Tony Jones and Rod Dreher discuss SSM

Wasnt even Civil unions a fringe idea say 15 years ago?.

But when the parents say "no," the youngster remembers and as soon as he is old enough will do what the parents said "no" to just to prove to them how little power they now have. The desire may be temporarily slowed, but it remains and is ultimately fulfilled.

re Douthat: Marx wanted us to be human. That's all.

Rod, , a couple of questions:

Given that you have allowed yourself an evolution of your views, from non-Catholic to deep Catholic to Orthodox, how do you square your prior views with your current ones, especially in light of your temperamental conservatism? How do square conversion with conservatism?

I am truly puzzled by this, especially since conversion seems to me a radical break with one's own understanding of oneself and one's place in the world (and, needless to say, one's relationship to God).

Furthermore, given your progression through different understandings of Christianity, it is not at clear to me how you can creditably claim that any, one version of Christianity ought to rule in the public realm. You were at one place in the past, and in a different place, now. That is reasonably a matter for self-reflection, but if you are making foundational claims about society, well, I seem to observe some shifting in those foundations.

This is not an attack on you, Rod, however dismayed I am by your approach to this issue and the lack of generosity you offer to those who disagree with you. You take your conscience seriously, and insofar as your conscience leads you to certain public positions, I respect that.

But this is not (only) a debate about the dictates of your faith and conscience, but also a public one about how do we querulous and conflicted beings live peaceably amongst one another. I don't see you grappling much with that element of this debate; instead, I see you retreat into a kind of furious resignation, indignant at the harms suffered by 'your' side, and unable to engage the notion of harms inflicted.

I don't expect this dialogue with Tony Jones to change your conclusion about the justness of same-sex marriage, but perhaps it will alter your overall stance towards those fellow citizens who've reached a different conclusion.

I must say the difference between your post and Tony's is striking. You have a big, complicated, involved explanation. Tony pretty much says, "Well, I decided that homosexuals are full human beings, so everything which is open to me should be open to them as well."

Which seems to me to point to exactly the sort of thing Douthat is talking about. Real, thinking conservatives see everything as intricately connected. They know that pulling on one part of the web can have huge (and often unintended) consequences on far reaching parts of the web. So before they go yanking and modifying, they want to map the web out to make sure we're not about to accidentally tear the darn thing apart. But it makes their arguments harder to follow. People often have a hard time seeing what one part of the web has to do with the other. And explaining it just takes longer and requires more thinking than most people are willing to engage for.

OTOH, liberals seem to act on the assumption that things exist largely as discrete entities. If they see a string hanging from the web, their first impulse is to yank it. It's simple, it's easy to explain, it's the OBVIOUS thing to do. So the conservatives are left sputtering about unforeseen consequences and trying to figure out on the fly where the string came from and what will happen if it's pulled. And sometimes the pulling the string doesn't hurt anything and really cleans the place up. But just as often it leaves a tattered wreck in its place. It doesn't help that the people who insisted on pulling the string in the first place walk around insisting that there's nothing wrong with the changes while conservatives are left to try and do a structural analysis to show that the web is now weakened and unsound.

At this point, we're so far down the rabbit hole, and conservative arguments have been forced down to such a complex level of detailed examination that I'm not sure there's much hope of gaining much traction in our society. Perhaps our best hope is to really invest heavily into growing families and communities aligned with the natural (or permanent things as you'd call them). It will probably be a multi-generational project. However, a functioning community lived in a conservative way will no doubt be a much more powerful and convincing argument than tons of spilled ink and pixels trying to map out the intricacies of a web which has already been torn apart. Which isn't to say we shouldn't continue writing and talking about it, of course. After all, writers such as yourself aren't simply trying to convince others, but to educate and equip those who would like to create webs aligned with permanent things.

At any rate Rod, I say ignore the poo-poo'ers. This was an excellent post and a very useful one (for me) to boot. It will be interesting to see where this conversation goes.

Great post, Rod. I don't have much to add, just want to echo that my journey has led me to very similar conclusions.

what happened to the video? Says it's not available...help!

re: Weren't Mary and Joseph married when Jesus was born?

Mary and Joseph were betrothed, but not wed, at the time of the birth:

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=93257

To those of you who feel the truth is that gays shouldn't marry: to what extent are you willing to go to enforce your truth on others? Gays and lesbians won't stop in the quest to have some form of recognition of their relationships, whether they be called marriage, civil unions, or domestic partnerships. They having nothing to lose.____Another reason gays and lesbians will get what they want in the end is that Christians will get tired of all the Same Sex Marriage talk. With people losing their jobs, homes, and retirement, they are looking for answers, help, and guidance. They will turn away from people and organizations that can only say, "Look! Homosexuals!".

