Vermont: Gay marriage is religious liberty threat

Note: I just posted this at the end of an earlier thread, but it seems right on point here:

I am feeling pretty good this week. A court and a legislature has gotten it right. The American polity is adjusting, in its unique and ocntentious way, to the phenomenon of gay people living openly and taking their place in society alongside their neighbors. It says a lot that the debate has moved in the course of only a few decades from "Should we toss the sickos in jails and mental institutions?" to "How should the law treat their relationships?"

Naturally, I side with equality. And with what I have analyzed to be the result most reasonable and rational, in alignment with my conception of what it truly means to be an American. Other people have differing beliefs, just as sincere as mine, and have applied them to reach different opinions. Some people will change their opinions over time, as I have, and some will remain firm. I am glad that we live in a society where everyone is free to voice their opinion. I am glad that we live in a society where freedom of religion is protected, and I don't take lightly the legitimate concerns of those who fear that the divergence of their beliefs and those of society at large may trigger a backlash. I promise them that I will be there to stand with them to maintain their liberty, even though they don't stand with me today to maintain my equality. As Ben Franklin said, "where liberty is, there is my country".

So maybe I will back off a bit, and let the other side have their venting.

Peace and God bless.

Surely, Rod, the fact that the law allows civil marriages to be performed between members of your Orthodox Church and the unbaptized has never made you worry that you own Orthodox Church would be forced to perform these weddings. And surely you never feel that you face any kind of religious threat to your liberty because Christians are allowed to marry Jews in America.

The truth is that the opponents of gay marriage made up a large number of arguments that they fed to the public. Finally, the only argument that generated sufficient fear among the faithful was the false possibility that there might be some "threat to religious liberty" that gay marriage could cause. This fear was completely false, it just had the effect of resonating among the faithful and thus was used as a cudgel to attack and oppose gay marriage.

In a strange turn of events, falsely claiming that gay marriage represented a threat to religious rights was used to attack gay rights.

The American polity is adjusting, in its unique and ocntentious way, to the phenomenon of gay people living openly and taking their place in society alongside their neighbors.

In their own way, I do think that conservatives should rejoice in the knowledge that conservatism "works." No new, untested ideas were forced on the public. The United States conservatively had a large backlash against "change" until the public had a chance to test out the new ideas, adjust to them, and adopt them as "normal."

If one chooses to believe that America is a "conservative nation," one can reassure oneself that gay marriage was not adopted until it was considered "normal." Seriously, this debate has been going on for many years, already, and it started with civil unions being accepted in Vermont almost 9 years ago. In 50 years, the large majority of those who have serious moral objections to gays being allowed to marry will be dead.

So that's it: recognize it as a victory for conservatism. Conservatism demanded skepticism and opposition to gay marriage. It was tried on a limited basis. The world did not end when it was allowed. So it became accepted and adopted.

Does Ms. Gallagher also think that teaching science to children is a violation of religious liberties because some people who identify themselves as Christians reject the scientific evidence about the universe, the earth, and life on earth?

To answer the question about religious protection:

It was put in their to get the support of some of those on the fence, perhaps, but mostly because the vast majority of gay marriage supporters have NO INTEREST in forcing churches or clergy to conduct marriages they don't want to; so it couldn't hurt, and it takes that argument away from their opponents.

"It was put in their to get the support of some of those on the fence, perhaps, but mostly because the vast majority of gay marriage supporters have NO INTEREST in forcing churches or clergy to conduct marriages they don't want to; so it couldn't hurt, and it takes that argument away from their opponents."

Exactly. Here in Iowa, when the discrimination code was introduced (long prior to anything being pushed about gay rights), churches and religious organizations were specifically exempted from it. In other words, churches and religious organizations were permitted to continue discriminating on the basis of race, gender, politics, religion, and family status (the original classifications in the law).

Tax exempt AND exempt from discrimination laws. Talk about special treatment!

