 7:58 PM

Some [fears] might stem from the Pat Robertsonish idea that God will destroy this wicked nation if we go so far as to not persecute gays.

One of a many rough-and-ready rules of thumb in the spiritual trade: When you find out that God disapproves of all the same people you disapprove of, take this as a warning: you're on the wrong path.

You know where this is going, Old Susan. You of all people should know how much the average American will be forced to shut up and put up with gay marriage, and how many of our rights we stand to lose in the process.

Erin, can you be more specific about what rights will be lost in this process?

Great thread, thanks folks. I can sympathize some with RJohnson's description of how he used to strongly debate the other side of this issue. My own thinking has changed on it quite a bit, or I should say changed back to where I was before becoming a Christian, back towards support for marriage equality, perhaps in the form of the distinction between state-sanctioned civil unions for all, and religious marriage at the discretion of the religious body. I actually once wrote an article for an Orthodox publication taking a stand against gay marriage, and drew on my own personal adventures in miscegenation (I'm half of a male/female white/black marriage) to argue against gay marriage. I wouldn't write the same article today.

Jack makes a great point about the threat posed by his gay neighbors. My gay acquaintances over the years have been equally threatening. One thing that I kept returning to over the years was the fact that I spend a lot of time with a close male friend, a hiking buddy and old college roommate. And I've had to deal with that uncomfortable feeling when I'm out with my buddy and having a good time without our wives, and stop and worry that folks might be looking at us and thinking we're gay.

When I wrote that article a few years ago, part of the lesson I drew from this experience was that gay marriage endangered close friendships among heterosexual males, because they would be concerned about appearing gay. In hindsight, that seems rather silly. Instead, a better lesson seems to be that if being a gay couple is so indistinguishable that it would be possible for my friend and I to be mistaken for being one, that maybe civil recognition of gay relationships wouldn't be quite such the cultural disaster I once argued that it would be.

Bless,
Doug

Hi Chris.

I have to disagree with Old Susan on something though, encouraging your children to call homosexual's sissy's etc isn't wrong. People should be allowed to raise their children how they want.

You would advocate, then, that it is perfectly OK that children be raised to call American of African descent n**gers? On the ground that "people should be allowed to raise their children how they want"? This would be OK why?

Is this supposed to be a Christian standard, or is this just rampant individualism? If Christianity, please to quote Jesus where he says that this kind of behavior is acceptable.

Would you think this position OK? If not, why not, and if you maintain that calling homosexually oriented children "faggots" is OK, can you make a rational distinction?

mdm, please forgive my laughter, but that is the all-time best typographical error, ever, in the world... and I'm almost sorry you posted a correction. Leave them guessing, I say. ;-D Oh, and from my reading, those scientists have not "stopped short". They've been stopped by inadequate technology or too many questions that need answering. Stay tuned...

Old Susan, the correct (and politically incorrect) answer to your question is: it is not up the law to decide that it's okay. It's up to us as a society to act upon such things in social ways. That is the long, slow and painful road, and the only one with a true remedy at the end of it. It means people raising their children in the fashion you describe. It also means that some of those children will become estranged from their parents as one result.

All that a law does is force the newly-criminalized to go underground, or find legal ways around it. For evidence, I offer you the 100+ years from abolition through the Civil Rights era. And those were good and necessary laws that were desperately needed. Imagine frivolous laws that only thought police could enforce, how they would be received and/or work...

The following are from two articles I published three years ago in Philosophia Christi (footnotes omitted):

(1) [The logic of gay marriage] instructs the nation’s citizens that marriage is not a natural institution that the state recognizes, but rather, an institution socially constructed that cannot in principle be limited by what marriage actually is, because its actual nature is what we will it to be. Instead ofmarriage being an institution we may freely enter and to its nature submit, it is an institution whose nature we freely shape and submit to our will. Therefore, `laws recognizing gay marriage,' as philosopher Michael Pakaluk argues, `imply the falsity of the view that marriage is an objective reality prior to the state.' There are several implications that follow from this. For example, Pakaluk points out that `parental authority must stand or fall with marriage.'
For `if the bond of husband and wife is not by nature, then neither is the government of those who share in that bond over any children that might result.'Consequently, 'laws recognizing gay marriage imply, similarly, that parents have no objective and natural authority over their children, prior to the state.'This would mean that parents would have no natural right, no actual moral grounds, to
object to the public schools teaching their children lessons about human sexuality that are contrary to the lessons taught in church and home. The state,
of course, may grant an exception to these “backward” parents, but not because they have a prelegal obligation to care for and nurture their children in shaping their character and directing their moral compass. Rather, the state may consider it politically wise to tolerate these families and their religious traditions. But it would not be as a matter of principle based on the order and nature of things.

Ironically, if this view of marriage were dominant in our legal culture when the Supreme Court rejected the prohibition of interracial marriage in the case of Loving v. Virginia (1967), the moral grounds for its opinion would have been lost. That is, in order for the Court to have concluded that forbidding interracial marriage is wrong, it would have to know what marriage is. But if marriage is merely a social construction and not a natural institution, the state of Virginia could have argued, like contemporary same-sex marriage proponents, that marriage is merely a social construction subject to our will and nothing more. It is only because the Court knew that marriage is between a man and a woman that it could say that race, like height, geography, or place of residence, is not a relevant characteristic for two people to marry.

(2) Hadley Arkes points out that a legal regime which does not withhold endorsement of same-sex unions sets into motion a certain moral logic that will likely result in the condemnation and marginalization of those, especially traditional Christians and Jews, who resist this endorsement in their communities and institutions. For example (this is my example, not Arkes’s), a philosophy department at an Evangelical Christian college that refuses to hire `married' same-sex couples while receiving federal funds, may, according to this moral logic, have its government funding withdrawn because it would be engaging in unlawful discrimination based on marital status. This is why Arkes refers to one congressional bill that would have banned discrimination against homosexuals by private businesses, as the `Christian and Jewish Removal Act,' `for it promises to purge serious Christians and Jews from the executive suites of corporations, universities,and law firms.” 8 After all, why would a university hire a Christian philosophy professor who holds “discriminatory” views if the espousal of such
views could put the school at risk of civil or criminal litigation? Arkes tells
of the case of “the wife of a shop owner in Boulder, Colorado, [who] had given a pamphlet on homosexuality to a gay employee. For that offense, she was charged under the local ordinance on gay rights, and compelled to enter a program of compulsory counseling.” Imagine if “same-sex marriage” were to become legal in every jurisdiction in the United States. Does anybody seriously doubt that recalcitrant social conservatives, serious Christians, Jews, and Muslims, who resist this change in any public way, would receive the swift and certain punishment of the law?

In conclusion, a regime’s understanding of the nature of marriage is wholly contingent upon a cluster of beliefs about human nature and gender, not to mention the good, true, and beautiful. If this were not so, then proponents of same-sex marriage would have no metaphysical ground for their position. But, as we have seen, a necessary condition for the permissibility of same-sex marriage is for the state to declare that the notion of proper function of sexual organs is irrational. The Supreme Court has already provided this condition last year in Lawrence v. Texas, declaring that Texas’s antisodomy law does not even pass the Court’s rational basis test. Moreover, if same-sex marriage were to become legal, it would result in the criminalization and social condemnation of the actions of serious religious believers. Regardless of what one may think of same-sex marriage, a government that affords it the approval and protection of its laws is instructing its citizens on what they ought to believe is good, true, and the beautiful. This is hardly a legally neutral position.

----

"Someone who expresses deep skepticism about the nature of marriage is not in the best position to start pronouncing moral judgments about what he knows about the legitimacy of other possible marital arrangements that may involve relations as diverse and wide-ranging as polygamy, bisexuality, bestiality, or incest. I know that such liaisons may make your skin crawl, but that’s how people once felt
about homosexuality and were told that they harbored irrational prejudices fueled by animus. Who really knows that tomorrow’s Lawrence v. Texas will not be Rover v. Wade, an opinion accompanied by ACLU briefs citing the now-infamous review essay by the eminent Princeton ethicist Peter Singer, `Heavy Petting'?

Once we detach marriage from the natural teleology of gendered persons and try to replace it with one that is a social construction more fitting to what we desire to be true, we have, ironically, put in place a skepticism concerning what we can know about the human good that undermines gay rights itself. Let me explain. Although we know of people who desire or willingly embrace ignorance, we believe these people ought to desire knowledge and wisdom. In fact, many gay rights activists attack their opponents by accusing them of being backward and ignorant, implying that the natural purpose of the human mind is to acquire knowledge and be wise. But if a human person is a socially constructed being with no overarching purpose or telos, why would ignorance be wrong if someone desired it and believed himself or herself to be “born that way”? So, if the natural teleology of the body (or person) is inadequate to convince the proponents of same-sex marriage that their position is incorrect, then they must abandon the natural teleology of the mind, which they consistently employ to scold their opposition, for the latter is as well-established philosophically as the former."

The articles from which these extensive quotes come may be found here:

http://homepage.mac.com/francis.beckwith/neutrality.pdf
http://homepage.mac.com/francis.beckwith/response.pdf

All 8 articles in the published discussion--pro and con with responses--may be found here: http://homepage.mac.com/francis.beckwith/same-sex.pdf

Jack: My neighbors are a lesbian couple. Here is their radical gay agenda I see every day: 1) walking the dog. 2) watering their lawn. 3) sometimes walking their dogs together (shudder).

I used to work across the street from a lesbian couple. They won garden club awards. :D

The point is, scare tactics don't work anymore.

Oh, people like Daniel will be fine, but those of us who think the Church's teachings aren't optional and actually matter will have to find somewhere else to be.

If you haven't moved your family into a bunker for fear you will have to be nice to gay people, Erin, I can reassure you that people like you will be fine. Despite all your paranoia, there is no country in the world more concerned with the religious liberty than the U.S.

Being nice to gay people is not going to going to ruin you or your children, and thinking a loving lesbian couple are abusive because they've adopted a child thrown away by a married heterosexual couple isn't going to get you tossed into some speech prison. Because this is America and we have the Constitution, which means that both lesbians raising kids and homeschoolers raising kids both are protected by the law, even if they think the others are evil or oppressive.

I believe the Church is misguided on this issue. Given your constant whining and ranting about Vatican II, you clearly believe the Church was misguided when the Pope--as opposed to some midlevel Vatican bureaucrat--announced the reforms that you've fought so hard against. Yet we are still both Catholics and we will be tomorrow. And the next time we both take Communion, we will do it as sinners asking for God's blessing and forgiveness.

"What I often find interesting is that in legal debates like this, gay-rights activists want homosexuality to carry the same genetic-based legitimacy as race (we're born this way, there is nothing we can do about it, holding this against us in any way is discrimination).

Yet, when scientists actually attempt to find the genetic or biological etiology of same-sex orientation, gay-rights activitists explode with fury and indignation. The fear is that if a true genetic cause is found, it can somehow be 'fixed.' For instance, last year when researchers at Oregon State were looking at homosexual activists in sheep, and how they could be changed, the researchers were attacked mercilessly by gay-rights groups (even Martina Navratilova, if memory serves). The researchers were even threatend with a loss of funding, and this even when their research had no bearing on humans whatsoever.

[snip]

But gay-rights activist groups can't have it both ways. There is too much at stake. If we are going to equate sexual orientation with race, then there will be major consequences...churches WILL, for instance, lose tax-exempt status if they don't grant equal rights to gays. But to be honest, I don't know how in the world we can equate sexual orientation with race unless we actually determine a genetic basis. We just can't assume the genetic basis is there.

Posted by: mdm | May 15, 2008 8:33 PM"

So muchnonsense to refute...

"gay-rights activists want homosexuality to carry the same genetic-based legitimacy as race"

Seems the State Supreme court has the same desire - it's in their rulting.

"when scientists actually attempt to find the genetic or biological etiology of same-sex orientation, gay-rights activitists explode with fury and indignation. The fear is that if a true genetic cause is found, it can somehow be 'fixed.'"

But doesn't the RRR want us to be "healed"? I think your supposition is a reflection of them, not of scientists or gay people (activists or not).

"when researchers at Oregon State were looking at homosexual [activities] in sheep, and how they could be changed, the researchers were attacked mercilessly by gay-rights groups"

And rightly so. When was the last time scientists worked on changing heterosexuals, sheep or human?

"But gay-rights activist groups can't have it both ways."

Gay people, activists or not, don't want "it" any way but equal.

"churches WILL, for instance, lose tax-exempt status if they don't grant equal rights to gays"

Hasn't happened in Canada WRT marriage. Not a single Church, Synagogue, Mosque or Temple has lost its tax exempt status for refusing to marry same-sex couples. Not in the 7 years since the first legal same-sex marriage. This is pure delusion (aka the bering of false witness).

"I don't know how in the world we can equate sexual orientation with race unless we actually determine a genetic basis"

You seem to forget that the court also added "religion" in addition to race and gender. And all religion is chosen. Ergo, your 'argument' is prety well moot.

It's about treating all citizens equally before the law. Get over it.

RJohnson,

"Or marriage between human and animals, or humans and fenceposts, or any of the other scarecrows put up by conservatives after the Loving decision was issued."

Marriage between humans and animals was also raised by one Mike Huckabee just a few short months ago, along with marriage between adults and children.

And here on this very blog, between humans and plants.

Like you said, "Same arguments...same scare tactics." (Though I wouldn't really call them "arguments" at all.)

G.K. Chesterton observed that a bigot is not someone who thinks he's right, but one who can't imagine how the other guy could come in good faith to be wrong.

There's a lot of bigots cheering the California decision in these comboxes. Indeed, the whole gay marriage argument elsewhere in the public square as well as here seems to be the self-evidence that this is just about equality, and that any argument to the contrary is bigoted and in bad faith.

bigot, n. [Origin uncertain] A person obstinately and unreasonably wedded to a particular religious creed, opinion, or practice; a person blindly attached to any opinion, system, or party, and bitterly intolerant of those who believe differently.

--The Lexicon Webster Dictionary

"So, according to what our Church teaches, Daniel, Jeremy was taken from one abusive situation and placed in another; the official Catholic position on gay adoptions is that such adoptions involve "violence against children.""

That's fine for your Church, Erin, but you might want to find a better argument to convince non-Catholics that gay couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt, since that line won't be very convincing to them. Or many American Catholics, for that matter. Yes, I know, if they don't agree with you and cite chapter and verse of canon law and the Catechism they aren't real Catholics, but since they haven't been booted from the Church yet and self-identify as Catholics, but if you actually want to win this argument in the legal world...

ex-Pentacostal, is this relevant?