Even though I hold a different viewpoint about SSM, I think this is a helpful post and a good way to further the discussion. The lack of antagonistic quips here helped me understand your point of view much more than your usual style of writing does, which usually just raises my ire.

(This comment software, however, does nothing to further the discussion -- this is my 3rd attempt.)

"the youngster remembers and as soon as he is old enough will do what the parents said "no" to just to prove to them how little power they now have."

or rather the child grows up and realizes that the parents were correct when they said no to his demands.

Charles its not a matter of power. Rather it is about educating the child to make determinations based upon objective reasoning rather than emotions and spur of the moment desires. Parents are here to guide and educate a child

Sad to say but many on the left act like children kicking,whining, screaming when told no

Rod...

"And more recently, I became aware of how granting same-sex marriage rights infringes substantively on religious liberty, which is to me one of the most precious things about this country."

So you are afraid that the 1st Amendment is going to somehow disappear, and all you religious freedoms with it...

"...I'm most fundamentally opposing a way of looking at reality that assumes it's entirely plastic, and the only meaning it has is that which humans give to it. If we accept that fundamental way of thinking about the world and our place in it, then we are lost, truly lost."

But you have absolutely no problem restricting other people's freedom, and using the coercive power of the state to force them to adhere to your views and "fundamental way of thinking".

Interesting.

I suppose that you call this trolling again, since I am asking you a question.

You and Tony are off to a promising start. Finally, two intelligent guys who can discuss their difference of opinion on this hotbutton issue without getting snarky. Good on ya.

What drives me nuts about the typical public debate on SSM is that its usually framed by two very unimpressive advocates. For those of us who oppose SSM, we get someone shallow and inarticulate like Sarah Palin. Those who support SSM get someone whose argument consists mostly of accusing the other side of "bigotry" and "hate." As a result, the debate really gets nowhere.

"I don't think you'll find many conservatives who will disagree with you that divorce has been a major contributor to the break up of the nuclear family.'

The increase in divorce is also attributable to the fact that most women are no longer slavishly dependent on their husbands income.

Remarkable what financial freedom can do, isn't it?

Of course, you can make it tougher to get a divorce, and the unhappy party can make life a living hell until the other is begging for him/her to leave...

You can blow all the money in the account and leave bills unpaid...
Conduct numerous and open affairs...
Burn the other partners clothing or some such...

Sooner or later, the divorce will happen if one party wants it bad enough.

Max, the logical implications of your analogy are breathtakingly offensive. Your best bet is to ask Rod to delete your post and this one.

Rod,
I wish you and Tony all the best in your dialogs.

One of the most frustrating aspects of reading this and the other discussion logs Rod has so kindly opened to all of us is the disconnect on the part of many between their world view and reality.

When someone writes, I am a child whining for my rights, they are ignoring the findings of science, medicine and the social sciences over the last decades. No serious scientist or doctor holds the position that I chose to be gay. It might be useful for such people to make a brief reference to the other recent fruits of scientific discovery which they reject, beginning with the heliocentric concept of our solar system. Perhaps they could preface their postings with a plane, to symbolize the flat-earth, another radical idea.

I am still angry at the arrogance of people like "me" who state our church here in Europe is "dead". All the priests who were tortured and died in concentration camps for supporting the Islamic residents of Ex-Yugoslavia are dead, as in murdered. Those sisters, brothers and other religious of all denominations and beliefs who ministered to the early Aids victims, back before the vectors of transmission were known, you dishonor their actions and their memories completely. The church here in Europe may have other points of focus than in the US, but to call us dead simply because we don't see the world through your strict filters is deeply insulting.

Others have pointed out the logical fallacy in this exclusive focus on gay marriage as a "threat". When we as Christians are prepared to grant a "marriage" such as Ms. Speers entered into and shortly thereafter exited from as "God's will", yet a monogamous, life-long commitment between two men or women to each other as a threat...somebody is playing fast and loose with their definitions.

Most problematic, in my view, is this focus on SSM as some sort of dangerously radical experiment. A large number of countries in Western Culture have granted us full human and civil rights. Nowhere has this led to the heavens crashing down. Nor have heterosexuals stopped marrying. The US is not alone, tho' sadly isolated.

Perhaps the discussion should rather begin with the question: Are homosexuals who desire a committed, monogamous, life-long partnership capable of being Christians or not? Once those who answer, no, this and only this activity is the unforgivable sin (never mind what Jesus said about the only unforgivable sin, what does His word count against cherry-picked references from Paul?), we can perhaps finally begin to exam the real conflict.

Rod, I admire your desire to work through this. It can't be easy for you, given your positions. I truly wish you could approach this from another perspective than that of slowing down the inevitable as a sign of impending moral collapse. My commitment is not a threat. You have shown great strength in rejecting arguments against inter-racial marriage. I am just old enough to remember that all the arguments I am reading here, especially about “conservative” approaches are warmed over from the oh-so-considered arguments against those marriages. It is worth re-reading the commentary of that time and comparing the fears many held to reality.