Yep, we have reason to fear what might happen here based on what is happening in Canada. It's only a matter of time before we start seeing this on a daily basis here in the states.

These seem like reasonable protections. I think there's a concern about whether a giant chain of hospitals connected to a church should get the same exemption as an actual church or clergy member, but those things can work out in the wash. BTW, these kinds of exemptions are consistent with current law that exists in most places when it comes to discrimination. They are nothing new.

As for why they were put in, obviously it was about vote getting and politics. Since they are fairly pro forma protections, everyone is happy.

I'm so sick of Christians whining about this. Here it is,Rod, plain and simple;We do not live in a theocracy. You cannot hold everyone to biblical standards if the constitution clearly states that one does not have to live by yours or anyone else's bible. That being said, your reasons for being against gay marriage really don't apply. The religious right has taken selfishness to levels uncharted. No one is here to appease you or any other Christian. Denying rights to any other human being strictly to maintain your level of moral "comfort" is ridiculous and narcissistic. As painful as it may be for you and the rest of the bible thumpers, this is not soley YOUR America. If you cannot grasp the simple idea of coexistence, then the problem is yours,not that of the rest of us. You judge everyone who doesn't share your beliefs, you try to control even those who do not wish to live your lifestyle, and then when people don't respond, you develop a persecution complex. Here's something for you to think about; perhaps if the "holier than thous" kept thier noses out of other peoples' bedrooms and actually led by example with a more Christ like agenda, you might not repel quite so many people, no?

if those who say that religious-liberty fears around gay marriage are baseless are correct, why did the Vermont legislature feel obligated to put them into its same-sex marriage law?

Because those on the other side are concerned about such things. Because social conservatives have been blogging for ages about how SSM is an affront to their liberty.

Please note that two of the biggest items on the list (employment and housing) refer not to protections in the marriage statute but to exemptions for religious liberty found in other anti-discrimination statutes.

La Gallagher draws the wrong conclusion. Insertion of protections for fraternal benefit societies, clergy and church property does not imply that those things were in danger of being invaded by hordes of rampaging homosexuals. As the legislative FAQ states:

A church may selectively provide such services to some individuals, while denying them to others, and the refusal shall not give rise to any civil claim or cause of action.

But how is this any different from the status quo? As has been pointed out over and over again, there are all kinds of situations where men and women get married where a member of the clergy might refuse to participate (off the top of my head, you might see this for people who are not members of the congregation or who are of a different faith, people with two different faiths, people who have been divorced, people who have not completed marriage counseling, etc., etc.)

And I'd point out the the current statutes spelling out who is authorized to solemnize a marriage is exactly the same, word-for-word with that spelling out who may certify a civil union (Title 18, Chapter 105 § 5144 vs. Title 18, Chapter § 5164) and there hasn't been a problem with clergy being forced to certify civil unions.

Note also that the statute starts out "Marriages may be solemnized...." (emphasis added), which also shows that there is nothing whatsoever that is compulsory in the participation of clergy in any marriage ceremony.

WRT gay marriage, the claims that religious people are having their liberty infringed are greatly exaggerated.

But one wouldn't expect a "journalist" such as the highly esteemed Miss Trixie, er, Gallagher to actually research a statute they were bloviating about, now would one?

Ms Gallager: Please take some time off to point out EXACTLY where it states in US Constitution that Genesis, or any portion of the Christian bible is the basis for our law.
Please explain how other people entering into a civil marriage contract that you are no part of, that you have nothing to do with, affects YOUR religious liberty, unless you regard religious liberty as forcing YOUR sectarian views on ALL citizens.

When my parents wished to get married, they went to a Catholic church. The priest took one look at them and said "Absolutely not!" Can't blame the good father - they were a match made in Hell. They ended up heading to the courthouse instead. Likewise, my grandparents and my aunt and uncle opted for civil marriage at the courthouse or similar institution. They were never before a preacher or had a church sanction their unions.