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=10448

Maybe so, or maybe it's nonsense.

And I guess the oft-mentioned fact that Catholic Charities in Boston had to get out of the adoption business is also irrelevant.

I will say that Canada...or Sweden, or wherever...is not a reliable barometer for what will happen here in the U.S. Maybe polygamy hasn't followed gay marriage in Sweden...but that's because in Sweden they don't have a relatively sizeable contigent of people clamoring for polygamy. We do here (relatively, at least large enough to make noise in the courts), and if they see an opening they will attempt to exploit it.

From the NY Times regarding the research project at Oregon State, when Martina Navratilova, "wrote in an open letter that the research “can only be surmised as an attempt to develop a prenatal treatment” for sexual conditions." She was the one voicing concerns about changing sexual orientation, not the 'RRR', which I assume you mean to be something akin to the religious right.

There is much else I could say about your reply, but I'm not going to argue this point any further. Your extremely unpleasant and dismissive tone reminded me of why I rarely post on these boards.

"Four judges decided (against the will of the people expressed in a referendum) to elevate gay marriage to the same status as heterosexual marriage."

Yes, Derek Copold, that's what equality means - equal. The Proposition that was passed (eight years ago - interesting how that coincided with Bush's first 'election', eh?) was an UN-Constitutional one. And that is the job of the courts - to determine if a law is just or not. it's called protecting minorities from the tyranny of the majority, and it's a good thing. Ask Mildred Loving, bless her recently departed soul.

"Any other answer comes only from an enemies of representative government."
- Simon

Funny how the duly elected representative government of California voted twice in favour of equal marriage. Are they their own "enemies"?

"We're talking about a law enacted overwhelmingly by California voters. Constitutionally, the motives of the voters or the legislators are irrelevant. If they have the right to enact a law banning gay marriage (as they do), then they have that right"

No, Simon, you are mistaken; they don't have the "right" to pass UN-Constitutional laws.

"But while it's true that Christians oppose "gay marriage"

That is not a true statement, Simon. Some Christians oppose it; others clearly do not. This is more bearing of false witness. (And P.S., no smarmy quote marks are necessary. Mine is a legl marriage. But thanx 4 playing anyway.)

"I'm thinking that maybe England might be a good compromise." - Roland de Chanson

Roland, better watch out. Don't forget, England has civil unions.

"So what do gays want next?

Posted by: caroline | May 15, 2008 3:52 PM"

Equality, caroline. It's supposed to be guaranteed to all citizens. Thanx 4 asking.

They're afraid their children will turn out gay.

Or worse - that they are gay.

Not anyone on this forum, but one thing that consistently drives fear of gay people is the fear of gayness in oneself.

Rod, Maybe it's time to take the Elephant down from your banner :)

Just curious what Republican Legislators said wnet back on their word against gay marriage? I am serious so I can make sure I donate to them in the future Didsdome reverse themselves. Di you actyally think the Republicans could get the votes for an amendment last year?

Rod you can be critical of Republicans if you want. Just don't blame us if we can with a snap of our fingers get Sen Boxer and others to see it our way.

I understand keeping the GOP feet to the fire. However we do have a lot of states on record and that helps.

I think we need a little perspective here. Gay men and Lesbians make up, what, 3-4% of the population? Even if they eventually marry at the same rate as heterosexuals, the number of same-sex marriages will never be large in any comparative sense.

And, yet, we have one overwrought commentator here who's giving thought to where she's going to flee once same-sex marriage engulfs our land! Pathetic!

I would make this observation: We have in the US a divorce rate of approx 50%. Roman Catholics divorce and remarry at about the same rate as Protestants. Their remarriages are largely outside the Church, and according to Church teaching those who remarry in this manner, are living in adultery. I'm thinkin' this far exceeds gay marriage numbers. And, yet, I don't see any call on the part of (Catholic?) right-wingers to outlaw divorce and remarriage. And I wonder Why?

(Erin Manning: Help me out here!)

Till then? My conclusion: Opposition to same-sex marriage is simply the result of small-time, small-town, gay-hatin' homophobia.

I wanted to insert a quick memo to everyone else involved in the left-wing, gay-loving conspiracy to oppress Catholics and drive Erin, Reaganite, etc. out of the county to live with Muslims.

Our next meeting is Tuesday. Bruce and his special friend David are bringing pie, and it's home-made! Our plan to drive Erin, Reaganite, Donny, Catholics, Orthodox, Mormons and all other decent Americans to go live in Saudi Arabia is moving ahead as planned. Thank God for all those closeted drag queens we inserted into the California Supreme Court with the promise of free "little black dresses" for everyone.

The good news is that this will help create global peace and understanding with the Middle East, as so many Bushie Conservatives move to Muslim countries where gays can be tortured and executed, like in the good old days.

Look, to our shame, the Bible, Church teaching, Catechisms and the like have been used throughout the ages to justify the oppression of women, the slaughter and forced conversion of pagans, Jews, Muslims, and various forms of heretics. It was used to justify racism, slavery, the Irish Troubles, and about a million other bad things. They all finally went away, because they were wrong. But you want me to belief that THIS thing is different...history will show that while ALL those other things were mistakes, THIS is the one that will prove to be right.

It won't. Discrimination against gays will eventually go the way of all these other injustices, the way of the dodo. Slowly, painfully, humanity is growing up. Religions that grown up with it will thrive...those that don't will still find followers, and be free to so believe, but will be marginalized in the public square just like any other backward, ethnocentric group. Such groups will find plenty of fodder in the global South, where many people are only now rising out of violent tribalism, and so need the black-and-white boundaries of fundamentalist religion. Those nations where the majority of the population have moved on to worldcentric, pluralistic positions, will have more suitable versions of these faiths, or others, active within them.

200 years from now, if we don't collapse civilization by our mistreatment of the environment or the release of WMDs, our ancestors will look back and find this all as ridiculous as the resistance to women's suffrage at the turn of the 20th Century. And yes, by then there will probably be legal polyamory, polyandry, polygamy, and maybe even something involving clones forming pair-bonds, which I hereby name "multi-coporeal transmasturbation".

And the abiding parts of the Gospel, of Islam, of Judaism, and other faiths will endure. Love of God, love of neighbor, mercy, compassion, forgiveness, contemplative practice, etc. will be things we're all still working on, and still consider worthy.

They remain, and have remained, because they are right. Bigotry, discrimination, fear, and ethnocentrism are wrong. But I pray they'll never be outlawed...merely outgrown.

Humor and criticism aside, looking back over my post, let me say I'm actually sorry for the many people this terrifies. I think your fear is unwarranted. And I promise that if the nation tries to punish or oppress you, I'll vote against it.

"Catholic schoolchildren will *have* to read and study books which show gay married couples"

Oooo, that is scary, Erin. I can just imagine 'having' to read books that reflect reality. Such a hardship.

"It will be illegal to speak, act, or otherwise express anything other than total acceptance and approval of gay marriage."

Poppycock. The Holy roman Catholic Church in Canada is still speaking out and expressing their disapproval.

"sexual depravity"

We're talking about marriage here, a commitment (in my case, before God and my community). Alarmist much?

That your ancestors "came because the promise of religious freedom meant everything to them" is admirable, but you make a grave mistake if you presuppose that religious freedom isn't of the utmost importance to other people of other faiths that simply disagree with your faith's take on the issue.

Derek Copold said, "Do democratic majorities make bad mistakes? Yes," and Prop 22 was one of them.

"but you take the good with the bad."

Nonsense, otherwise you'd still have anti-miscegenation laws, etc.

"On what basis will the state now limit marriage to only two people? That's the next frontier." Rod Dreher

Typical fear-mongering/slippery slope malarkey of the conservative right. Gay marriage has been legal in Canada for 4 years now and you would be hard pressed to notice any difference in society from ten years ago.

And I promise that if the nation tries to punish or oppress you, I'll vote against it.

You're presupposing that the judges will even give you a chance to vote on the matter.

As a practicing Roman Catholic who accepts and endorses my church's teaching on sexuality and marriage, I see nothing wrong with legalization of same-sex civil marriage, provided that two conditions are met:

1) It is enacted democratically.
2) The government does not violate prerogatives of religious bodies, such as was done in the case of Massachusetts Catholic Charities.

If same-sex marriage comes about by judicial fiat, it will regarded by many in the same light as Roe vs. Wade, viz., lacking legitimacy.

As to those Catholics who have left the RC Church over its teachings on same-sex relationships, it is undoubtedly best that they have done so. The church is entitled to its own sense of self-understanding, and is better off as a considerably smaller body whose members have shared values, enabling those who remain to concentrate on the sanctification of its members. In this light, whether we are fashionable to secular society means nothing to us, and the antagonistic views to the church expressed by so many postings above are a badge of honor.

Jillian typed, "The LDS hierarchy has been quietly active and behind anti-gay initiatives in California for a long time."

Now, I know Rod hates it when I use all caps and excessive punctuation, but this requires one great big BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!

You will be providing us with a credible source for that whopper, won't you Jillian?

Meanwhile, rr quotes me: "And rightly so. When was the last time scientists worked on changing heterosexuals, sheep or human?"

?Unless the ultimate goal is extinction, why in the world would they want to do that?"

Why in the world do you want to change us, rr? Did God make a mistake?

"Heterosexual intercourse is both normal and necessary"

It's only "normal" for heterosexuals, rr. And it sure as heck ain't "necessary" for, um, priests of a certain religion, nor for a lot of heterosexuals (mostly tired old married couples). U 2 funnee.

"Biologically speaking, heterosexual intercourse is how mammals reproduce and continue their species."

True, but reproduction is not a requirement of marriage - gay or str8.

"The ideological agenda of homosexual activists may do some pretty serious damage to our society and rights before it plays itself out"

Please explain how treating all citizens equally before the law will "do some pretty serious damage to our society", rr. (And don't forget, gay people - yes, even the dreaded "activists" - are part of that society.)

"Reproduction, even artificial reproduction (well, maybe not cloning), doesn't happen without a male and a female."

So what? It is neither a requirement for marriage nor the topic under discussion, rr.

Feel free to try again, but a little logic will help your 'argument'.

Hey...a gay person left a copy of "The Gay Agenda" at the library. Looks like it fell out of their book when they were checking out. I thought I would share it with you, just so we have some intelligence on how those wascally gays are planning to take over the world.

The Gay Agenda

1. Pick up stamps at post office
2. Pay electric bill downtown
3. Deposit paycheck at bank
4. Groceries to pick up
- Hamburger & buns
- Diet soda
- Blue corn chips (I knew it...it's a Democrat plot!)
- Tomatoes and mayo
5. Drop off books a library

Yep...a terrible agenda if I've ever seen one!!

draw the line?
the under 30 generations have no problem with gay marriage...
decades from now, where will they draw the line?
anywhere they want to...

love your gay neighbor as yourself...

faith hope love joy peace to all...
Forgive God...

Okay, I haven't gone to bed yet, as I suggested I would in my earlier comment. I do notice that Erin Manning did post a comment after my last set of comments, however. Hey, Erin, have you found any examples of people in the US who were legally sanctioned for making racist comments, so as to provide support to those (like yourself) who state that extension of civil rights protections to GLBTs will lead to the abolition of the free speech, freedom of association and freedom of religion rights (you know, those First Amendment things created by Satanic Deists like Thomas Jefferson) of those who oppose gay rights? Just wondering, since you and others who made that contention were called on that point by more than one person.

Now I'm going to bed. I had a long day, which included going to a party of local arts aficionados. (OMG! Cultural elitists and gays aplenty! Western Civilization is being undermined in Houston, Texas!)

Godisaheretic:

Why lump inter-racial marriage together with same-sex marriage? The argument about "gay rights = civil rights" doesn't cut it. You don't get to change your skin color ... but it's still an open question about the source of so-called same-sex attraction.

Even if it was 100% genetically determined, what would that prove? We know that tendencies toward drug and alcohol addiction are genetically determined. But that doesn't we tell these folks to embrace their "inner alcoholic" nor do we legalize DWI. Instead, we make sure our alcoholic friends and family neighbors get the help they need.

Some folks are color-blind -- entirely because of genetic factors. But that doesn't we insist that their color perceptions are equally valid with those of the rest of us.

Some folks are too short to play basketball in the NBA. Or too slow to make it as an Olympic track star. Does that mean short people have the right to sue the NBA or slow people the IOC?

Satan won Gay marriage in California, as he did in Sodom and Gomorrah and elsewhere. Don't blame Satanic victories on anyone but those that embrace Satanic behaviors.

Watch how a rapist talks: San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, pumping his fist in the air, told a roaring crowd at City Hall. "As California goes, so goes the rest of the nation. It's inevitable. This door's wide open now. It's going to happen, whether you like it or not."

Actually, if you watch Satan on South Park, Donny's right...that Satan would be thrilled with the decision.

Also, the Church of Satan has announced it's fully in support of gay marriage, so that's two for Donny.

It's nice to see Satan doing the right thing, and standing up for the rights of the oppressed. I feel more certain than ever that the whole "Apocatastasis" thing would work out.

(Give you Traditionals something to look up.)

By the way, I love the Reaganite phrase "Objectively disordered sexuality". How is this "objective"? By what standard? The AMA doesn't think it's disordered. Nor the American Psychiatric Association. Nor millions of people, of many different faiths. Where do you come up with the idea that it's "objectively" disordered, as if that's the clear conclusion ANYONE might come to. Surely, you'd have to admit it's nor more than "subjectively disordered", at best.

I know of many people who have either explicitly or implicitly abandoned the whole idea that there is such a thing as gender complementarity and that marriage is something more than merely a social construction. I get that. And I understand why they would embrace the idea of same-sex marriage. It follows necessarily for their prior commitments about what we can know is real about human beings, their natures, and the institutions that arise from them. Again, I get that.

But this is what I don't get. The same people that suggest to religious citizens that they should be modest in their claims, that they should not think their worldview right and others' wrong, that they should not employ the resources of law to coerce others, and that they ought to be tolerant to alternative points of view seem not to practice the modesty, fallibilism, libertarianism, and tolerance when it comes to the issue homosexuality and same-sex marriage. That is, I read the commentators here, and so many of them would not hesitate to employ state power to punish, sequester, coerce, ridicule, and indoctrinate religious citizens and their children to embrace or at least not resist their understanding of the nature of sexuality and marriage. But in order to justify such action, one would have to believe one's position on same-sex marriage is unassailable, that no one anywhere who disagrees with it is within his epistemic rights in thinking otherwise. In short, one would have to be convinced that there can be no rational basis, on any reasonable grounds whatsoever, to believe that marriage is indeed a union that can only be consummated by one man and one man.