I would love to meet the person who designed this software...they must really, really hate us.

What drives me nuts about the typical public debate on SSM is that its usually framed by two very unimpressive advocates. For those of us who oppose SSM, we get someone shallow and inarticulate like Sarah Palin. Those who support SSM get someone whose argument consists mostly of accusing the other side of "bigotry" and "hate." As a result, the debate really gets nowhere.

Well, yes. But that is because the rational part of the debate is so short and simple that no one seems to pays attention to it anymore.

SSM advocate: Marriage is about socially legitimating existing functional social structure and commitments; sex is incidental to it. SSM completes marriage as an institution.

SSM opponent: We insist on rigidly coupling heterosexual sex, childbearing, and marriage. We reject SSM on theoretical grounds even though we cannot muster compelling evidence that any of these theories are true.

(Long dispute on the validity of the theories results.)

The question and its ramifications vary from person to person and group to group based upon their experience and biases. This is expected, it is what happens with people. We each bring ourselves to the table, with our histories and beliefs.

What is interesting is that homosexuality is on a trajectory towards wide-scale acceptance including marriage, (though marriage itself will likely belong within the province of churches, while civil union is what legally exists between two people.) This does not create two classes of legally sanctioned union. There is in fact only one, and that is civil union. Marriage as a church governed state with a surrounding set of ceremonies and pledges is strictly religious in nature. Here then the principle of separation of church and state is accomplished, and in my opinion wisely. The church is free to marry or not as it sees fit, (and in Canada there are churches that will marry homosexual couples and others that will not. This is as it should be.) Freedom of religion and the rights of a couple of the same sex to marry are both provided via this route.

So far in Canada, the sky has not fallen, and the churches are not making much of a noise about the menace of homosexual marriage. Most of those that did oppose it are not terribly vocal, and don't get much play time in the media. Today it is a dead issue. The Conservative party of Canada allowed a free vote on re-opening a law that legalized same-sex marriage in 2005 (which was defeated 175 to 123.) By the way, in Canada no church is obliged to marry anyone.

In the U.S. it is going to be a slower and tougher road. Still, it will happen, (too quickly for some, and too slow for others.)

Franklin Evans
November 21, 2008 12:40 PM
Max, the logical implications of your analogy are breathtakingly offensive.

*****

Franklin, I will agree that it is offensive to argue that just because someone is born a certain way that it must be good because, "God made them that way."

Very offensive. But I'm not the one making that argument, Margie did (and many others have).

I'm just illustrating how absurd the argument is. That there are those born with cancer proves that just because someone is "born that way" it doesn't follow that "that way" is a good thing.

And yes, Rush illstrates the absurd in the same manner. I take the reference as a compliment, the lame "permission slip" jibe notwithstanding.

Same Sex Marriages

Tony Jones, I see you have thought deeply on this topic. I would just like to state my opinion on here in response to your article. I don’t intend to offend anyone either. It has always been my personal view that everyone should have the right to a legal Marriage. Where if a same sex couple wishes to be married that it would be right for them to be married. I think that despite the way the Church represents itself, there is a lot of truth hidden within their bible stories and ideology.

I grew up in a Roman Catholic household; both sides of my family are Roman Catholics. I do not remember hearing much about same sex marriage growing up from the Priest in Church, but I do know that when I found out that my Aunt was a lesbian, I thought it was different when I was younger, and maybe that was due to the fact that nobody really told me or talked about it until I was about seventeen.

Last summer the family was on a beach trip and that’s when my Aunt told me, happily, that she was engaged and that she and her partner were getting married in California. This was some time before proposition 8 was established saying that no longer can same sex marriages be accepted in the Church, or State. I asked her how she felt about it. She seemed a little conflicted on it, and said that she thought she was “ok” with it because the people would never stand for these things that long.

It’s hard to explain, but sometimes infringements upon our rights lead us to think more deeply on these matters.

What I wanted to make a point about Marriage is the fact that it shouldn’t be about the government and it shouldn’t be some “legal issue” that we have to work together and finally resolve our differences. There have been lesbian and gay people since the dawn of time. Mankind evolved from a common ancestor, and what this ancestor was like exactly is debatable.

I had a lot more that I wanted to say, maybe God didn’t want my last post to go through... the laws of Marriage are just as important as liberty, justice, love & kindness, and respect for each other’s differences despite these long standing lines of separation. I think love should be what marriage is all about, not idolatry of labels and the "institution"

I hope this makes sense. I would like to be more thorough but unlike my aunt I think that when liberties are taken away or not even granted, that it impedes the growth of our world as a whole, as a free world, as a world where we do not act out of anger and hostility. When an enemy hits us we turn the other cheek not out of fear but out of love and respect for ourselves, and where love is common and not terror, torture, war, and above all that marriage be sacred, not about some line that is drawn that people are not permitted to cross.