As a Pagan, I could argue that not allowing gay people to marry is religious discrimination against my faith. Most varieties of Neo-Pagan consider a union based in love to be blessed by the Gods, regardless of the gender of the lovers. Then why is a handfasting between a man and a woman able to obtain state benefits like the right to visit their spouse in the hospital and inheritance rights when the union of two women or two men, considered just as sacred to our faith, unable to obtain equal rights?

Furthermore, even in Christianity, denominations and their attitudes towards homosexuals vary wildly. Some will open their doors, others slam their doors.

If you do not wish your church to sanction their union, then that is their right, just as it was the priest's right to refuse my parents. However, that should not prohibit the same couple from seeking out a justice of the peace and having the legal contract of marriage take effect.

it seems to me like it's asking religious Americans to surrender a different belief: the belief that they should be able to make laws solely based on their religious texts.

It would be nice if the people who say they are opponents of same sex marriage would acknowledge that there are many millions of believers who are not opposed to same sex marriage and do not find a justification for opposing it, either for cultural or religious reasons. No one who claims to be telling us what the Bible says has everyone else agreeing.

Although "Crunchy Con" clearly has a better ring to it, this blog really ought to be called "I-Do-Not-Like-Gay-Marriage Con." What ever happened to the stories about conservatives who grow their own arugula?

The presence of religious exemptions in the VT marriage bill is not proof that a bill without those exemptions would threaten the liberties of religious folks. Rather, it more likely shows that to get 2/3 of two legislators to pass a bill, some political compromises were required. This hardly proves the merits of the claim that religious liberties are threatened by extending marriage rights to gays.

You know, the law of unintended consequences goes both ways. For those of us who will never recognize gay "marriages," we might have to fear state power being used to coerce us either to pretend to accept these so-called "marriages," or to be silent about them; we fear our religious and philosophical beliefs being legally classified as bigotry and the likely results of that classification.

But the gay activists may face a few unintended consequences of their own. I know of one person (protecting his/her anonymity here completely) who was sure his/her longtime partner would rush with him/her to the county clerk's office just as soon as gay "marriage" was legalized in his/her state. He/she is still waiting....

How many gay couples are going to face this same situation, I wonder, when the legalization of gay marriage becomes for them personally the moment of truth, the moment when they finally realize, "He/She's just not that into you?"

Given the rather low numbers of gay marriages thus far in states that rushed to embrace the idea, I'm guessing this is a more widespread--and psychologically painful--phenomenon that many realize. It's easy to make vague promises about marriage to someone you can't legally marry, after all--married men do this all the time when they conduct affairs with women who keep hoping, year after year, that *this* time when he says he'll divorce the old ball and chain he really means it...

I have to wonder whether in all our SSM discussions anyone has ever paused to consider that the very worst future effects of all of SSM may be on the very people who so fervently demand the redefinition of marriage to suit them personally?

Given the rather low numbers of gay marriages thus far in states that rushed to embrace the idea, I'm guessing this is a more widespread--and psychologically painful--phenomenon that many realize.

It means they get to be just like us, Erin. Human beings facing human realities of love and commitment.

People like Mrs. Gallagher constantly talk about "people of faith" or "believers" being opposed to SSM.

Is she not aware that there are "people of faith" and "believers" who are supportive of SSM precisely because THEIR religious beliefs see it as a matter equality and fairness?

There are denominations of Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Paganism, etc. who support SSM because THEY feel it's the right thing to do. It gets so tiring listening to conservative Christians talk about "people of faith" as if THE ONLY faith and beliefs were theirs!

I get the feeling that to people like her, faith systems different than conservative Christianity are simply irrelavant.

I sure as heck don't see how the two gay Buddhists or two gay Jews or two gay Christians getting married in THEIR respective faiths poses any threat to Ms. Gallagher and her concerned group of believers? On the contrary, bans against gay marriage DO INDEED infringe on the religious liberties of those denominations which believe in sanctioning them!