It strikes me as odd that anyone would consider it irrational to believe that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. I can see why someone would believe that this view is mistaken. But irrational, outside the scope of legitimate beliefs? Is it possible to be so devoid imagination that one cannot even conceive that men and women seem to be suited for each other in such a way that their union is unique, that contributes something to the common good, and that it simply cannot be replicated by just two men or two women? If one is that skeptical of one's ability to think such an arrangement as possibly true of reality, why think that human beings have any other intrinsic purposes that ought to be protected by law? If it's not possible that marriage has a particular design to furnish the common good, why believe that the mind ought to be wise rather than ignorant, that the lungs ought not to inhale nicotine, that kind words are better than harsh ones, that work is better than sloth, that love is better than hate, that truth is better than error? It seems to me that once one bargains away what is obvious on the matter of men, women, and family, then everything else is up for grabs. Again, I understand why someone would think I'm wrong. But irrational? I'm sorry. If you think that, you're either blowing smoke or smoking blow. You're not thinking.

oh, it's not like weddings will go the way of the dinosaur. but i don't think people will get over it. the individualism that has driven the fight for legalising gay marriage is the same thing that will keep us divided. and we're weak, very weak, for it.

Per Connie: "Priests aren't forced to preside at the wedding of two divorced/not annulled (opposite sex) people today, right? Or between a Catholic and a Jew? If they can't be forced to perform a wedding in those situations, why do you fear they will be forced to wed same-sex couples?"

Because there are homosexuals who hate the Roman Catholic Church so much that in Massachusetts, New York and California, as well as other blue states, pressure will be brought to require the Church to end its anti-homosexual "discrimination" against "marrying" homosexuals. Loss of their tax-free status would be the result; a great victory for militant homosexuals who otherwise would not care where they were "married".

After eight years of a Democrat-controlled, veto-proof Congress, it could well be made a part of federal civil rights law, as could a ban on a new kind of "hate speech"--speaking out against it from pulpits--with a sanction of loss of tax-free status.

Very similar, sometimes successful laws/rulings already exist regarding abortion and adoption by homosexual couples in Catholic institutions.

Just ask the Boy Scouts about pressures to ban their use of public property because of their refusal to allow homosexual leaders to take the boys on overnight camping trips.

"So what do gays want next?" caroline

See my 2:59 AM comment above.

For all the "religious progressives" out there who genuinely believe that approval of homosexuality is in line with Biblical Christian doctrine, I challenge you to explain away 1 Corinthians 6:9-10:

"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God."

Or 1 Timothy 8-11:

" But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted."

Or Romans 1:26-27:

"Because of this [idolatry], God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."

These are just a few of the many verses in the Bible that condemn homosexuality as immoral - and lets not forget the statements of the early church fathers, who universally agreed that same-sex relations are sinful. Arguments that Christ would approve of gay marriage are entirely without scriptural or doctrinal merit.

You will be providing us with a credible source for that whopper, won't you Jillian?

http://www.valleyviewapartments.com/tom/politics/prop22.html
http://www.affirmation.org/learning/anti-gay.shtml
http://www.lds-mormon.com/doma.shtml

I saw a lengthy piece online that connected some Californian LDS activists to Tom Knight in 1998 and 1999, but I can't seem to find it.

"So what do gays want next?" caroline

See my 2:59 AM comment above.

Posted by: Cleveland | May 16, 2008 3:20 AM

The same thing they wanted in Sodom and Greece and Rome. To get access to children and anyone else. The word of God is being proved more and more.

It is not surprising that this infamy thrust its way in through the back door. Massachusetts' SJC handed down a similar ruling. The US Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade legalised that other crime that cries out to Heaven for vengeance. What's next? Judicially sanctioned wage fraud? God help us.

But the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away. This ruling will pave the way for the genitally perplexed to seek the abundant joys of wedlock rather than infesting the clergy.

That the Lord will take his vengeance, we are assured. Few bibilical events are as horrendously depicted as the destruction of the Twin Cities of Buggery. That devastation was no mere allegory, as archeological research continues to affirm. Of course the aftermath was a riot of petrified wives and father-daughter incest. Herr Fritzl will be smirking.

Meanwhile, I see no reason not to profit from the coming Divine Justice. I am long brimstone and short salt.

"It is not surprising that this infamy thrust its way in through the back door."

Ahem!!

Rob G: I'd urge you all to avoid using the word "gay" when discussing this issue.

I agree. Likewise "queer". To wit: "it's astonishing the queer looks we get when we don our gay apparel."

I would also avoid "homosexual." It's a linguistic hermaphrodite - half Latin and half Greek. (Then again, so is "automobile.") "Homoerotic" is preferable and straight Greek.

I'd advise the old term "bugger" which has otherwise fallen into desuetude. Though these days, I would not be surprised if militant entomologists were to take to the streets and the courts to demand their "rights".

To my fellow "homophobes" (that's a good one!), I'd urge you all to avoid using the word "gay" when discussing this issue. To do so is to play along with the homosexuals' game, just as assuredly as using so-called gender-inclusive language plays into the hands of the feminists. We conservatives often forget how much is won and lost in the battle over language, since language is a determining feature of culture.

Posted by: Rob G | May 16, 2008 8:22 AM

Neologism is a great tool used by Satan. Gay = anal and oral sex. Lesbian + well forget that one. Lesbian is whacked because "Sappho" the famed "Lesbian" was married to a man and had a child the "natural" way. And . . .!!!! she killed herself over her lust of a younger MAN in her later years!!!!!! Nothing same-gender about that "Lesbian."

Same-gender sex adherants.

SGSA.

The new definition of GLBT.

Let the facts bear witness to the truth.

Francis, there is a rational answer to your query, and as usual it gets lost in the emotional rhetoric. To my LGBT friends here and elsewhere, that's a yes: I do mean to imply that emotional rhetoric on both sides is making this issue well nigh impossible to debate...

As with many complex issues, it seems simple on the surface, but that surface is simple to state: the issue at hand is not religiously-defined marriage, it is civil union and its social and economic ramifications.

The clearest demarcation is to remove the ability of religious authority to formalize a marriage license. Make the marriage ceremony strictly religious according to the desires and traditions of the couple and their community, and make civil marriage a completely separate process.

This answers the "then what's next" complaint very simply: go ahead and try to pass a law that legalizes civil marriage between an adult and child, human and animal, or whatever. Religious institutions need not be involved, other than to join the society-at-large in ridiculing such notions.

I just love all the worry about the next thing to fall being "gays marrying our young boys". Maybe you folks should take a look at current law if you are truly worried about protecting our young people.

family.findlaw.com/marriage/marriage-basics/state-age-of-consent-laws.html

In Kansas a 12 year old girl can marry a 40 year old man, as long as the parents of the girl consent. Same in Massachusetts. New Hampshire and Texas set the bar for girls at age 13. (Rod, if you are truly worried about this issue, maybe you should talk to your legislature there to raise that age?)

Why is it that this issue comes up only in conjunction with same sex marriage? Seems to me if it is a concern that a 40 year old gay man could marry a 15 year old boy, then it should also be a concern that a 40 year old man could marry a 15 year old girl.

Strangely it isn't with most in the anti-GLBT camp. Why is that?

And you know what? Don't blame gays. Blame straights. We are the ones who decoupled sex and marriage from transcendent meaning, and turned it into merely a contractual arrangement between consenting individuals.

You know, I've been thinking about this one since it was posted, and I am going to disagree with it strongly. We've had no-fault divorce in this country for what, 40 years? We've had centuries of mistresses, concubinage, adultery, loveless marriages, back-alley closeted gay relationships, etc. Blaming straights is a talking point of the gay agenda, but it's not the reason for the (seemingly) inevitable legalization of gay marriage in this country.

This decision would have been unfathomable even ten years ago. What happened in this society was a swift but incremental wearing-down of our feelings about homosexuality in this country. Gay this, gay that, it's everywhere. We're completely numb to it. You can't watch what would seem to be a family show, like Amazing Race, without being forced to tolerate and accept a gay couple every season. This season's "Top Chef" featured it's first-ever couple in the competition. Naturally, they were lesbians. Ellen and Rosie have received chance after chance on TV, even after coming out of the closet. Rather than being seen as a complete abombination, "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" is seen as a cute little makeover show. It's everywhere on TV, and considering we watch about four hours a day of it, we're bound to get hit with it at least once a day.

We don't even roll our eyes anymore. Media elites have informed us that we've moved beyond this issue. I suspect that once the older generation dies out, we largely will have, as a society. When an army general publicly states that he feels it is immoral, he's villianized. People like Fred Phelps are portrayed as typical of the anti-gay marriage movement. It is now taboo to even discuss it in a less-than-positive light.

This decision did not come because straight people have ruined marriage. If that was the case, gay marriage would have been ushered in with Henry VIII. It's because of the strategic bombardment of our culture by the idea that homosexuality is a moral positive, or at least neutral. They've defeated us by wearing us down.

"Let us not forget--this is the sin that God held against the cites of Sodom and Gomorrah; therefore destroying it. Need I say more?

Posted by: T. Smith | May 16, 2008 9:00 AM"

Not according to Ezekiel it isn't. Anything "more" you feel the need to say ought to be based in fact, not fiction.

RJohnson, even though I disagree with your politics (I presume), I fully agree with your sentiment.

I would say to my fellow Christians: If your God is real, then trust in Him. And if you believe that God is ultimately in control, then why get frustrated if the government hinders you? Perhaps God wants you to fail. If He wants you to succeed, and if the government gets in the way, why act like that's insurmountable?

Christians are supposed to follow a Man who said "My kingdom is not of this world." We're supposed to set our minds on the things which are above, not on the things which are on the earth. Let the culture go its way. If we are God's people, there's nothing to fear.

"I would say to my fellow Christians: If your God is real, then trust in Him. And if you believe that God is ultimately in control, then why get frustrated if the government hinders you? Perhaps God wants you to fail. If He wants you to succeed, and if the government gets in the way, why act like that's insurmountable?"

Exactly! Conservative evangelicals have been appealing to government for the "right" to speak about candidates from the pulpits of their churches while maintaining their tax exempt status. Why? If God wants their pastors to speak out that way, will He not also send a bounty to cover MORE than the taxes on the property and income? If the church is in step with God's will, will not God bless that church?

Those conservative evangelicals who complain about the tax exempt status of their church demonstrate two things very clearly:

1) They love money more than God
2) They have more faith in government than in God

Store up your treasure in heaven, for where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. Where is your heart, Christian America?

"Gay = anal and oral sex."

And heterosexual = anal and oral and vaginal sex. Oooo, Donny, we so scared.

Rod, you said: " it's not about reaching compromise, finding moral consensus, living in a pluralistic society."

How can (or better, why should) equality before the law ever be "comprommised? Would you let your equality be compromised? "moral consensus"? Your religion teaches my orientation to be objectively morally disordered and an intrinsic evil. How onearth could we ever reach consensus with rhetoric like that? "living in a pluralistic society" would have to include gay citizens too, no?

"It's about crushing the enemy."

It certainly feels that way to gay people.

"There is no need to respect the religious liberties and sentiments of fellow citizens"

You're absolutely spot on in this regard. I have never felt a modicum of respect for my religious liberties from the RRR. Why is it that they don't respect our sentiments as "fellow citizens?

"They are Evil, and Must Be Destroyed."

Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. That is exactly the way gay people have been made to feel. Very perceptive of you.

You urged Daniel to "Read Maggie Gallagher's piece." Well, I read what you posted of it and it did not prove to say what you said it did. Not sure why I should bother to read any further.

You said, "Churches that preach against homosexuality will not face hate-speech sanction" and you are absolutely correct. Not sure why all the hostility then.

"It is not a trivial matter at all."

Correct again. Justice and liberty and equality never are nor should they be "trivial matter[s]".

"While this might sound like a small thing, it would dramatically affect the ability of churches, synagogues and mosques to function as they do now, and could make it impossible for the smaller churches and church schools to survive."

And in the process greatly reducing the amount of charitable work that many religious institutions of this type perform.

"Also, if it is truly God's will that your church stand up against this publicly, do you not trust God to provide the finances to do it? If the government pulls your tax exempt status, do you not trust God to fill the gap so that His mission for your church moves forward?"

This decidedly misses the point. There is nothing remotely unconstitutional about churches speaking out politically; see the huge collection of political sermons preached during both the founding era and the Civil War era. The shift here is from the notion that such activity on the part of churches is allowed to the idea that it is not. What for 200 years was considered part and parcel of both free expression and religious freedom is now considered suspect, and financial consequences imposed by the state are designed to enforce that novelty. Removing religious institutions' tax exemption amounts to fining them via the back door (there's that phrase again), the state knowing full well that the electorate would never countenance fining them directly. The whole thing is a subtle attack on freedom of religion: "Hey, you churchy folk can be as religious as you want -- just keep your goddam mouth shut about it!"

She quotes leading civil rights scholars who favor gay marriage, who say that there really is an irreconcilable clash.

Who also say in pieces not authored by a leader in the anti-gay marriage efforts that there are simple fixes. We already see this in employment statutes, which protect the rights of religious employers to continue to discriminate as they have before. Similar kinds of exceptions already exist in other discrimination statutes.

The Massachusetts Catholic Charities case could have been resolved the same way; allow Catholic Charities to discriminate with government dollars. It may be antithetical to public policy, but it is the kind of compromise that can exist.

If churches want to toss gay homeless people out on the street or Catholic hospitals want to toss out gay people, that is something the law can accommodate and has.

Mdavid: I'm betting it won't take many generations before gays have less "rights" than they did in 1950 and are safely back in the closet. Gays just don't have kids ...

Before you get too jubilant, just remember that the more children a woman has (especially if she has sons), the more likely it is that one or some of those younger sons will be gay. If you're interested in how that works, read E.O. Wilson's Sociobiology, or Bryan Sykes's book on the Y-chromosome (and mitocondrial DNA "poisoning the well" strategies.)

Also remember that there are a lot more non-gay than gay people - and a lot of non-gay people don't *want* to stuff gay people "safely back into the closet."

"Do any of the same-sex pseudo-marriage boosters have the guts to answer?"

Well, logically, the next move would come from far-right religious fundamentalists who would push for polygamy. Although every same-sex marriage case clearly states that polygamy is not at all connected to the consensual marriage between two adults, religious fundamentalists could easily turn to religious texts to justify polygamy. Will it be Muslims? Mormons? the Christian-Identity movement? People living in Crunchy Con monastic religious communities? Radical homeschoolers? All are likely candidates for suggesting that religious texts sanction such marriages and therefore the law should extend to them.