In the middle east, same sex marriage is practically forbidden. It is punishable by the death penalty in some places. Is this how we want the United States of America to be? If we are going to start anywhere, it's here...this is where it all begins. The rest is just fiction. We are allowed to be free, aren't we?

The contrast between Gabrielle and Charles Cato's postings (Gabrielle 22Nov 4.50pm, Charles Cato 23Nov 2.14am) could not beThe contrast between Gabrielle and Charles Cato's postings (Gabrielle 22Nov 4.50pm, Charles Cato 23Nov 2.14am) could not be greater.

Gabrielle, thank you for such a sane, reasoned comment. It does my heart good to see that not all participants in this discussion are frozen in their attitudes.

Charles Cato, I can well appreciate your concerns, especially after reading through that thoroughly delightful link you attached.

I won't even attempt to argue with you about it, the information being either so skewed or incorrect as to make a discussion absurd.

Instead, may I draw three points to your attention? In fairness, you should also consider these.

The first is an interesting article from 1988. Published in the NY-Times, it reflects the uncertainties of its day.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE1DE1F39F935A25751C0A96E948260&sec=health&spon=&pagewanted=all

The second is more current, a book excerpt from 2004, it represents the thinking common in that time:

http://books.google.de/books?id=bVMX8aWLZJ8C&pg=PA73&lpg=PA73&dq=worldwide+heterosexual+versus+homosexual+aids+deaths&source=web&ots=VNZPdEun3d&sig=HdRuuqVQqabYRSldU06vcKc0Sok&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=9&ct=result

Finally, I was sorely tempted to publish the health department statistics on heterosexuals who have acquired disease through their activities. Realized, however, that you would reject these on the simple basis that the statistics do not apply to monogamous couples.

Which is precisely the point. Your brochure takes a set of statistical tables. It then conflates these with the worst possible case for each of the practices listed. The imputation being that gays are both a health-threat and short lived individuals who should be quarantined from society. The screed closes with a plea for Christian tolerance which would have pleased the Sadducees.

On the basis of the statistics mentioned in the two small links I posted above, one could, by the same application of logic, clearly "prove" that the one set of people I should not want my children in contact with is young, heterosexual women...

You can prove anything you like with statistics, and that is the danger here.

Hmm, to be fair, perhaps I should ask whether you would like some links to heterosexual behavior? They might surprise some people here, especially regarding oral/penile and anal/penile aspects.

To put it mildly.

Sorry, Charles, but this is too uniformed, crude and out-right false to be of any use. A nice attempt at propaganda, and did I not see some input from a certain Rev. Haggard in there somewhere?

Rod, this software is truly the nastiest thing on the Internet. Keep working on it, please. greater.

To public defender:

Gays do exist. But nature has not tasked homosexuals with the procreation and education of the citizenry. Thus, gay couples incur no material risks requiring contractual protections as heterosexuals do.
That's why marriage has for thousands of years dealt with heterosexuals alone.

Next, you are right that heterosexual "no fault divorce" was a massive atom bomb hurled upon marriage (especially for women and children). The right response is to repeal no-fault divorce, not forever enshrine easy divorce through gay marriage law.

I hope you can see that we definitely need to reinstate severe penalties on divorce, as those former protections for women and children were removed via "no-fault" divorce in 1970 and had disastrous economic consequences. Easy divorce destroyed the "life-long" stipulation of traditional marriage law, making marriage temporary and promoting economic destitution of woman and children. No-fault divorce removes the recourse women and children have against an unscrupulous abandoning partner.

That this discussion is even happening is testimony to the fact that we are largely incapable of discerning God's will about what's right and what's wrong. Even though it's written down for us: "Do not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination.", we are still unable to determine what the truth is. Are we really this blind as a society?____Now before you label me a "gay hater," I must admit that I've been thoroughly embarassed by other Christians' treatment of homosexuals. If we really knew Jesus, we would know that condemning homosexuals hatefully and spitefully is wrong. We must lovingly (did you hear that? lovingly....) call people to repentance...to turn away from self-destructive behavior, be it homosexuality, out-of-wedlock heterosexuality, rage, anger, greed, lust, or whatever other filth we've gotten ourselves into. ____Jesus endured the cross for a reason. Does anyone know? Does anyone know why Jesus had to die? That awful death that He bore was the wrath of God...the wrath of God against sin.____How have we become so out of touch?__

To Rod Dreher,
You said, "I believe that the state should make some provision for same-sex couples in the law (some form of civil union), but that traditional marriage should be privileged."
Don't you understand that by supporting civil unions, you are supporting the incrementalism that will eventually result in homosexual "marriage"? There is only One kind of union, and that is the union of a man and a woman as defined in Genesis and carried on throughout the Bible. Any other is false, and it is political and social pandering.
Thank you.
Rakman

Jesus did not condemn homoexuality nor did he condemn those who are born blind. He did however tell us not to judge and this is what many Christians are doing by not allowing gays to marry the person of their choice.