People like her are willfully trying to scare the ignorant masses with hollow fears of impending doom if some other group of people is allowed to do something which does not concern them.

I thought it was against the beliefs of Christianity to bear false witness against others, yet Chrisitans are falsely accusing gays of all sorts of harm to them and theirs?

Erin,

Marriage appears to be going out of fashion. Not only are divorces higher, but the number of couples who don't bother to get married has increased. Could there be people who refuse to get married just because of the attempts of religious people to add religious baggage to marriage? Sure, I know some. Do we need stable families for children to grow up in? Yes, it seems to help a lot. Does it matter if there's a certificate of marriage? Probably not. Most people who decide to have kids make a serious commitment to be around for those children. It certainly doesn't happen all the time, but being married doesn't keep couples, even those with kids, from breaking up.

"after demanding that society dismantle marriage and render the whole word completely meaningless to suit them."

ROFL. I should have known this wasn't a rare moment of compassion from you for gays and lesbians. They are always just immoral villians.

Your Name, I agree that marriage is terribly unstable already; no-fault divorce has already pretty well torn it apart.

I'd be in favor of more laws enacting some kind of optional "covenant" marriage which would make divorce much, much harder, especially when children are involved. Many Christians share that idea--that unless a situation has become abusive putting either husband or (more usually) wife in danger, there should be no easy way for a couple in some type of "covenant marriage" and raising their own biological children to end the marriage.

One problem with covenant marriage in a post-gay marriage world is that I don't see how you'd admit gay couples to it; they'll never (unless J. Howard's weird futuristic scenarios play out) be in a position of raising their own biological children, which would once again create a "separate but equal" type of construct. Further, gay activists have spouted ad infinitum that marriage has NOTHING to do with children, so presumably divorce has nothing to do with them either--you can't claim that marriage has nothing to do with children but then suddenly discover that divorce does.

I imagine one reason there are specific statements in the Vermont bill is to allow cover for those who wanted to vote for the bill but feared the backlash. For many southerners, interracial marriage did violate their religious beliefs. I imagine that Hindu practices, Muslim practices, and (yes)Mormon practices violate the religious beliefs of a substantial portion of Christians in America. But they cannot appeal to religous belief in order to discriminate except with regard to hiring practices in religiuos institutions.

Rick Warren's delima comes, I believe, because he sees himself as both a staunch proponent of civil rights and an orthodox Christian. The gay marriage issue creates a conflict for him. He is struggling with the issue which is far more commendable than those who feel they must deny the reality of gay people to "defend the faith."

Erin Manning, I hope that some of my posts here demonstrate that I do try to understand the concerns of social conservatives, and that I do think that religious beliefs ought to be protected.

But could you please look at the actual text of the laws in question before assuming that the state is going to come after you for your beliefs? Look at what's been on the books in Vermont since the civil union law passed. Look at where some of the biggest religious liberty protections are in Vermont state law (hint: it's not in the marriage law). Please, please try to get your information from somewhere other than blogs that agree with you.

But the gay activists may face a few unintended consequences of their own. I know of one person (protecting his/her anonymity here completely) who was sure his/her longtime partner would rush with him/her to the county clerk's office just as soon as gay "marriage" was legalized in his/her state. He/she is still waiting....

Yes, yes, yes...this is an excellent point, which quite plainly illustrates exactly what I hope legalization will bring about: it forces us to examine the nature of our own relationships. That is an examination that we dearly need to have happen.

Let me ask you this: suppose your daughter was in love with a young man of the same age and hoped that he would propose to her. Suppose further that it became apparent to you that he had no intention of marrying her.

Would that be grounds to dismiss the whole idea of marriage? No sane person would argue that. You'd hopefully be supportive and advise her to set her sights a bit higher.