Beyond that, it's unlikely there are any strong candidates. There's no movement of shunned, outcast people that has been as successful at convincing people they deserve respect and dignity than gays and lesbians. I don't see polygamists or pedophiles or fans of beastiality ever breaking a taboo so successfully.

This kind of "what next" handwringing occurred 40 years ago when Mildred Loving was allowed to marry a white man. Criticism of the courts, people convinced their religious rights were in jeopardy, lots of Bible pounding and teeth gnashing.

"Please show me in the Bible where God promised to put the government on the side of Believers."

What on God's green earth are you talking about? You just added 2 and 2, and got 44.

"If the threat of losing tax exempt status is all it takes to keep you from doing what you say you believe God wants you do to (i.e., have your church speak freely from the pulpit regarding political candidates), what does it say about your faith in God?"

Again, you miss the point, which I should by now expect, seeing that you are an expert on same.

It's not about losing the status -- it's about the presumption of the constitutionality of the whole thing, and the fact that it should be done by fiat rather than democratically. See Catholic to the Core's post of May 16, 2008 12:09 AM above.

Thing is, you lefties have no problem when churches spout your agenda (neither do I -- fire away) but all of a sudden it's a HUGE issue when churches say stuff you don't like. It's the usual left wing double standard.

"There's no movement of shunned, outcast people that has been as successful at convincing people they deserve respect and dignity than gays and lesbians. I don't see polygamists or pedophiles or fans of beastiality ever breaking a taboo so successfully."

Give it time, dude, give it time.

'This kind of "what next" handwringing occurred 40 years ago when Mildred Loving was allowed to marry a white man. Criticism of the courts, people convinced their religious rights were in jeopardy, lots of Bible pounding and teeth gnashing.'

Again, the situations are not the same. The category of race has no moral component; it was the marriage between those thought 'different' that was seen as a problem. Homosexuality, to its opponents, has an inherently moral dimension that difference in race does not. Pro-queer apologists continually bringing this up simply demonstrate their shallow understanding of the thing.

I'm curious: Has anyone ever interviewed the non-white students at Bob Jones U? I wonder what they think of this policy. Did they not care when they applied?
Something to think about: Opposition to interracial marriage does not just come from whites. The interracial couple I'm closest to (black husband, white wife) has experienced more rejection from the extended black family than the the white one.

Rod, the flaw in your logic is that racial discrimination is explicitly defined and prohibited. This description is not valid for marriage, which is de facto discrimination in practice. Unless a law is passed making marriage "discrimination" legally equivalent to racial discrimination, there can be no logical comparison.

The CA ruling is permissive, not prohibitive. The distinction is subtle, I will hasten to concede, and recent jurisprudence has given us much blurring of that line, but the distinction remains valid and arguable in court.

I know it's heartbreaking...I know that it's enough to make us angry. However, I have found that the secret to not getting bent all out of shape to the point of being distracted from our real mission on earth, (planting seeds lovingly) is to remember that when Jesus took the sting out of death and rose from the dead, we can live life more abundantly. The 'sting' in this whole gay marriage issue is this: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A GAY MARRIAGE!!!! GAY and MARRIAGE are not on the same page! Marriage was instituted by God; He set the stage and the ground rules. Therefore, regardless of how many ceremonies there are, have been and, (face it, dear Christan friends), always will be, THEY ARE NOT MARRIED!!!! I don't know what else they can call this union, but MARRIAGE is reserved between a man and a woman. So let's not give Satan any more audience, nor this issue, any more credence than we give God praise. Our job is not to try to stop the inevitable, but to pray for them who know not what they do.

"So what if the churches have to pay taxes. So what if the government does this to the churches by fiat instead of vote. So what?"

Because last time I checked, we still live in a constitutional republic, and I happen to believe that the rule of law matters. Not sure I can be much clearer than that.

"what difference should it make whether or not your contributions are tax deductible or not?"

None to me, as I don't claim them.

"If you feel that God has called you and your church to take this stand, why are you quibbling about tax exempt status and how it is determined?"

I don't consider the rule of law a quibble, even when applied to finance. If religious tax-exempt status were removed in a valid, constitutional manner, I'd live with it. Otherwise, no.

Thanks for proving that the answer is a definite NO.
-----------------------------------------------------
"On what basis will the state now limit marriage to only two people? That's the next frontier." Rod Dreher

Do any of the same-sex pseudo-marriage boosters have the guts to answer?

Gerry, see

Posted by: Daniel | May 16, 2008 10:37 AM

RJohnson: "So what if the churches have to pay taxes. So what if the government does this to the churches by fiat instead of vote. So what?"

Rob: "Because last time I checked, we still live in a constitutional republic, and I happen to believe that the rule of law matters. Not sure I can be much clearer than that."

To whom do you owe a higher allegiance, Rob: God or government?

"To whom do you owe a higher allegiance, Rob: God or government?"

To God, of course, but that, in fact, has nothing to do with it -- I don't accept your simplistic reduction of the thing to that question. Under the rule of law, means matter as much as ends. Do you really not get this, or are you being willfully obtuse?

Blacks were considered an inferior race, but not an inherently 'evil' one. Morality did not pertain to race as such, only to their mixing.

I'd have to see Chambers' quote in context, but it really doesn't matter. In Catholic and Orthodox teaching, while the proclivity may be considered 'sinful' in the sense of 'fallen,' it does not necessarily imply personal culpability. For it to be personally culpable it must be acted upon.

"does a celibate heterosexual still sin if he lusts after a woman?"

Of course.

For it to be personally culpable it must be acted upon.

I think the distinction must be between the physical attraction and the desire for sex. The physical attraction may be out of one's control, but the desire for sex can be assented to, and that is lust. It doesn't necessarily have to terminate in a physical act.

Mark in Houston,

From your comments last night:

Your sentiment you expressed is a mutual one. We social conservatives also don't think too highly of social/secular liberals, and much of what passes for art (much of modern art is a good example) and literature in your circles is simply trash. You guys often have a senses of cultural superiority, but often it is simply the case of the emperor wearing no clothes-what passes for "art" is obviously garbage. Abortion bothers us because we think it is a brutal form of murder. Homosexual behavior is immoral, abnormal and unhealthy. We social conservatives wouldn't think about social/secular liberals too much if you didn't support infanticide and seek to normalize perversity and force in on the rest of society, especially on our children.
I for one don't believe for a minute that you guys won't use the state against social conservatives if you get the change. If your sense of morality is so twisted that you defend infanticide (i.e. abortion) and homosexual behavior, it's not a giant step of logic to suppose you might engage in other forms of oppression as well. Oh yeah, and let's not forget that the bloodshed of the French revolution and the Russian revolution were fruit of the "Enlightenment."
At the end of the day, the problem is that social conservatives and social/secular liberals live in two complete different moral universes. Sometimes I wish we lived in separate countries as well as I don't like having to deal with all the self-destructive nonsense that has come out of the sexual revolution.

rr

"I think the distinction must be between the physical attraction and the desire for sex. The physical attraction may be out of one's control, but the desire for sex can be assented to, and that is lust. It doesn't necessarily have to terminate in a physical act."

Agreed.

Given this decision, I see no reason why Muslims wouldn’t push for polygamy as a religious right.

It’s obvious that America is unprepared for, or maybe it doesn’t even care about, the combined Leftist – Islamist assault on traditional Western culture, which has endowed us with such things as representative government, something the California Court pissed on yesterday.

Daniel,

Why do I have to leave? Islam is as bad as the secular left, only in different ways. Why can't you guys just move to Europe? After all, they are a lot more to the left there. And with below replacement birth rates, they sure could use some more immigrants.

rr

Rob: "Blacks were considered an inferior race, but not an inherently 'evil' one. Morality did not pertain to race as such, only to their mixing."

Of course, once the "mark of Cain" and the "sons of Ham" became phrases that were applied to black people, the issue of an evil nature within these folks became an issue. The race that bore the "mark of Cain" was cursed of God because of Cain's sin in murdering Abel. That sin was above and beyond the sin nature that was inherited from Adam, and was therefore something that those bearing the mark should separate themselves from completely, just as Cain himself was separated from his family.

Rob: "I'd have to see Chambers' quote in context, but it really doesn't matter. In Catholic and Orthodox teaching, while the proclivity may be considered 'sinful' in the sense of 'fallen,' it does not necessarily imply personal culpability. For it to be personally culpable it must be acted upon."

But Orthodox and Catholic teachings are only a part of the picture when it comes to conservative Christian beliefs in our nation.

Is it your position that those who hold otherwise regarding these teachings of personal sin are wrong? If so, which view should prevail in the public arena?

RJohnson: 'I'm calling into question the issue you seem to be putting forward, namely that government "must" behave in a certain way, and that any deviance from that is somehow antithetical to all that is right in the world.'

Rob: "Sheesh. That's not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is that GIVEN OUR SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT, there are certain processes whereby laws and such are changed. When those processes are ignored, bypassed, or short-circuited it's a bad thing, not just for the direct recipients of the injustice but for everyone.

I'm talking about America in the here and now. Not ancient Persia, not Nazi Germany, not China in the Ming Dynasty, not Rumboogie under the Emir of Schmoe."

Understood. But I am looking at the bigger picture. If the tax exempt status of churches is a stumbling block that is somehow preventing those churches from speaking out on political issues (gay rights, abortion, etc.), can't God remove that stumbling block using any method He chooses? Whether or not it fits into your notion of how our government should operate?

If God chooses to use the IRS to remove the stumbling block through edict, is that not His right as Sovereign God?

And we have not discussed the most obvious answer to the question of a church being threatened with their tax exemption being pulled. They could simply renounce it in writing to the IRS and recast their articles of incorporation such that the tax exempt issue is no longer a weapon that "the radical left" could use against them, could they not?

Daniel,

Oh, it's not the liberty, equality, the Bill of Rights or the First Amendment that frightens me. I don't believe the secular left believes in these kinds of things, especially when it comes to the rights of social conservatives.
Again, why don't you guys go to Europe or Canada?

rr

A lot of people believe that just because their gay uncle or a lesbian neighbor are genuinely "nice" people that is enough to justify an unprecedented change in how you define marriage. Is that really enough?

Yes

I have a lonely elderly neighbor who lives alone but is famously in love with her cat and totally devoted to her feline friend. Does that mean they should get married?

No, because an animal cannot legally consent to the marriage contract. The same applies to minors, inanimate objects, and robots.

"I have a lonely elderly neighbor who lives alone but is famously in love with her cat and totally devoted to her feline friend. Does that mean they should get married?"

"No, because an animal cannot legally consent to the marriage contract. The same applies to minors, inanimate objects, and robots."

In an earlier post I asked why it seems that the low age of consent for marriage only is a problem when same-sex marriage is being discussed. We have states that allow 13 and 14 year old girls to marry, with the consent of their parent, someone who is much older than them (say a 45 year old man). I hear no outcry to change these laws. There are no public ad campaigns being waged to push these states to move that age up.

It is only mentioned when the issue of same-sex marriage or GLBT rights comes up. I have to assume, therefore, that the folks really don't give a rip about these young people. Instead they are just convenient weapons to fight the advances that are being made in the area of GLBT equality.

It's a shame really, but not surprising. All too often the opponents of GLBT equality show a blatant disregard for anyone other than themselves, and any viewpoint other than their own. That they would use the issue of age of consent as smokescreen here, and then do nothing about it once the noise calms down, is simply more of the same behavior.

"On what basis will the state now limit marriage to only two people? That's the next frontier." Rod Dreher

Do any of the same-sex pseudo-marriage boosters have the guts to answer?

Posted by: Gerry | May 16, 2008 10:08 AM

You are so cute when you get all petulant like that, Gerry...

Sure, here's my answer - if a group of consenting adults want to formalize their living arrangements as a marriage, so what?

It neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket.

Rod: Don't blame gays. Blame straights.

Yeah, I suppose at least one of those 4 judges who made the decision was probably "straight". Pauli

We would not have to be dealing with this issue and other related issues, such as pedophiles, etc., IF, our so-called Catholic colleges and universities had stuck to teaching what the BIBLE teaches and what God's Will Is. Instead, so called reknown schools, such as Georgetown University, with a professor, by the name of Chai Feldblum,who infers to herself as"part of an inner group of public-intellectual movement leaders committed to advancing LGBT(lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, transsexual) equality in this country." THE QUESTION IS;WHY IS SOMEONE LIKE THIS TEACHING AT A CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY? I had a nephew attending prep-school at Georgetown Prep and an upper classmen made a GAY move to him - he re-acted and made it known he did not accept this type of behavior. A teacher at PREP told this boy's father, who works on Wall Street, that the boy does not belong at PREP if he has anti-gay sentiments!In Florida, the Catholic Bishops employ lobbysists to STOP bills from reaching the legislature that would put an end to the time one has to bring charges against pedophiles - because, they said, it would cost the church too much in legal bills and "we need the monies for our other works in the missions." What is more important than stopping these devils from implementing their sick, demented, immoral ways on society. Remember, the Catholic Church could have prevented legalilzation of abortion, but, were too busy during Holy Week in 1970, to drop everything and fight against this legalization of MURDER.After the barn door was closed and the horse is out, they start all their campaigns to STOP IT and let's not forget nearly 50 million babies have been aborted.Christians, along with Catholics must take a STAND and STOP the evilness that is taking over this country!

Daniel,

I work in academia where secular leftists are fairly dominant. Have you ever heard of campus speech codes? Political correctness? These make a mockery of the First Amendment. Whose ideas do you think they were? I'll give you a hint, it wasn't the right.
Or have you seen the furor it causes when a social conservative dares to question leftist orthodoxy on things like feminism, abortion, and homosexuality? I've seen multiple calls to fire one professor for expressing said views. I was in a graduate class the day before the 2004 election where another professor called on all of us to go out and vote for Kerry and other Democratic candidates. She also said she couldn't understand why anyone would oppose public funding of abortion and said we should all vote for Democrats.
Sorry, but I work in a field where social conservatives are a minority, and I have experience with how secular leftist treat them as a minority. I shudder to think what would happen to our freedoms if secular leftists totally controlled the government and if things like this were applied to society in general.
As for the courts, of course I don't trust them. With decisions such as Roe vs. Wade, they've shown a disposition to hand down dubious rulings with little basis in the Constitution, basic human rights (i.e. the right to life), or popular opinion, particularly popular opinion in conservative states.
And please, no more of this talk about moving to Saudi Arabia. In my view, the secular left and Islam are two sides of the same coin anyway.
Theocracy, especially of the Muslim variety (I don't worship the same God as they do) doesn't interest me.
In the end, it all comes down to trust and a shared set of values. I have neither with the secular left or Islam. No, I don't think the sky is falling, but I things could get pretty rough in this country for freedom in the next 10-20 years.

rr

Well, that kind of thing's not "okay" with me, Old Susan. I think it's social destruction in action.