Marriage is a civil, secular contract.

Whatever ceremonies you practice on the blessed day, whatever religious dogma you dress it in, at the conclusion of the presentation the dearly beloved sit down and sign a civil, secular government document to make the marriage legal; a Marriage Certificate.

Until that piece of paper is signed and witnessed, you can prance around a 20-foot statue of Jesus riding a Buddha, and the government won’t give a damn. The couple may be wed in the eyes of their Church or the flying spaghetti monster, but they won’t receive a single legally bestowed marriage right.

To be married, you don’t need the Church or the ceremony. All you need is the paper. The contract is the same whether it is a Baptist couple signing it in their Church, or an atheist couple signing it in a courthouse; whether it is a drunken couple of strangers in Vegas who are going to get divorced 24 hours later, or a death-row inmate marrying a woman he met in a personals ad via the phone.

So what is this argument really about?

Is it the word? The word ‘marriage’ predates the Church’s officiating of the event. The word is not owned by any culture, race or religion on earth.

So I say, keep your heterosexual marriage traditions, which, contrary to popular myth, have undergone many changes in the past hundred years – and continue to evolve. Keep your religious ceremonies, too.

But don’t lay false claim to the civil, secular marriage contract that legitimizes those marriages in the eyes of the Federal Government. That’s all I’m really interested in, for the simple reason that ‘separate is never equal,’ and homosexual couples should not have to worry about traveling between States where their “civil union” may or may not be recognized.

I have had many conversations with conservative-leaning believers about the practice of polygamy in the Israelite community as depicted in the Old Testament. I have yet to hear a satisfying explanation of God's apparent approbation of of it. Invariably, the attempted answer runs something like this: "Well, that was the culture at the time and, although God established marriage in the beginning as a covenant between one man and one woman, He made allowances for the Israelite's cultural distinctions. It is a matter of free will." This makes absolutely no sense. God is CONSTANTLY laying down the law in the Old Testament, regardless of the Israelite's compliance with it. The ten commandments are a perfect example: hard and fast rules that reflect the nature of God and the nature of man. Read the book of Joshua. There, God rewards his people in battle with the riches and spoils - and the women - of the vanquished.

In the New Testament, Paul's writings give a clearer picture of marriage. He speaks of an agreed-upon hierarchy: God->Husband->wife with the enormous caveat that a man must love his wife as Christ loves the church. A conservative Catholic or Evangelical would argue that a New Testament marriage is egalitarian at the level of spirit - as God is. "There is neither slave nor free, Jew nor Gentile, male nor female" (Galatians 3)

Still, it is unclear whether the teachings of Paul - or Jesus for that matter - on marriage have to do with enshrining the institution or communicating God's values to an institution that is already enshrined. Paul and Jesus were both, significantly, single ... as of course are the leaders of the Catholic church.

In Luke 14 (26,27) Jesus warns against making an idol of the nuclear family. His vision of the human family is always broader and more inclusive than the social, political, or religious status quo. I've been waiting for the paraphrase that re-states these verses: "Don't focus on the family."

Marriage and family have gone through several permutations over the centuries. Through many of those permutations (including the OT record) women were viewed as property and children as the emergent workforce. The romantic language that surrounds legal and philosophical writings during these times cements these practices and indeed contributed to the strengthening of society.

As Rob points out, marriage has been experiencing a cultural de-volution in the West for a long time. Divorce rates are as high in the church as anywhere else in society. Pornography addiction is as prevalent in the church as anywhere else in society. Teen alcohol abuse and drug use is as high in the church as anywhere else in society. Something needs to be done, but noone knows what.

I fail to see how drawing a line in the sand at same-sex marriage is that something. There seems to be a general impression among detractors of same-sex marriage that gay and lesbian couples merely want to join a dubious club - to have a big party to celebrate their infatuation with one another. To some extent, that may be true for some people; but the most powerful spokespeople for marriage equality are couples like Phylis Lyon and Del Martin (Del passed away before Prop 8 passed) - together 50 years.

There is more to the support of same-sex marriage than crazy liberals jumping on the latest hip bandwagon. The definition of marriage is evolving - but not evolving out of the contours of monogamy, stability, and social strength.