And that's precisely what you should do for your friend. Maybe it's hard for some to adjust to the idea of getting married after a lifetime of not having access to it. Heck, it's a huge step and one I'd certainly think long and hard about before taking, even with my personal history. But on the other hand, maybe you're right, and your friend can do better.

If there's one thing I'd like people here to take from my posts, it's that gay people are just like any other group. We've got good and bad people and all shades in between. Some are loving and monogamous. Some prefer to be single and promiscuous. Some want marriage. Others don't really care.

And there will be divorces. And there will be domestic violence. And there will be custody disputes. And all kinds of other domestic problems that can trouble all families. That's the point. We're certainly no better than anyone else. Marriage gives us the opportunity to be no worse as well.

I appreciate Rods point but if same-sex "marriage" is imposed by the judiciary or done legislatively the prospects of getting serious religious liberty (and other conscious) exemptions our really no different. (From what I can see)

Any of the States that have had it imposed can still go to their legislatures and demand religious liberty exemptions. In many ways their plight and cause would look more sympathetic due to the judicial imposition.

This is the same for SCOTUS. Should it rule in favor of same-sex “marriage” nationwide advocates can approach Congress to get religious liberty exemptions. As above- their plight and cause would look more sympathetic due to the judicial imposition.

If Church’s and individuals are forced in various ways to recognize these “marriages”, everything from on-campus married housing, to YMCA memberships, to wedding photographers, to hall rentals, to the Boy Scouts (again).

I would think the public would be even more sympathetic after a round of such lawsuits to adopting religious liberty exemptions and Congress as well.

All this is subject to judicial review – but that goes anyway.

Now – a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, and all that…Nevertheless, my point above seems accurate.

[yes, that was me whose name disappeared from the post]

Natural Law (Christian and Non Christian) consists of the following:
• First, there are unchangeable principles of law which exist as part of the natural realm; they define what is right, just and good for man.
• Second, these unchangeable principles are discoverable by all men through the right use of reason.
• Third, all men, in all places, at all times are subject to these principles.
• Fourth, laws created by the state are only legitimate when they do not contradict the principles of law in nature.

These are a reasonable basis for discussion.

The practice of same sex activity violates the laws of Nature.

Why? Clearly not all people agree, or there wouldn't be any states or judges willing to say that same sex marriage is acceptable.

Men and woman have the physical equipment to engage in sex. Those with same sex attraction do not, and therefore violate the principles of nature.

Not that I worry about how others have sex, but I understand that any two people who are attracted to each other will be able to find a way to engage in sexual activity.

Getting back to the discussion of religious liberty, I'd be curious to see what else the anti-SSM crowd would want in terms of protections. Are we talking about expanding it to non-religious businesses? Individuals?

Fitz

Freelunch - You seem to not understand the principles of natural law. Yes you have written them down, but you don’t really understand were it is coming from. You can disagree with it if you want - but first you need to know what you’re disagreeing with.

"Perhaps the most depressing and fruitless feature of the current debate about homosexuality is to treat all version of this argument as the equivalent of bigotry. They are not. In an appeal to "nature," the most persuasive form of this argument is rooted in one of the oldest traditions of thought in the West, a tradition that still carries a great deal of intuitive sense. ... And at its most serious, it is not a phobia; it is an argument. And as arguments go, it has a rich literature, an extensive history, a complex philosophical core, and a view of humanity that tells a coherent and at times beautiful story of the meaning of our natural selves."

Andrew Sullivan,
Virtually Normal, pp 21-23

Erin Manning brought up the idea of covenant marriages, and then said:

One problem with covenant marriage in a post-gay marriage world is that I don't see how you'd admit gay couples to it

Well, why not? Every explanation I've read about a covenant marriage as a legal institution doesn't really take cognizance of the presence or absence of children. That may be the moral impetus behind the covenant marriage idea, but as a matter of law, I don't see why it couldn't be extended to same-sex marriage.