Here's the question uppermost in my mind just now: for years, liberals have screamed about conservatives trying to "impose their morality" on the rest of society.

So how come you all get to impose your immorality on the rest of us? Why should immorality be the default position, and get all the protection of the law?

The answer, I'm afraid, is that most of you don't actually believe in morality; that is, you don't believe there's any such thing as right and wrong. But that's been a minority view for centuries, so why is it now being determined to be the only possible way to think and act?

There are real consequences for the social promotion of immorality, and generally, people who do believe in right and wrong end up bearing a disproportionate share of the financial and social costs of codified and socially protected licentiousness. Why should it be this way? Why should we have to pay for the consequences of your immoral behavior?

Daniel: Despite absolutely no evidence to support such hysteria and paranoia, it shows a significant distrust in the American people. Do you not trust the courts? Are you not willing to have your rights put up to a popular vote or the actions of the legislature?

Daniel trusts the people so much he wants courts to overturn referenda that end up with results he doesn't like.

Rod, if there were (perish the thought) a Supreme Court composed of Scalia clones, and the people of the state of Texas voted to allow unrestricted abortion and gay marriage equality, would you want the Supreme Court to overturn those referenda?

Erin, how in the hell can the fact that the gay couple next door to you can now marry be considered "imposing their morality" on you? It's NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. You don't have to marry them. You don't have to have them in your home, your church, your garden party. You can hate them, fear them, love them, forgive them, whatever you want. Your priest can preach against them until he's blue in the face, and state that they're all going to hell. It's fine. Some people won't like it, but legally, no one cares.

Reverend Phelps has been preaching gay hatred for years. Outside of social opprobrium, he faced no consequences until he began invading the funerals of those he hated. HE forced his views upon the people in attendance. Hence, he has to pay.

Much of our Constitution could be simply stated as "You can think whatever vile, evil, crappy, hateful thoughts you want in the privacy of your own head, and repeat them in the privacy of your own home, church, or social group. Teach them to your kids at home, if you will. But you will act towards others in the public sector as if you possessed a worldcentric view, rather than an ethnocentric one. You will treat others as equals, whether you believe they are or not."

The promotion of war, slavery, segregation, etc. have all cost me plenty, although I didn't support them. We all bear the burdens for decisions we don't agree with...it's part and parcel of the social contract for living in a democracy. I have to pay for Bush's war...I guess you'll have to cough up for whatever weird expense you think will accrue due to gay marriage. Once gays are costing us $5000 a second, as the war now does, come whining.

The only right you are being deprived of is the right to force your religious convictions on others. It's a right you never had to begin with, and don't deserve to have. Although some people have religious convictions in the other way, that's not what's being forced upon you. It is instead the completely secular conviction, founded on our Constitutional values, that "All men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certainly inalienable rights, amongst these the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Marriage is about liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

When we first wrote those words, they only applied to white, landowning men. But we lived further into their promise with time. We eliminated slavery. Then we applied those words to women, blacks, and everyone else. Today they're being applied to one more group of people, who have historically been oppressed in this and many other nations.

As liberals have been told many, many time here in Rod's citadel...if you don't love America, you can always go live elsewhere. Go back to France, or South Africa, or Canada, or whatever.

Oh wait...never mind.

What if the people of California had a referendum banning homeschooling. Would you not want the availability of a court challenge, or would you throw up your hands and say, "The people have spoken."

What if the people of Texas had a referendum taxing the Catholic and Orthodox churches, but not the protestant ones. Would you not want the availability of a court challenge, our would you be prepared to let the mob rule of the majority uninterested in the rights of the minority to go unchallenged?

There are real consequences for the social promotion of immorality, and generally, people who do believe in right and wrong end up bearing a disproportionate share of the financial and social costs of codified and socially protected licentiousness. Why should it be this way? Why should we have to pay for the consequences of your immoral behavior?

Because as societies change, the social consensus on morality also changes. Slavery was once considered moral. Polygamy was once considered moral. Interracial marriage was once considered immoral. Women speaking up in church was once considered immoral.

So as society changes, the idea of "right and wrong" also changes. Certainly, there are absolutes, but even then there are exceptions. Murder is immoral, but killing during a just war is not. The Vatican says capital punishment is almost always a grave sin, but there are exceptions (largely to accommodate the U.S., it appears).

What frustrates social conservatives, it appears, is that their form of morality/immorality is lagging behind society's view of morality/immorality. There are many religious people who support same-sex marriage in the legal realm, even if they don't support it as blessing in their own denomination. Religious people signed briefs in California supporting those seeking to overturn the bias ban. Are you saying that your morality is right while their moral sense of justice and fairness is wrong? Why does your moral compass get to trump theirs?

A Barna survey in 1999 found that the divorce rate among self-identified "born again Christians" paralleled that of society at large. Within that group it was Baptist, surprisingly (or not) that had the highest divorce rate.

From that survey: "While it may be alarming to discover that born again Christians are more likely than others to experience a divorce, that pattern has been in place for quite some time. Even more disturbing, perhaps, is that when those individuals experience a divorce many of them feel their community of faith provides rejection rather than support and healing. But the research also raises questions regarding the effectiveness of how churches minister to families. The ultimate responsibility for a marriage belongs to the husband and wife, but the high incidence of divorce within the Christian community challenges the idea that churches provide truly practical and life-changing support for marriages."

I'm not sure what fuzzy terms such as "mythic-member mindset" or a "pluralistic, worldcentric one" are. Presumably, however, the couple down the road in the doublewide who are shacking up are more enlightened or "worldcentric" than my wife and I with our rather prosaic marriage. I guess despite living in Europe for several years and learning to speak French and German, I'm just not very "worldcentric."
I actually agree with you that gay marriage is part of a overall movement. But it it trend that began in with the sexual revolution in which sex has been decoupled from procreation. This hasn't led to a more "enlightened" society, but one in which VD, divorce, family instability, cohabitation, perversity, and below-level replacement birth rates have become commonplace. It's a move towards darkness and decline, not a move towards "enlightenment" and "progress."

rr

Comments should be numbered so we can know more easily where we left off and where to resume. Is this impossible to do?

It recently struck me that ever since "shacking up" became normal, the state has lost a lot of money on marriage license fees. What are state costs and what are state profits on marriage license fees? Would that it were possible that now California and especially San Francisco could make up it's budget deficits with issuing marriage licenses to homosexuals.
Furthermore, our legislators might consider collecting fees for the renewal of marriage licenses every, let us say, ten years from all married couples to recoup whatever the costs of marriage and the breakdown of marriages, hetero and homo, might be to the state and generally to supplement whatever deficits might exist.

Erin: "You simply can't pretend that an overwhelming majority of society thinks that men and women are totally interchangeable and that marriage is just a happy word that does not mean a damned thing--but that's what we're being forced to accept."

This definitely seems to be the heart of the matter. And yet a growing number of people are, in fact, becoming comfortable with the idea of same-sex marriage. Even more are comfortable with the idea of same-sex civil unions that provide all the benefits of marriage without using the word. One such poll conducted by the Washington Post and ABC News asked the following question over three separate months.

"Do you think homosexual couples should or should not be allowed to form legally recognized civil unions, giving them the legal rights of married couples in areas such as health insurance, inheritance and pension coverage?"

Nov. 2007 Should: 55%
Jun. 2006 Should: 45%
Mar. 2004 Should: 51%

The trend is reflected in other polls regarding same sex unions that provide benefits identical or nearly identical to marriage. However, when the word marriage is used the numbers drop.

Gallup Poll from just last week (May 8-11) asked this: "Do you think marriages between same-sex couples should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages?" Only 40% said yes. However, the numbers are different on this question: "Which of the following statements comes closest to your view? Same-sex couples should be allowed to legally marry. OR, Same-sex couples should be allowed to legally form civil unions, but not marry. OR, Same -sex couples should not be allowed to neither marry or form civil unions." 56% supported one of the first two options, and only 38% said neither.

The idea that men and women are interchangable is a straw man, Erin. What the real issue here is people who have strong, caring relationships being able to enjoy all the rights and benefits that the government currently only grants to a select group of people. Men and women are not interchangable. But look at your own husband and ask yourself how you would feel if you knew that you had no rights over how his medical care would be handled, or how his funeral arrangements might be cared for. Think about how you might have no right to property that you both sacrificed to purchase, or to the pension that he intended to leave for you when he died. And think about how the government, or another family member, might use the power of law to come in and take your children from you, children that you both raised but, because of the law, you had no legal right to keep.

These are just a few of the realities that same-sex couples face in our society, Erin. Things that heterosexual married couples take for granted and rely upon as they plan their lives together.

People are much more likely today to know a same-sex couple. More and more of them are out of the closet, living their lives among us, caring for their families just as we heterosexuals do. This reality is bursting a lot of the myths that have surrounded GLBT people for years, some myths that are truly hurtful.

When people realize that these couples are not the monsters that so many gay rights opponents have painted them as, they begin asking the question, "why shouldn't they have equal rights?"

It's the same process that eventually brought social acceptance of interracial marriage. As white people began to see blacks as human beings with the same concerns, dreams and hopes that they had, it became more difficult to cast them as undesirable, race polluters, or somehow inferior to whites.

"I'm not Catholic, but it's fairly obvious to me that Daniel is the posterboy for cafeteria Catholicism. In his case, though, it's worse than usual, since he obviously greatly enjoys being the turd in the punchbowl. I'd recommend you either repent or leave the Church, Daniel -- join the Unitarians or the Episco-Pals; you'll fit right in. Quit being a pain in the arse to all the real Catholics."

Not being Catholic I may be missing something here. Why is it "cafeteria Catholocism" to ignore the Pope's words on GLBT people, but not "cafeteria Catholocism" to ignore is words on war, poverty, the homeless, HIV/AIDS, and a host of other issues usually identified as "liberal"?

When I bowed out of our email discussion I recommended that you go over to 'Mere Comments', bring up Anthony Esolen's "10 Reasons" thread (yeah, I know, I know, you think it's all balderdash, but nevertheless...), and post your query there.

I was trying to have a conversation with you, Rob, not a bunch of strangers. Something you were afraid to deal with?

Esolen's stuff is pretty weird. He's reaching, to put it nicely.

But no need to rely on "Mere Comments," Rob. Why not just set me straight yourself?

Well, Rob G., I've been avoiding responding to RJohnson directly since I agree with the assessment as to his troll-like qualities. However, you're right. Good Catholics accept everything the Church teaches. When there are areas where some prudential disagreement is possible that disagreement is of course permissible, but on issues concerning intrinsic evil there is no question of the merely prudential.

"On what basis will the state now limit marriage to only two people? That's the next frontier."

Ignoring a pile of the problems with the premise, we'll continue to limit marriage by: age of consent, informed nature of consent, and uncoerced nature of consent.

The real anxiety about polygamy seems to be that so many traditionalists are prone to it. The very traditional husband-wife-mistress/concubine triad isn't on the upswing because of same sex marriage, it's that bastardy has vanished as a social status and enforcement mechanism (which hurt the innocent more than the guilty). And serial marriage has become a way of life to so-called conservatives. Combine both things and how inefficient serial marriage is with time, and you have more and more Vito Fossellas.

Whew. I'm glad I'm not the only one who finds Tony Esolen's writing bizarre, pretentious and irrational.

Hey, Erin's back! And still, with no concrete examples of free speech restrictions caused by civil rights legislation, which social conservatives can expect to have applied to them if GLBT people are included as a protected class under such legislation. Despite her claims that such things are just around the corner for social conservative. Oh, well...

Well, rr, if you don't know what "mythic-membership" or "worldcentric" means, considering look them up. I suggest the works of Ken Wilber.

Now let's examine the whopping ton of bigotry you display in so simple an answer.

The couple "shacking up" is in a double-wide trailer down the street. Hmmm, how could they be more enlightened than you and your wife, in your prosaic marriage. Clearly, they're socio-economically disadvantaged, as are all people who choose to live together in defiance of Christian norms. No one shacks up in a ritzy condo on the Upper West Side, after all.

Great, you've traveled and speak a couple languages. "Worldcentric" has nothing to do with that. It's identical to Kohlberg's post-conventional morality. In short, it partially means granting to others the same rights and freedoms that you wish to have granted to you...being able to perceive beyond the values of your own social/political/religious group to clearly see and respect those of others.

Sex has been "decoupled" from procreation. That has been occurring for generations in many parts of the West, and was always so in the East. Catholics are one of the only religious groups on the planet who insist that the primary, overwhelmingly most significant value of sex, is procreation.

VD is up. Well, yes, it is. As are many other diseases transmitted by human contact, simply because there are more humans, and more contact. Disease is a social problem, partly driven by popultion, the widespread use of antibiotics, etc., but not a sin.

Divorce is up. Not because of sex however, but because the belief in mythic versions of religion that forbid it has gone way down. Social stigma prevented divorce, along with the fear of burning in hell, in the West. Both are thankfully declining. Most of these never applied at all in the East.

Family instability has many causes, including our mobile culture, the entry of women into the workforce (and the concommitant reduction in their dependency on men), urban lifestyles compared to rural lifestyles, etc. Sex being decoupled from procreation has little to do with it.

Cohabitation is up. Yep, but only people like you consider that to be a problem. Many consider it positive. I would be deeply concerned if either of my sons married a woman, or a man, without living with them first.

Perversity. Yawn. If you mean child molestation, rape, etc. it was far worse in the past, almost everywhere. And it's worse today in some of the most "religious" sections of the world. Notice that you don't see a lot of Secular Humanist compounds in Texas with women forced to have sex in the chapel. If you mean spanking, whips, chains and Good Vibrations, again, so what? More power to people.

Lastly, below-replacement birthrates. Thank God! We have already grossly overpopulated the Earth, and are stretching its natural resources to the breaking point. Fewer humans, particularly in developed countries that proportionately use FAR, FAR more of the planet's limited resources, is a nice reward for our more enlightened thinking. I'd far rather see the population drop as a result of people choosing to breed less, or for other social reasons, than the otherwise inevitable predations of pestilence, warfare, and famine...you know, the Horsey Set of the Apocalypse.

It's only a problem because you believe it to be one rr, because you insist that your values are the only right values, your religion is the only right religion, your perspective the one that should determine law and culture forever. To those unburdened by such prejudices, it's "Free at last, free at last...Thank God we're Free at Last!"