Traditionalists who get nervous talking about social evolution refuse to acknowledge that marriage evolved INTO the definition that they champion. Every several generations, society need to find its bearings. Bringing Christian teachings on marriage and family into the GLBTQ mileau is THE alternative to turning our backs on these communities as they slide into addiction, disease, and suicide. Lifelong celibacy cannot be foisted on a significant percentage of the population.

As the opponents of same-sex marriage continue to argue their case, though, they would be wise to steer away from the religious arguments that I have just engaged. America IS a pluralistic society. Judeo-Christian tradition will have an ameliorative effect to the degree that Judeo-Christians do not demand total adherence to a letter-perfect interpretation of Scripture. For one thing, that could bring back polygamy.

I envision same-sex marriage to be legalized because there are two powerful economic forces that will be pushing for it: wedding planners and divorce lawyers.

Civil discussion is great, but that doesn't mean that you get let off the hook. Anytime you support legislating inequality that is bigotry. But before we go on, we have to distinguish between marriage as a civil institution, and marriage as a religious/cultural institution. I want to talk about marriage as a civil institution, and the moral considerations that all of us, religious and secular, need to consider when looking at marriage equality.

I am a fervent believer in civil rights, and in the idea that our laws and our government should be neutral, independent and non-discriminatory. As far as the law is concerned, a marriage is a license that two people get at a county courthouse. They may go no further, simply having a civil law judge pronounce them as married, or they may take that license and ask their religious congregation to do so. It is one of the few instances where we even allow clergy to have an official legal role, in this case replacing a civil law judge. We do not, and cannnot, within our Constitution give clergy a monopoly, they are just an option for the couple in question. By posessing this license, the couple accrue a whole host of rights: property, probate, hospital visitation/medical, taxation, inheritance....the list goes on and on. At the federal level, according to a 2004 GAO study, it is over 1,100 different rights, plus hundreds more at the state level, depending upon which state one lives in. Some states offer same sex couples various domestic partner benefits, California's suite of domestic partner benefits is very broad. However, sex domestic partners are not equal to married partners in terms of California state law (which is why the State Supreme Court originally struck down the ban on same sex marriage last spring), and no state level domestic partnership/civil union status confers any federal benefit. Separate but equal is not equal; that was settled in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education case against segregation. The same principle applies here.

Government rights and benefits should be available equally to all citizens; it is the embodied in the equal protection clause of the Constitution. What just happened on Nov. 4th in California, Florida, Arizona and Arkansas, with the various homophobic ballot initiatives violates that equal protection. Moreover, in California and Florida, some of these same homophobic, religiously inspired groups are putting forward plans to "build on the momentum" and repeal the various domestic partnership benefits. Similarly, the Mormon church, took great pains to emphasize that their funding proposition 8 in California was not "anti-gay" and that they "don't hate" LGBT individuals. They argued that LGBT couples have equal rights already in California as domestic partners, they just objected to "marriage" for same sex couples. Equality Utah has, in the wake of the prop 8's passage, stepped forward and asked the Mormon church to support the passage domestic partner benefits in Utah, the ones that the Mormon church supposedly supported in California. So far the church has declined to support them.

When religious leaders condone homophia and lobby for discrimination, we set off down a very rapid slippery slope that promotes hatred, demonization and gives sanction to violence. Although young people today are much more tolerant than even 10 or 20 years ago, "gay-bashing" is still a problem for teens and young adults. According the latest FBI statistics (from 2006), 15% of all hate crimes were committed against individuals because of their sexual orientation. In the wake of passage of proposition 8, two transgender persons (both men living as women in this case) were murdered, one in Syracuse, New York, the other in Tennessee. Gays and lesbians were similarly reviled in the 1930's in Germany; between 5,000 - 15,000 were sent to the concentration camps and murdered (I've met academics who believe it was much higher, since homosexuals had to hide their identity in post-war Germany, but that is another discussion).

The recent rhetoric employed against the LGBT community by many so-called Christians has been similarly shrill. Maybe there is good reason that so many gays and lesbians are angry and are pushing back?

I was going to discuss marriage as a religious and cultural institution, and examine your arguments about chastity, religious teachings, etc...but I think I will save that for the future. I have a more immediate set of questions to pose:

1. How are we supposed to respect religious groups when they put forward lies and hypocrisy, and give moral sanction to bigotry and discrimination? Where is moral outrage at the violence against gays and lesbians?

2. Are "conservative" religious groups going to use their political power to lobby Congress for passage of legislation protecting the LGBT community from hate crimes and employment discrimination? If not, how is that consistent with requirements of the Gospel, to love your fellow man?

3. Why should we subordinate civil law to current interpretations of religious requirements? What about the rights of religious bodies (Jews, Unitarians, Quakers, United Church of Christ, etc, with different interpretations that sanction marriage equality? How can denying them the ability to legally marry same sex couples be squared with freedom of religion

4. Given human history's sad penchant for persecuting minority groups, including minority religious groups, how can any religious group sanction discrimination in civil law?