I'm of two minds about the institution, personally. I appreciate the thought behind it, but it does create a two tier system, even if that highest tier only adds additional obligations and an additional legal strengthening of the lifetime commitment. I'd personally rather see those restrictions pushed out to all married couples, but then you run the risk of dissuading people from marrying in the first place, so I'm not sure what the best solution here is.

How many gay couples are going to face this same situation, I wonder, when the legalization of gay marriage becomes for them personally the moment of truth, the moment when they finally realize, "He/She's just not that into you?

Hmmm...that sentiment would seem to be what the general public increasingly feels toward organized religion in general and the Religious Right in particular.

Fitz, I was disagreeing with the idea that you can jump to a valid conclusion if you don't take the steps necessary to show how you arrived at the conclusion. The assertions about marriage were in no way obvious from the foundation that was laid.

Bill
“The last I checked, the only Christian denominations that formally approved SSM were the United Church of Christ, Episcopal Church and Metropolitan Community Church. Each is very small. And the UCC and Episcopal “

I can’t immediately speak of the other two denominations but the Episcopal Church does not support SS”M”. This is a common misconception because it is in serious schism due to its ordination of an openly gay Bishop in New Hampshire.

Yes it is also in a row over same-sex “blessing” ceremonies in its Church’s and has yet to establish such a formal rite in the United States. (Although many Church’s do this without approval)

However, none of those Churches have same-sex “Marriage”. This is more than a formality. Using the same word would be a theological NIGHTMARE.

A myriad of Biblical and theological concepts center on marriage and it fruitfulness and uniting of the two halves of humanity. The Bible begins with - the Book of Genesis opens with “male & female he created them so they should become one flesh” and the book of Revelation is pictured as a Wedding feast.

As far as I know only the Unitarians bless same-sex “marriage” – but they have a polyamorist “wedding” rite also.

Stefanie (writes)
“Keep in mind that the "natural law" has nothing to do with nature, and everything to do with trying to deduce some kind of universal morality from what is already predefined as "natural."

Wrong – The “natural” in natural law refers to natural reason. That is: reason unguided by any scripture or external authority. Sometimes called “natural philosophy” .

Any number of arguments can be called “natural law” arguments and indeed such arguments can be used to justify injustice. However, natural law (like any philosophical tradition) has a pedigree and has a tradition of arguments that are considered classical and settled.

None of this has nothing to do however with a predetermination of “naturalness”

In their zeal to get the bill passed, I think the pro-SSM side gave away too much.

The exemptions set up a multi-tiered system of equality in Vermont. One set of rules for discrimination on religion, race, national origin, etc. and another for sexual orientation.

"The real problem then for Erin is not the state forcing her to abandon her beliefs, but rather the growing acknowledgment by the general public that her beliefs are wrong and don't deserve the public deference they have traditionally enjoyed."

I don't think the American public has ever been particularly "deferential" about Catholicism, Elizabeth.

But if you're speaking of Christianity--fine! We'll agree that Christianity has no place in the public square. Have gay marriage, legalize polygamy and incestuous marriage, make all contraceptives available over the counter to eleven-year-olds, force out those doctors too backward and superstitious to kill unborn humans--oh, sorry, to terminate unwanted pregnancies--and you might as well open the doors to public nudity and the selling of porn without restrictions, 'cause darned if I can see any reason other than religious bigotry to force people to wear clothes or to buy porn in dirty little sex shops. Prostitution, too--if prostitution isn't legalized soon it can only be a plot by the religious right to keep going after enlightened liberal pols like Eliot Spitzer.

But then don't expect me to complain when our government policy is in favor of torture (see Rod's post above)--er, "enhanced interrogation." Sure, my religious beliefs oppose it--but why should I care what the secular state does?

And don't expect me to join you in a fight to end CEO corruption and financial fraud--yawn, yawn. Sure, as a Christian I'm opposed to fraud and theft, but you've made it clear my Christian beliefs are unwelcome, and I'm sure not going to sit around crafting elaborate secular humanist reasons to oppose either, as I'm not a secular humanist.