I find this so bizarre - a handful of people, relatively speaking, want to have full civil rights in marriage and you'd think it was the end of the world. The notion that gay rights are a threat to religious liberty is absurd. Catholic Charities, an admirable organization, is NOT looking after its theological center - it looks after children. It does not discriminate in other services, so how does this refusal to let gay couples adopt or foster children become a 'moral principle' as opposed to a bias? What the court just ruled in CA is perfectly logical. It is no different from racial segregation to discriminate against gay couples. Gay marriage? No threat to us heterosexual couples. In fact most gay relationships, lying outside the bonds of matrimony and often under real pressure, outlive most of our conventional marriages. Where do we heterosexuals find the threat? The more stable relationships, the stronger our society. I can't understand the fear. Love ought to be all it's ever about.

Susan:

I didn't accept your invite last time, though I didn't make a public point of it so as not be snotty. But since your making a public matter, accusing us of cowardice ... let's just say the terms of discussion as you spell them out leave any serious religious person completely disarmed from the start, and so I don't accept them (there's also your tendency to use "bigot" as an argument and as an epithet, which turns me off faster than a naked woman).

The only point I can see worth making is ... I don't see why THOSE terms have to be the terms of public policy or public discussion.

let's just say the terms of discussion as you spell them out leave any serious religious person completely disarmed from the start

And that would be why? Because I don't accept the idea that one particular religious sect should be able to impose its views on the commons?

We're not talking about your religious views. We're talking about the rules to be imposed on the entire people by police power.

If you have an argument to the effect that your particular religious views should be imposed by force on the people in general, including people who do not agree with you, please feel free to explain that, with explanations about why this is desirable.

let's just say the terms of discussion as you spell them out leave any serious religious person completely disarmed from the start, and so I don't accept them

Well, that's only true if your religious argument is tautological or does not admit to empirical scrutiny.

O. Susan, while leaving the possibility open that they have just not read any of my posts (something I find odd), I suggest you give up the attempt as a bad deal.

Whether you use actual words like "cowardice" and "bigot" or not, somehow that is all some people are going to see.

Re: Mere Comments -- I once followed Rob's invitation, and by some accounts got my clock cleaned there. I rather enjoyed it, in an ironic fashion, and made a couple of friends (besides Rob). I got lots of typing practice. ;-)

The show must go on, but I'm giving in to temptation and offering the show-stopper: Christians will not own up to the fact that their primary opposition is that homosexuality is a sin, and they cannot tolerate it under any circumstances. All of the rational arguments are a search to convince others on their primary argument, and are not therefore rational per se.

(I think I just called [some] Christians irrational when it comes to homosexuality... I think that's what I wanted to do... it's difficult to blend civility with the desire to be clear, sometimes...)

Courageman and friends,

Let's try making sense for a change, OK?

I don't have a horse in this race. What do I care I'm a 62 year old woman married for 41 years. I'm just trying to figure out whether the arguments on your side make sense. You're not going to convince anyone including me that they do by not making sense, much less by accusing those who disagree with you of calling names. Or whatever.

Your arguments need to stand on their own ground, yes?

That's it, isn't it. I'm wasting my time trying to get them to make sense, because their position isn't based on sense.

Sorry, all. Carry on.

I have no contempt for social conservatives. I just think they're wrong on a number of issues, including this one. "Mythic version of religion" simply means a religious perspective that takes scenes from their own religious history which have a "mythological" quality as literally true. So, Jesus walks on water, Lao-Tzu was born 900 years old, Muhammad flew on the back of a camel to heaven, etc. There are forms of religion where these elements are seen as metaphorical, or having some non-literal, spiritual meaning. Religion contexts which see them as literal are "mythic" versions of those faiths. Again, there's no particular value judgment...just a more accurate method of detailing versions of religion, as opposed to liberal vs. conservative, which is far more unclear.

Of course, modernity has its own superstitions, and scientism promotes its own "mythology". None of which have bearing here.

And yes, the 20th Century was immensly bloody. This has little to do with values. It has to do with the incredibly rapid advance of technology, particularly war technology, and the burgeoning number of people on the planet. There are more people alive today on Earth than all the people who have ever lived before, combined. More people means more death.

As for rebirth in a distant future...I don't know what "my people" you refer to, but belief in reincarnation seems to have nothing to do with it either.

I am both tolerant and progressive. You're more than welcome to feel the way you want, believe the way you want, worship the way you want. And I hope you find happiness doing so. But if you insist on inflicting your religious beliefs on tbe public in the form of unjust laws, my own beliefs mean I need to resist. And I'll let the courts, the voting public, and the government decide the matter. I certainly didn't lead some armed revolt when gay marriage was illegal in CA. I'll work within the system to effect the change I believe is right.

And, you'll note, simply re-reading our mutual posts shows far more bigotry, rancor, name-calling, and general unpleasantess in your own. This is understandable, of course. After all, you think I'm evil. I just think you're mistaken. Clearly, you have more to be upset about.

Here are my thoughts on this matter, Yes I am a Christian woman - married to my husband and we have 5 children and 3 grandchildren. I guess the part I have the hardest time understanding is WHY- anyone would basically even contemplate, changing the Constitution period. This is how I see this particular arguement, people want to have all the benefits of marriage - but they don't want it to go hand in hand with the definition of a marriage- so they want their lifestyle/choice to be worded as a marriage- therefore changing the definition of marriage all together. What a way to make the law work on your side. I hope they are equally prepared to explain this to the one who created them in the end of times- believe it or not- you will face your maker on judgement day. His laws NEVER CHANGE !!

"There are more people alive today on Earth than all the people who have ever lived before, combined."

Just for the record, this is not correct.

See http://www.prb.org/Articles/2002/HowManyPeopleHaveEverLivedonEarth.aspx for
a discussion.

CourageMan... I reject political correctness out of hand, because it encourages people to be dishonest (at least out loud). I know precisely what bigotry is, and that a person is not to be judged by it in the absence of rather a lot of other things (my late mother was bigoted against Germans, didn't care who knew it, didn't care to deny it or debate it).

Allow me to ask this favor: help me understand why Christians deserve credibility in rational challenges to homosexuality when the core of their faith is that they have sole possession of the one and only truth.

Every charge of "cafeteria Catholic" is around that core. Every sectarian debate within Christendom is around that core. Every view of every other religion is filtered through that core. You can't even see that at least some of us are asking, begging even, for a place in which to find consensus on this and a few other issues. Instead, the stock response (not meaning to pick on you) is that liberals are already imposing their morality on Christians, and no one seems to be able to explain to me how exactly that is working, how Christians are being forced to think, behave or act immorally because of these liberals. That is the logical progression behind my admittedly snarkily-phrased challenge above: first and foremost, homosexuality is a sin, and no Christian can be expected to agree to anything that supports it.

If you can provide me with an explanation on how that is a rational basis for opposition to same-sex marriage, that I can dismiss the sin aspect as a primary motivator, I will humbly beg your pardon.

Allow me to ask this favor: help me understand why Christians deserve credibility in rational challenges to homosexuality when the core of their faith is that they have sole possession of the one and only truth.

We're not the ones being constructed in the public sphere as bigots, and are being tried and found wanting in our commitment to "rationality" (whatever that is). Your question is one step up (but only one) from "why are you so bigoted?" being a form of "why should I grant you credibility" with the burden on us to prove our desert.

no one seems to be able to explain to me how exactly that is working, how Christians are being forced to think, behave or act immorally because of these liberals.

No one is ever FORCED to think, behave or act immorally on the basis of any public policy, so that's a complete nonstarter. I reject the very notion that there is any difference between forcing people and converting them to secularism or worse through incessant cultural propaganda, social ridicule, nanny-state punishments and intellectual marginalization.

And I'm very happy to hear that you're opposed to political correctness but that horse left the barn 20 years ago. It's now a fact.

Which part of the "treatment" do you mean, Erin?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Estabrook_School

Parker and the head of Massresistance.org, an anti-homosexual group, continues to characterize the incident by saying "Father arrested while asking for parental notification", instead of "Father arrested for refusing to leave the school when the conference concluded".

A year after his arrest, Parker claimed that his son was attacked on the playground by a group of students who were angry at the controversy. This claim garnered much attention on conservative blogs. However, after an investigation, it was discovered that the incident was a fight between Parker's son and another student over a cafeteria seat.

So, what's my choice then?

Do I finally concede that you have the truth and abandon all support for LGBT people?

Or do I marginalize you because you have consistently met even the most polite requests for explanation with at best dismissal?

Is that the choice you want here, to define this issue?

Why can you not answer the basic question: is your primary motivation that, first and foremost, homosexuality is a sin, and no Christian can be expected to agree to anything that supports it?

Why should you care that anyone sees you as a bigot? I called my mother a bigot to her face, angrily. She calmly agreed with me and changed the subject. You don't have to admit any such thing (and I have not, nor will I call you a bigot absent quite a bit more evidence). Just answer the question -- and if you simply post "I will not answer the question" I'll stop bugging you.

I see we are cross-posting.

I can provide a basis I think is rational.

I will be the first to agree with you that there are some, even many, who will not turn there loops off and give it a respectful hearing.

I promise you, without sarcasm or any dissembling of any kind, that I don't care if I might find it rational. That you do gives me a basis from which I can offer a rational response.

I have what I consider a rational basis for believing that our planet is a living organism. I have every doubt that you would find that rational at all.

You can consider us even, and equals, or you can drop it. Either way, I wish you well with all sincerity.

Erin: "Susan, do you find the treatment of David Parker in Massachusetts to be perfectly legal and acceptable?"

Having read through both his website and several news reports (including the accounts of the dismissal of his case at both the trial and appellate levels) it appears to me that he decided to exercise his right to commit civil disobedience, and after asking him to leave the school called the police and had him escorted from the premises.

When a person decides to exercise civil disobedience, he or she does so with the knowledge that the authorities will make an arrest and attempt to prosecute. That is what civil disobedience is, Erin. He made the decision to exercise that right, and willingly took on the consequences. The school officials did what they had to do to protect the children and the rest of the district employees. The police followed procedure in handcuffing him and escorting him to the station, where he was processed.

This happens countless times with protesters, both groups and individuals. Non-violent civil disobedience is a hallmark of a free country, Erin.

Unfortunately, in the aftermath of the incident, the school superintendent has been put under a death threat by a local talk-radio host. This host has also called for the assassination of all three major Presidential candidates, and was investigated for any role he might have had in the death of a federal judge. Scary stuff, Erin. Thankfully Mr. Parker and his group have no connection to this nut.

is your primary motivation that, first and foremost, homosexuality is a sin, and no Christian can be expected to agree to anything that supports it?

I wouldn't agree to that precise wording, but it's close enough for government work, as they say.

I would say "because homosexual conduct is a sin and objectively soul-warping, public expression of it should be minimal and public policy can never operate on the assumption that homosexuality and heterosexuality are equal." And I would add the corollary that the majority religion has a secular natural right that social norms reflect their values.

The way I put it here a couple of years ago is that Homosexual marriage enshrines into the law and thus seeps into the common culture, from which we all must drink and which shapes us all, the view that homosexuality is morally neutral. This is to me so stunningly obvious (whether this view be a good or bad thing in itself) that I'm really at a loss to understand what your 'how' can be driving it.

Why it is a sin: because a non-arbitrary God forbids it
Why does God forbid it*: because marital relationship and the marital act is the image of God and the source of life; homosexuality at best is a form of pleasure.
What's non-arbitrary: the knowledge of this sin can be seen also is the universal human understanding of marriage as male-female (however much it has differed in other respects)
Why it is soul-warping: because one who will turn against God in the name of pleasure has become a slave to his pleasures, and will rationalize anything in Their Name, amen
Why this matters socially: (1) discouraging "waverers" depends on marginalizing sin, (2) pleasure-slavery cannot be confined to one part of the soul or to one issue in the polity's soul, (3) only one standard of morality can be the Unstated 'Of Course' in the social sphere and it will always affect policy

These aren't strictly relevant, but are why we resist what you consider self-evident or at least uncontroversial:

(1) Politically aware Christians now, based on the 40 years of culture war and spectacular intellectual bad faith (anybody who uses the word "Christianist" or "theocracy," e.g.), are deliberately deaf to calls for "tolerance" from people who can barely (for now, sometimes) restrain their hatred and contempt for us.
(2) we don't accept any of the bases from which people argue *FOR* gay "marriage" for reasons that aren't reducible to that issue (and on which I won't elaborate right now):
(a) the secular libertarian template the freedom is either the highest good or a free-standing good; "I should be free to X" is not an argument separate from whether X is good;
(b) the "self-regarding" standard, i.e., the "if it's not hurting *you personally,* STFU."
(c) the "atomizing" arguments, notion that the individual is logically prior to the family and society, more important than family or society, and that society and the family exist to serve individual needs, as judged by the individual

*Understand that we can only seek to ask "why" this conclusion is true, not "whether" it is true.

But according to the father, that is not what he wanted. He wanted his son to be kept from any child in the school that mentioned anything positive about same-sex marriage or GLBT parents. It was a blanket request, not specific to named children.

Oh sure ... because we all know that 5-year-olds bring up LGBT issues all the time in the playground without encouragement from teachers or lessons. I know I did back in the day.

Of course, the principal can't control what kids say. But he (or some other state agent) can control the curriculum and in fact do, according to the gods they worship (The Most Holy Trinity of Diversity, Inclusivity, Tolerance). Somehow, I'll take the risk that others kids will bring stuff up if I can have the guarantee that teachers won't violate my children's innocence and my prerogative in forming them. Massachusetts will never do that.

And just so we're straight on the facts ... understand that the Parker case BEGAN with his son bringing home Diversity-themed materials, that included homosexual marriage. Later, the teacher read from a story book, King and King, about a gay romance. So the case isn't about "what happens in the playground," but what happened in class and what the school was doing.

Frankly any principal who could say "we do not have any part of the Kindergarten curriculum that teaches students about gay values" when it's passing out "Who's In A Family" (the book that started it all) is a man so blinded by his own worldview that he literally cannot even conceive of an "Outside" of it. This is what we Christians mean when we say that the public schools are nests of anti-Christian bigots -- that worship of the God Diversity has allowed a literate man to say what the principal did.

"Their son was attacked and beaten on the playground by classmates over this, apparently, too. Nice kids--really tolerant."

Violence from schoolchildren on the playground, while unacceptable (though not unheard of in many other contexts) does not equal state action or governmental oppression. The rest of your argument has already been dealt with. Is this the best concrete example of state censorship and oppression you could come up with, Erin?