Johnny D. Those are some wonderful points! I feel it is a matter of evolution of humanity, and also as free individuals a part to society. Could the government be compared to a society of friends? Who, really, gets to judge when it comes down to the point? Does society really get the say in whether or not you have a right to be who you are? No matter what your view, think about it- what rights are you willing to compromise in order to pave the new foundation of future generations of social and political governments.

Basil, wow. what an eloquent and thorough post.

I agree with others who have suggested that religionist opponents of same-sex marriage should not bring their beliefs to bear on the political discussion.

however, to properly debate their viewpoint, religion is a good place to start.

religion is the cornerstone of the opposition to same-sex marriage. it should be made clear that the judeo-christian tradition is NOT unanimous on this.

that is important backgrounding to the debate proper - that is, the debate at the level of civics.

the campaign for prop 8 was conducted intelligently and, in many cases, eloquently. the problem is it was riddle with downright lies.

stripped to its core, the argument is that gays can only be granted full equality at the expense of religious freedom. to combat this, religious people have fought to "maintain" their freedoms at the expense of gays. its a real tit for tat and also a lamentable sham.

bottom line: the church and state must be separate. civil unions for all with marriage preserved as a religious rite for those who want it. any homosexual couple who would sue a church over not performing this rite for them is being short-sighted and vindictive. Many United Methodist, Episcopalian, and Presbyterian (USA) churches have no problem extending the rite to gays, nearly all UCC churches promote marriage equality, ALL MCC churches do, and most cities in California have at least one Reform Synagogue.

don't let the religious right dictate the terms of this debate!

I hope you guys realize that our culture is in trouble. One o fthe things that we tend to include is our opinions. We must remember that we each are given a volition and can choose life or death. However when an automobile maker designs and create a automobile an ownwrs manual comes with the car. It details the proper oil one should use, best fuel (octane) to use and one can choose from variable colors. However since man did not make man he has no concrete idea of whats best for the man. We actually spend our lives contemplating on what we aspire to become, ect. Nonetheless It was God who created man in His own image and likeness and He alone determines and defines what marriage is. It is between a man and a woman.I pray that we get past trying to include ant other plan in our lives except what the will of God is.

I support the right of homosexuals to marry. Very simply, the case against it isn't very convincing.

Yes, homosexual intercourse is a sin, as is every other sort of fornication. Whether being homosexual makes it worse, I can't claim to know.

But if we authorize the Government to discriminate against sinners, that includes us all. We are civilly obligated to tolerate all sorts of sinners. The worship practices of Mormons, Scientologists, and Mary devotees are all sins by the interpretation I was taught - maybe worse than homosexuality, who knows? The law, recognizing that no one can claim the kind of certainty needed to call your neighbour a criminal about such matters, requires that we treat these sinners as equals.

It is the same with marriage issues. Some define marriage after civil divorce as fornication. Legalizing homosexual marriage would not require churches to perform them. It would require church members to treat homosexual marriages as valid.

And the greater society has every right to insist that even those whose beliefs forbid contracting such a marriage accept them that far, in the interest of civil peace. We demand the same of the person who objects to remarriage after divorce. Claims that tender consciences would be outraged by this are best answered: tough.

The entire campaign about "saving marriage" is rhetorical malarkey and builds distrust. The implied idea is that someone else's marriage would be somehow devalued if homosexuals can also marry each other. You have to wonder how people can make such claims with a straight face.

Marriage as outlined in the Bible is a construct of God and thus by Gods definition two members of the same sex cannot be married. As killing the unborn child is murder and has been sanctioned by government, two people who have the governments sanction in an illegal and immoral union in the court of heaven means zilch. It is Gods decision which matters and He has shown His wrsath against societies which fallen into such wanton depravity with the destruction of Sodom and gomorrah, Philistia, the Greek Empire, the Roman Empire the Israeli Empire , the Judahan and many more and each western nation that has the glorious light of the gospel shone into its heart and then turns from the light back to pagan practices will also be destroyed, welcome Barack Hussein Obama. Johnny Ds call to leave religionist religion out of political discussion is asmoke screen because the religion of Humanistic Evolution is well in the market place when coming into politics and is ruling the Dau. Homosexuals cannot be married and should not have any rights in the santity of marriage for their debauchery is an affront to a most Holy God and will be judged as will any nation that sanctions arsen coitus, this is the mind of God.

James you are not making sense. Barak is not president yet so how can he be blamed for all the things going wrong with mankind now. He did not invent abortion or homosexuality. I am against abortion so I never had one. I am not gay and feel it is a sin so I will never be involved with another woman. I do not see how some gay person across town getting married is going to demean my 30 year marriage. Only two people can do that---my husband or me.

Look around you today and see how many heterosexuals stayed married their entire lives. Most of the couples I knew at the time I got married are now divorced. Til we heterosexuals get it right, we should not have a monopoly on marriage.

Why does the Christian right always focus on homosexuality and abortion, and not other social ills like heterosexual adultery, violence and torture, the epidemic of poverty, etc. etc. that can also be found in the Bible? Recent Republican administrations could just as easily be equated to supporting or not doing anything against these under the same standards they judge liberals like Barack "Hussein" Obama by. Therefore, if I wanted to make a sweeping generalization, we have been in a self-centered, secular society the past 8 years that has gone against the ways of God and promoted evil under George Walker Bush.

And God Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors, and some teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, until we come to the unity of the faith and the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ; that we should not longer be as children, tossed to and from by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, but speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all thingsinto Him who is head-Christ.
Anyone who has accepted the change of doctrines in the world are being tossed to and fro by deceitful plotting. God has given us Truth. "And you shall know the Truth and the Truth shall set you free."
Anyone caught up in (lying, greed, selfish ambition, fornication, adultery, immorality (sexual or otherwise), gluttony, gossip, quick to wrath-torture/violence...) are not understanding Truth. God does not need us to believe in order for Him to exist or for His word be True. We are very pirdeful to believe so. God esblished marriage and its true meaning. God established it to be a beautiful thing that we have distorted and destroyed. He says that the oneness in marriage is a picture of Christ and His Bride (the church) and that this is a mystery. But let me explain the mystery so that it is easily understood:Scripture refers to Jesus as the bridegroom and it refers to believers as the church or the bride/wife. We’ll look at the spiritual covenant and how it parallels to the one God initiated in the garden between Adam (mankind) and his own bride, Eve (Life)

Genesis 15:18- “On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram.” The Hebrew word for covenant is beriyth, a compact, treaty, or alliance made by the passing through pieces of flesh or the divided parts of a victim. The word translated made is karath, meaning to cut.
The ritual meant that the person making the covenant “cut” the animals in half, representing the sealing of the covenant with one’s life. So, when God made this covenant with Abram the sacrifice was laid out and the pieces of flesh then God’s Spirit literally passes through them, thereby sealing it with His life.

So when a man asks a woman to marry him, he is asking her to enter into a covenant with him. On their honeymoon, the covenant will be sealed by the groom’s own “passing through of the pieces of flesh.” Also if, the woman is a virgin, her skin will be “cut” on that first night, symbolizing the “covenant made,” thus sealing it with his life long commitment “let no man separate.” “No man” means exactly what is says, no one, not even the parties involved.

Now when a bride and groom marry, they come together in one flesh, they have sex. The way God intends, this would be the first time for them both. Through the love-making process there is a probability that at some point “new life” will begin inside the bride-she will become pregnant if God so wills. Here is the mystery and how it corresponds to the husband and wife. In much the same way, when we repent and turn to God, we invite the Lord, by way of His Holy Spirit to come into us. When we do this the Scripture says that God “circumcises” the heart. (Romans 2:28,29; Colossians 2:11-15) and a “new life” begins which Paul refers to as the “new man” and being “born again.”.

Just as your children will look like one of you, in his/her features, and will grow up with many of the same characteristics, such as voice, posture, laugh, and even attitude. We spend time every day with our parents and pick up a lot of the same likes and dislikes. So will the one who spends time in the Word of God, getting to know His character, His likes and dislikes. Allowing the Holy Spirit to have His way with you creates “new life” in you. The “new life” being formed in you, by the renewing of your mind, will at full maturity take on the resemblance and characteristics of your Heavenly Father.

This is why it is so important to God to keep ourselves pure until we wed. Our lives, our marriages in this world are a beautiful picture of Christ, the Lamb and His bride, the church. When we step outside God’s order for marriage and sexual relations, and we claim to be Christians, we distort or make unclean the puzzle picture God designed to glorify Himself. Then the world has no example to look upon that is a picture of purity and true Oneness, or true Christianity.
This is also why God hates divorce. Jesus will never divorce His bride. He seals His covenant with you with a promise ring, His Holy Spirit, and His life, Jesus Christ. When we divorce, the world sees no hope or stability in Christ. When we sin against God and repent because of His great love, He forgives. Therefore this is what the world needs to see in us, love and forgiveness until death do we part
This does not always work because of the hardness of OUR hearts not because of the INSTITUTION itself. God's way is and always will be perfect it is we who are not. God loves us and wants us to choose rightly, however we know that not everyone will. He says it's not His will that anyone should perish but that all would have eternal life. But He gives us our choice. I know the end of the story and I choose to be dead to myself, and alive to His truth. But in doing so I have received full liberty, freedom. I can do anything I want to now; because Christ has changed my want-to's