"On what basis will the state now limit marriage to only two people? That's the next frontier." Rod Dreher

Two wives seemed to serve Samuel's father, Elkanah, well - see 1 Sam 1;
I think Solomon "the wise guy" had a few, too

You have to be kidding me. You say this...

>"Here's in one sentence is the basis for why I think progressives and >secularists hold Christians in contempt, and my related belief that >any discussion on Susan's terms would be worthless.

...about the following sentence.

>But if you insist on inflicting your religious beliefs on the public >in the form of unjust laws, my own beliefs mean I need to resist.

And then you write the following:

>Why it is a sin: because a non-arbitrary God forbids it
>Why does God forbid it*: because marital relationship and the marital >act is the image of God and the source of life; homosexuality at best >is a form of pleasure.

You find MY sentence as proof of my contempt, and you put forward this argument as reasonable.

You have no absolute proof of any non-arbitary God, or any other kind of God, at all.

Even given this God, many, MANY of his followers disagree with your interpretation of what constitutes a sin, and this sin in particular.

And then you actually claim the complete ability to speak for him as to his reasoning about this sin.

If there is anything to be held in contempt about Christians like you, it's not your faith...it's your abysmal lack of even the most basic logical skills. You simply cannot and will not accept that your premises are based upon faith alone, which cannot be logically proven, and with which many perfectly reasonable people disagree. You decide that their mere disagreement is contempt, since anyone who disagrees with you is clearly your enemy.

And you cannot seem to comprehend that trying to restrict a behavior primarily because you think it a SIN is unjust in a pluralistic, multicultural society. SIN is a religious concept...it has no standing whatsoever in any Constitution, or in the law.

Of course, you have every right to believe as you do. But to insist that others should clearly see and agree with your perspective, even if they lack your faith, and that if they do so lack it that they are inferior, and contemptuous of you, has nothing to do with Courage.

Real Courage would be explaining your position to the best of your ability, answering questions as best you can, treating your opponents with patient respect, and always keeping in mind the fact that, regardless of your faith-filled certainty, YOU COULD BE WRONG!

There was nothing contemptuous in my statement. My belief that a law is unjust doesn't make it so. I'll have to answer to my own conscience as best I can, within my own bounds of reason. I have every right to resist injustice within the boundaries of the law. On the opposing side, people have the right to do the same. I don't hold them in contempt...I am in disagreement with them.

Robin Thomas: "It will wind its' way to the United States Supreme Court where it will be overturned."

Under what rationale? There is nothing in the Constitution that states that marriage must be between only a man and a woman. And the Supreme Court specifically declined to review Massachusetts' situation.

www.nytimes.com/2004/11/30/national/30gays.html

Erin, lest you think my question about denying communion to Catholic parishoners was somehow a trap, it came from my reading these stories.

www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=2000#comment-23181

www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=27956

"“Coincidentally, a California law school professor and Constitutional scholar, Douglas Kmiec, who is one of the country’s most outspoken opponents of abortion, found himself denied Communion because of his public support for Senator Obama. Prof Kmiec was attending a Mass prior to giving a speech to a group of Catholic businessmen, and reported on the website CatholicOnline that he was singled out because of his prominence as an Obama supporter."

Kmiec's support of Obama, and Obama's position on abortion, make Kmiec ineligible for communion according to the chaplain at that evening's mass.

Do you agree with the chaplain in this instance? If so, on what basis?

"Let me know Donny when it is proved the earth is flat and 6000 years old."

Let me know where in the Bible it states either. Give me a break.

Lisa Stewart writes: "Here are my thoughts on this matter, Yes I am a Christian woman - married to my husband and we have 5 children and 3 grandchildren. I guess the part I have the hardest time understanding is WHY- anyone would basically even contemplate, changing the Constitution period."

With that part of Lisa's response I agree: The US Constitution says nothing about marriage and should not be amended to do so. While Rod may grouse about people like McCain or Bush not pushing for a Constitutional amendment limiting marriage, it's actually a reasonably conservative position not to do so, particularly when overall opinion is definitely trending in the opposite direction. It's a pretty pointless exercise to tack on an amendment that is only going to be repealed within a decade or two.

Cleveland: "Plain language, ordinary usage and custom as a legal bulwark against mischief is quickly loosing ground in liberal courts to political correctness."

That was said about mixed-race marriages too. Personally, I don't see Gay marriage being about 'political correctness', particularly to gay couples and their families.

Cleveland, are you suggesting that the problem is not about Gays getting married, per se, but the fact that allowing Gays to marry is another step on the road toward preventing people from practicing their religion? If so, why not deal with the issue of freedom of religion directly, rather than through a tenuously connected surrogate? Not all of those who support Gay marriages are also anti-Christian or anti-religious. I see a broad spectrum of religiosity among the homosexuals I've met. It seems that two issues need not be conflated in the manner that many seem to have done.

CourageMan:

The following is a he-said/I-said construction. I hope you will join me in rejecting an projection on larger groups unless evidence is found to support it.

You construct a valid, logical argument. You honestly state the premises and personal positions, and give a consistent progression from them to your conclusions. My rebuttal (and Cleveland, some of this is responding to you) is going to be from the same progression.

We live in a Christian civilization. It is sophistry to insist otherwise. Given that, we also live in a mature society, one that has absorbed a long list of influences, assimilated many points of view, that are of differing paths in that maturation or from completely different paths.

Scott negatively portrays an "infliction" upon our culture and mores, and morality. This can be stripped of its pejorative sense to acknowledge that our secular laws can be traced directly, in large part but not completely, to Christian morality.

Where the rationale breaks down, so to speak, is in the notion that the basis is the only valid source for modern interpretation and modern dynamics in that maturation process. Scott also provides a case in this point: Jews have come to a modern decision about homosexuality, based on their understanding of the same word of God Christians claim makes the Jews (and others) wrong. That dynamic, that conflict, cannot be labeled rational. Belief may drive rational thought, but it cannot be rationally justified per se.

It boils down to one question, debated, agonized over and perhaps inadequately resolved by our founders: when religion drives secular law, who protects those not holding to or members of the religion in the driver's seat? I don't mean to be crass, but there is a fine line between my civil rights and any given neighbor of mine deciding to do something about the godless, satanic pagan walking around with "pagan" on his t-shirt and holding public rituals. In a secular, civil society, Christians protesting my public rituals get arrested if they refuse to desist. If the police are, instead, constrained by the same beliefs held by the protesters, they don't even respond to my call, or simply stand aside and watch.

I will hasten to concede that that is a poor analogy to homosexuality. However, the principle remains the same. The homosexual rejects the label of sin upon his or her life. When a religious belief prevents them from claiming what they see as equal rights under secular law, then each of us has a decision to make. You decide in favor of your beliefs; I decide in favor of the law, and of changing the law using the established processes.

I will own up to my own irrational stance: it is a core tenet of Christianity that the word be shared with nonbelievers, that they may be brought to God and be saved. It is a core tenet of my pagan beliefs that proselytizing is immoral, unethical and a step short of cultish recruitment. The rational view of this conflict is in the basic facts that Christians falsely project cultish recruitment on pagans in general (there are rare, true exceptions) and pagans false view that Christian proselytizing and indoctrination are brainwashing (also with rare, true exceptions). We are both wrong in the general case.

I submit that, the Parker case in mind, that exposure to homosexual lifestyles is not at all an attempt to indoctrinate the exposed to those lifestyles, and the logical complement is the false notion that homosexuality can be cured. The only solution to Parker's demands is the complete segregation of homosexuals and their families from any contact with the rest of society. That is against the law. The mere existence of homosexuals, openly living their lives, is neither an imposition of their "immorality" on Christians nor persecution of Christians. It is the effect of the law.

CourageMan and Cleveland, one final thought that I hope you take to heart: when I invoke secular law, it is with the full knowledge and expectation that bad laws are written, and good laws badly enforced. I will continue to risk getting (and actually be) in trouble with my own faith group -- and with homosexuals -- in opposing bad laws. In some cases, I will be joining you in that opposition.

Compromise is where each side gets some of what they want. Consensus is where the least number of people are unhappy. Compromise is easy, quid pro quo is the definition of US legislation, and we have an endless supply of evidence on the damage it does. The more difficult, and in the long term more effective, path is consensus. I work for consensus, and I accept compromise because I have no choice. That's why I'm here, debating with you. Consensus cannot happen unless I understand your side of things. I hope to give you a chance to understand my side. Understanding does not imply or require agreement, but it's the first big step towards consensus.

I'm shocked at how many people cite Sodom and Gomorrah.

S&G weren't destroyed because of homosexuality, they were destroyed because of their wickedness towards strangers. Especially using rape, which is almost exclusively a male weapon.

This is rather apparent fro the English and completely apparent in the Hebrew.

In any case, I remain surprised that in the US, gay relationships gained quicker general acceptance than the metric system. Normally it's the other way around.

All those years of 'metric indoctrination' in the public schools - at least since the '60s - have counted for naught.

Heh, well the metric system didn't go quite far enough. Temperature should be measured in Kelvins. Setting 'zero degrees' at some arbitrary middle-range was a cop-out.

It's a Fiddler on the Roof thing: The odd ins and outs of 'tradition'. It's sometimes hard to tell which traditions will change first.

I used to coach the swim team at a community pool that was constructed in the mid-70's (In the Mark Spitz era). It was built 25 yards long. One time I asked the pool manager why they didn't build it 25 meters - which would have allowed us to host championship competitions - and he replied: "That's because some idiots on the town council said 'It's an American pool and we'll build it in *American* units.'"

*****************
I recently ran across comments by Andrew Sullivan and I think he got it just about right at least in regard to Cleveland's previous argument.
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/2224950/29149682

"That's because some idiots on the town council said 'It's an American pool and we'll build it in *American* units.'"

Crap. This is so American.

all this perversion might triggers a natural disasters in California You cannot make a wrong right and for those with also perverted minds who make this law happened i fear the wrath of God may befall on you!!!!!!!!!!

Some societies do not consider a marriage valid until a child is produced. That's a defensible position, but it's not the position this culture takes.

Since it isn't, it seems rather disingenuous to all of a sudden now forbid marriage to people who, while they may indeed and often do have children, did not produce these children in the way some people wish they had.

Like all the other arguments I've heard, this is dust in the wind. The real motivations are elsewhere. Those who oppose gay marriage are motivated by strong moral feelings, together with a desire to meddle by force of law in the private doings of other people.

Hey stefani, thanks. The heads I'm turning are the heads of my contemporaries, but I certainly don't have any desire to get involved with a man young enough to be my son, or God forbid, my grandson.

Actually since I'm very happily married I'm not available, but men are always men, until they're 6 feet under I guess. ;)

One of the nice things about gay men like the couple next door is that you don't have to watch them every living minute. This can be a relief.

God love all the loving people. God bring all who call fire and brimstone on people who disagree with them to a happier state of mind.

Rob, my description of Mere Comments was too brief, and a failed attempt at a combination of tones. The discussion was stimulating (better than pretty good), and the rare "lack of charity" as you put it was more than overwhelmed by the rest. Thanks for prompting my clarification.

Your substitution is both fascinating and IMO valid. However, it sorta lends some weight to my statement being not at all simplistic. My focus is on the rhetoric and actions of those reacting to the behaviors, not the behaviors themselves.

One could say that homosexuality is on the same "track" as heterosexual promiscuity -- by which, correct me if I'm mistaken, is meant the so-called sexual revolution and its exemplars like "free love", cohabitation without marriage license, and the like -- but closer to the beginning of the track.

The track is defined as tolerance. It starts with ostracizing, shunning, stigma and shame to the person and immediate family. It progresses to a few, isolated havens where the behavior is ignored rather than tolerated. Over time, evidence builds up to refute the foundation of the original disapprobation. Eventually, the heirs of the original naysayers are doing it themselves. Not meaning to be flippant, but when was the last time a Catholic was ex-communicated for cohabitation? Denied a church wedding to the person in question? Ostracized or shunned by their family? Similar questions to the Protestant side, as well. Similar questions for all sides concerning virginity.

I don't mean to denigrate the beliefs behind that. Sexual morality has an important place in every child's life and maturation. I do mean to point out that the substitution may very well be just as valid in the other direction.

Cleveland, never walk on eggshells around me. That's a demand. Say what you mean, and let me ask for clarification as needed. [Short version: no offense taken. ;-) ]

Speaking of clarification: at no point did I mean to say "only" argument. I've tried to consistently use "primary". It's there in my text you quoted. If I didn't elsewhere, I apologize. Primary is what I mean.

I don't really mean to disagree with you, but I must point out that I have met plenty of Catholics amongst others who do not hesitate to make their religious traditions and beliefs an explicit part of their political agendas. I do not project that onto Catholics as a group, or any other group so described.

I cannot dispute your expectations. I may find them, well, paranoid, but I know you well enough to trust that there is a reasonable balance behind your statements. Yes, as I've said, bad laws get written and passed. Just promise me that you'll not knuckle under to them, and at least give me a chance to join in getting them repealed. :-)

That said, we do have a major point of disagreement, and that is the notion of doing or not doing something to prevent or mitigate some future condition. I refer, of course, to the allusion to Social Security and the looming collapse of our economy as the Boomers retire.

Well... it really belongs in a separate thread, and maybe Rod can be persuaded to create one, but I am a Boomer and I could not care less about SS and the rest. Life goes on. People do or postpone doing things in reaction to unanticipated circumstances. I want my wife to retire in 8 years, and I will continue to work well beyond my own hoped-for retirement to make that possible. My point is that the changing age demographics is a contributor to the larger situation, but it is in no way a decisive one, and I can point to at least two factors that can completely trump it: legislation and social adjustment. Our government can easily rescue SS; our society can (indeed, must) step back from insane levels of consumption beyond means, and pay the piper in terms of parallel steps back in stock prices, company profit margins and so on. I wish to be very clear on this: my POV is that those adjustments are critically necessary, and I am willing to pay in personal "loss" along with turning a deaf ear to the whinings of others who will be affected as well. Our income is still well capable of paying off all our debt. I have no sympathy for the credit card balances and frivolous real estate debt for those beyond their means, and active contempt towards the credit companies who loaned out all that money.

I don't dispute that some (yes, many) women use abortion as backup contraception. My view of their ethics, and how it reflects the ethics of society-at-large, is of more concern to me than controlling abortion per se. Again, let me be clear: our society's primary values are personal entitlement and personal comfort. I decry all symptoms of that, as I hope you do too. Chide a healthy person for parking in a HP spot, lay on your car horn when someone is blocking a traffic lane to conveniently get a coffee or pick up their dry cleaning. Be engaged on that level, that being the level that will present itself most frequently. It needs to start somewhere, and litigation and legislation is not that somewhere.

One last thought: the Church should, without fear of secular sanction, close its doors to any person for reasons it defines. The Church should, without fear of losing tax status, speak out on issues that affect it or are based on its tenets. There is, in fact, a secular organization that works exactly that way, albeit for less controversial subjects, and that's the League of Women Voters. Let the Church take that to court, use that as a precedent. There is, and must be, nonetheless a thick line of demarcation. A church must not be permitted to make campaign contributions. It must not make voting decisions a requirement for membership. This is overlong, and more detail is needed to clarify that, but I hope you get my gist. That line protects in both directions. It is critically important.

Per RJohnson: "How is the loss of tax-free status going to cripple the Church? Years ago... I learned how strong the Holy Spirit was in the underground church..."

Right. But how many church buildings, convents, rectories, hospitals, orphanages, soup kitchens, food pantries, old age homes, schools, etc. did that underground church support?

America’s tax laws favor non-profit religious and charitable institutions because of their benefits to society. Buildings of private schools and universities are exempt from property taxes. Donations to charities are tax deductible. Medical and scientific research enjoys favorable tax laws. Environmental groups raise tax-free funds. But you have the gall to ask why the Catholic Church, which gives away its "wealth" to the point of being unable to properly care for its retired clergy, wants the same status?

You ought to try playing it straight (no offense) for a change.

I am not gay nor wil I be but everyone has the right to be happy and in a relationship. Peoolpe say that god says that it is bad, same sex can not be married. Maybe someone can show me that he said this. Show me what HE wrote, not someone else 100 years, show me what he said then not what someone said years later. YOU CAN'T. Everything we read today are WHAT peope said he said or what THEY FEEL THAT HE MENT. I beleive that we are in hell right now. How else can you explain what is going on. People kill people in ways that God must be crying about. People are are going without food, water while others have to much. Our chidern are used as beating toys by brain died peope for sex things that they then kill or sell. We have women that are used everyday by pimps, by husbands that only want to hurt them and what do we do? Not a thing. Why? I do not see anything here about that and what the faithful are doing to stop that. But I do see millions of dollars spend on stopping marriages between same sexs. DO THE WOMEN AND CHILDERN MATTER??????? You use the bible for what you want and use the words in ways that say what you want them to say NOTHING MORE!!!!!!!!! People have done this same thing for 1000's of years in holy wars so why not now. You are users of his words and deeds for what you want them for. WE must be in hell. That is what the devil woud do. I know that now someone will write about me and what I have said because I am not saying what you think is right or what I think the world shoud be. That is your right. You can do disprove what I have said.

"Show me what HE wrote, not someone else [later]."

gary, what He wrote, in the flesh, was written in the sand. It stopped hypocritical people from stoning a women to death. What He wrote in the Spirit is called the Bible--it condemns all the things which you call a living hell.

The Bible contains His words. For example: Matthew 16:18, 19: "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

gary, if you wanted to believe those words of His, you would see that "what the faithful are doing to stop" the living hell includes a binding prohibition of same sex "marriage". And never mind the Bible--from a secular point of view, why are you acting as though the English word "marriage" ever meant same sex unions? You know it does not, so cut the baloney about the faithful doing nothing--we are being faithful to His written word and the true meaning of the English word marriage. You don't like it because you have your own agenda.

Until you want to understand His words, you will just have to go on living in your hell. I pray you will never experience the actual hell He often talked about.

How many conservative Christians want their rights put up to a referendum?

So well said, Dan, thank you.

"How many conservative Christians want their rights put up to a referendum?"

That's typical nonsense from the militant homosexual play book. A state or U.S. Constitution supercedes any state referendum, so my and your inalienable (God-given) right to practice the Christian religion (e.g., marriage between a man and women) can't depend on a referendum.

Homosexuals don't have a constitutional right to something you want to call "marriage" if it's contrary to that contemplated by the Constitution; same sex, a man and two or more women, a person and his pet, etc. If you want to join in state-recognized civil unions with each other and call it "marriage", knock yourself out and good luck; that's your right. Just don't whine about it if we conservative Christians, or the states, don't choose to disregard meaning, custom, tradition and the English language and call it "marriage."

Got a problem with that? Amend the Constitution. A few off the wall judges can't amend or declare a constitution unconstitutional.

The Liberal State Supreme Court Justices have helped the overzealous left fanatics to win another one. Thankfully, if you noticed the vote count by the court, not all of the justices are knee jerk reactionaries. I am sickened to think that any reasonable person coould consider this proper. A union between two people of the same sex should be the couse of action here. A "marriage" is the commitment of a man and a woman to each other. This is the way it was meant to be. It was origionally a religious ceremony to join the two as one. By making a ruling like this, the court has opened up the path down that slippery slope to "what ever anyone wants to do as long as it makes them happy". Next comes the Man-Boy Love Group, saying they want to legally violate young boys/men, in order to make themselves happy.
Just to let you Know, I am not a closed minded biggoted conservative. I am a Christian-Moderate Democrat-non-conformist. I do have friends and family who arre gay. I love them,and woould do anything for them. I just know in my heart that the court is wrong with regards to this ruling.

There once was a time that people knew that marriage was between a man and a woman. It was asanine to think any other way. It didn't matter whether you were a Christian, or a Jew, or a Muslem, or what religion, it was wrong. We knew that there were people who went against God's Word and decided to be homosexuals but they didn't even think about getting married, the knew, it was wrong. So now we are such a confused society that we think anything goes. Today, people have been bombarded from the media, from all areas of communication that it's alright. How can such a topic be taught in schools is beyond me, a preverted way of having sex is taught in our schools. Homosexuals are not normal no matter how much they want to be. God didn't make it the way to have sex. It opens the door to a whole lot of other things that were once known to be wrong. They, too, will want their "so-called" rights to have sex in their perverted way. In the legal field, look for a whole lot more court cases added to the man/woman marriages that don't last. As if the courts aren't crowded enough as it is. We will now have two women divorcing and two men divorcing.

How exactly does this impact freedom of religion? I didn't think this forced churches to preform the cerimonies or even recognize them.

Maybe I should be complaining because my freedom of religion is infringed on by several closed communion denominations that don't recognize my lutheran marriage to my wife.

Erin, your venom is beyond the pale...

Daniel wrote: "His married father and mother were drug addicts and abusive, and the child was taken away from the married couple when Jeremy was an infant as were three other children.

You said: "So, according to what our Church teaches, Daniel, Jeremy was taken from one abusive situation and placed in another"

How dare any Church teach that a loving, 2 parent environment is an "abusive situation" or even on the same level as abusive drug addicted parents, just because the 2 loving parents are gay. That's just sick.

"the official Catholic position on gay adoptions is that such adoptions involve "violence against children."

Such blarney. Go ahead and believe it if you want to. Speaks to your "values" so eloquently.

Me: "How are we supposed to respond when the very question of our right to engage in relations and our very humanity is denied by those who oppose our marriages?"

CourageMan: "A one-sentence example of why it's useless to debate gay hysterics."

Yes, it's a perfect example. It's useless to debate gays because they won't let us deny their humanity. They won't let us compare their marriages to beaastiality and child rape. Boo hoo hoo. Them mean old gay hysterics.

godisaheretic said, "it took the Supreme Court to end all bans on interracial marriage in 1967...
even though 80 percent of people were AGAINST such marriage..."

Well, despite the Supreme Court's ruling, South Carolina didn't actually lift their ban on inter-racial marriages until 1998, and Alamaba not until 2000, and even then, 40% of people still voted to retain the ban.

Ah yes, the tyranny of the 'majority' - how well we are acquainted.

Hi All

Seeing we're in direct battle with activist judges, I would like a vote on inter-racial marriage. I don't recall being allowed to weigh in that.

How does letting people you'll never meet get married threaten your religious liberty? You're still just as free to practice your religion just as much as you want. But one person's religious liberty does not translate into the "liberty" to use the government to enforce your beliefs on others.

You obviously feel very insecure in your faith, and think that people you'll never meet forming relationships you don't like is going to threaten you. Well, get over it. Seriously. Claiming that you have the "right" to suppress others is called "fascism".

Just as your liberty to swing your arms ends at the tip of the other guy's nose, your liberty of religious beliefs ends at the point where you're using the law to force it onto other citizens.

There is so much evidence that being gay is indeed genetic so I do not understand how we as a nation could want to discriminate against an entire population. Who cares if two people of the same sex get married - how does this affect anyone else's life?

My next door neighbors are a gay couple who have been together for 17 years - I do not know many straight marriages who have lasted that long. They are the best neighbors and great friends.

It is a fact that of the 58 teachers of the year picked from all 50 States and Territories that a few of them were gay (one of them was yes, my next door neighbor). These are the best of the best of our teachers. While there are extremists in every group, the average gay person is just like any other person -only their genetic makeup dictates their attraction to the same sex. Again, how does this affect anyone else's life.

Once upon a time ago, we treated women as if they were second class citizens, not giving them the right to vote, etc. etc. I think that when we look back now we see that was a mistake. I hope we come to our senses and grant the very basic rights to an entire population that we would want or come to expect oursleves as a citizen of the United States. I hope we will look back one day and see that it was a mistake not to grant them the right to marry just as it was a mistake not to grant the rights of blacks and whites to marry or for women to vote.

I find the positions that I have seen of all those opposed to gay marriages to claim to be religous. This is typical of the "very' religous to use selected portions or selected interpretation as their basis for their position. A basic weakness of all manmade religions. They choose to ignore parts of the Bible they do not want to follow i.e. passages prescribing death for adultry or fornication so anyone having sex outside of their marrige is wrong? i.e. no sodomy so no gays, but oral and anal is okay between a man and women? i.e. Paul taught that less one remain celibrate, you would not be saved so God wanted no one to get married or have sex and mankind should die out. But elsewhere Paul said it is better to get married than to try to stay celibrate and risk fornication. i.e. etc., etc., etc. - lots of examples. God gave man free will and holds each of us responsible to Him. He did not place any church or religous leader between us and to their church to void the marriage; they go to court. Although the Catholic leaders want to maintain the control on remarriage through their "God given" ability to annul a marrige after year's of living together; this is about as right as it was in the middle ages.

Marrige is only a religious matter for those who choose it to be for themselves. In all civilized countries, it is a legal contract under state authority. Most countries require a civil ceremony in all cases and then you can have a church ceremony if you wish. For any who doubt this, try to get out of a marriage without legal action in the courts. Even the most religious and bible believing are not going to court when their marriage fails.

Can someone tell me what's the big deal with wanting to be married anyway? I need details people. Is it just because you want to have the same rights as anyone else? if so why is that so important anyway? That just don't seen like the right reason. I mean, everyone may have there own reason but just this whole is getting too complicated for me. I don't understand.

If religion is a religious issue, sacred, then don't have marriages licensed by the state at all. So long as no one is forced into marriage, so long as it isn't a child, why bother?

What practical benefits are there to marriage licenses? Tax break on inheritance of one's house one has lived in for years when your partner dies. Visitation in the hospital. You get consulted on finances and health if your partner is unconscious.

These are important practical benefits that long-term partners should have, period. Don't call it marriage in your church, fine. Someone else's church might call it marriage, though. Great. The state doesn't have to call any of its licenses 'marriage licenses'.

Then the medieval arguments can continue within church walls.

Connie, that was quite the jumble of 'thoughts' there.

There's a non-sequitur in your 'thinking' too...

Could you please explain exactly how and why there will "Suddenly [develop] a huge "market" for children for these couples"?

I have been legally married for over 4 years now, and my husband and I have no such requirement. Nor did my (very) heterosexual sister in her first or second marriages. It was certainly no "NATURAL consequence of either of her two perfectly legal marriages.

As for your contention that "Adoption centers [will] run out of healthy newborns", you seem to forget that gay people - both singles and couples - have readily adopted children both "healthy" and not-so-healthy. Over on the discussion boards, you could read of one such gay person who, with his partner, has adopted 4 children that you - and the majority of the anti-gay crowd - would likely not consider "healthy". Nor are all adoptive children "newborns".

Likewise, many, if not most, gay or lesbian couples that are getting married are obviously not "in the closet". We're proud of who and what God made us.

A little clarity (and logic) please.

I don't believe I mentioned any "hateful intention", Connie.

"It is simply a fact that a large number of married couples desire children."

So? They're welcome to have them. It ain't a requirement to enter the institution of marriage though.

"It is a also fact that a gay couple cannot produce a child within their mutual physical relationship, and it will never be a natural consequence like it CAN be for heterosexual couples."

What you typed is, indeed, "fact", but it is irrelevant fact, since it isn't a requirement of marriage.

"However, anyone familiar with adoption knows that the highest demand is for healthy newborns. It takes special people to accept special needs children and I couldn't do it, personally, many other folks out there couldn't."

And yet, many gay people - both singles and couples - both can and do adopt special needs children. Having said that, it is still irrelevant to whether or not gay people should be allowed to marry. In fact it's the opposite - shouldn't those families - yes, even the gay ones - with children (special needs or, to use your word "healthy" kids) all warrant the same protections, privileges, benefits, etc.?

"Kinsey says sexual orientation can be fluid, which is something I agree with based on other studies and my own observations. The women I know choose to remain quiet about their orientations at this time. That is all."

How is remaining "quiet" about one's very being (a not-so-subtle way of saying "stayed in the closet" with the unsaid implication that that is where they belong) relevant to whether or not gay people should be allowed to marry?

This is getting stranger by the post. Like I said above, a little logic, please.

Regarding all of this hoopla about other people's personal ability to make there own decisions. I wanna say, so what people who are gay want to be married, so what and they want to be able to get a marriage license so they can add their spouse to their insurance and other legal documents. I mean if they want to do that why is it so important for everybody else to have something to say about it. That's their business, if you don't like that your brother or ex husband or your friend is getting married to another man or another woman just don't go to the wedding. But don't be an butt about it nobody needs your negativity. Just like I don't think a man who beats on his wife on a regular basis should be able to keep his genetalia, but thats my personal opinion im not gonna go around lobbying for a law like that. Now we came over here to America to get away from people making rules just because they didn't like us just being ourselves and what do we do come over here and do make our governmment the same way we are becoming what we ran away from, people get it together. Don't judge people just because you don't understand them every woman wants a gay man for a friend so he can tell them if their man's a real man or in the closet and the best person to talk to and to ask about fashion come on with out them you wouldn't have any purses or designer clothes. Now lesbians are sometimes are messy but they always got your back. Let's stop being so judgemental and like people for who they are and not what they do in their OWN bedroomm.