Rally opposing the execution of a prisoner? Nah, I've got other plans. As a Christian I'm not in favor of the death penalty as it's applied here in America today (e.g., unjustly for the most part), but again, if you secularists want to have a big emotivist fight about whether executing prisoners makes you feel good or makes you feel bad, why should I get involved? Have fun, and maybe I'll see the rally on TV, if I can be bothered to watch the news.

Work to save the environment? Please. I may have private beliefs about what the Bible means in Genesis in re: stewardship, but I also have private beliefs about that whole male-female thing in Genesis, which I've been lectured and scolded ad infintum for having. Guess what? You don't get to pick and choose which of my religious beliefs are socially useful to you and which ones you want to exclude from society. All or nothing, baby, all or nothing.

In short, when you've succeeded in cutting off the traditional Christians from public life, we will have the dubious fun of watching the bleeding-heart liberals contend with the Randian conservatives over all the issues I've just mentioned; the temporary truce between the Randians and the liberals is only about sex, and once all the sexual libertinism imaginable has been unleashed on society and traditional religious believers well and truly stifled the two groups will rediscover their natural enmity. Then the struggle to force a new dominant worldview will be between those motivated by colossal self-interest, financial rapacity, and a complete lack of concern for the small and weak, and those who resemble them closely but are unable to give up their vague, nebulous ideas about "fairness" and "tolerance" without greatly wounding their amour-propre. My money's on the Randians, frankly; they're not foolish enough to argue by emotion, and "What's in it for me?" is a compelling social vision to those brought up on Moralistic Therapeutic Deism; at least, it doesn't in any way conflict with it.

The above exchange between Erin and Daniel regarding the low rate of same-sex marriage in those states that allow such marriages does raise a question that Daniel has not addressed. What explains this situation? This question is particularly relevant as regards gay men, who in a socio-economic sense tend to be much better off than the general population. In the demographic portion of the hetero population that corresponds to gay men, looking at aggregate data, marriage is popular, marriages are stable, people tend to be monogamous, and divorce rates have declined. Hetero couples are not reluctant to commit to each other. (The same is not true for hetero individuals at the lower end of the socio-economic ladder).

What accounts for the reluctance of gay men to commit to each other? Is there something intrinsically different about these relationships? Daniel, a response please.

Bryce,

I love the way you're painting this picture that it has to be either gay rights OR Christian rights. Not both, though, because that would be equality. Can't have that.

Bill,

No, the Episcopal church does _not_ perform same sex marriages. It is currently being debated whether they should perform same-sex blessings, and that's a highly contentious issue. They won't perform _marriages_ though; even many pro-gay clergy acknowledge that same sex relationships are theologically different than marriages.

It should also be acknowledged that the bulk of the international Anglican communion does _not_ accept the moral liceity of homosexuality, and that a number of Episcopal parishes have shifted their allegiance to more conservative provinces in Africa and South America.

For what it's worth, I'm a high-church Anglican, supportive of civil SSM while opposed to _churches_ performing gay marriage and to openly gay clergy.

You know, eating shrimp, working on the Sabbath, not giving all of your extra money to the poor, getting tattoos, are all threats to religious liberty by your argument, so why not make those illegal too? If you don't like gay marriage speak against it all you like, don't marry a gay person, don't hang out with gay people, but stop ruining this free country for the rest of us who don't hold your religious beliefs.

Who is this other 'Hector' above? Can you add an initial after your name or something so people can tell who it is.

And hey, maybe down the line even you, Rod and Erin might be thankful for such anti-discrimination laws, since you're all predicting the impending persecution of Christians. I think you might actually appreciate such laws if you were regularly turned away form renting an apartment or other private business because of moral disapproval of your Christian lifestyle.

You know, I am getting really tired of people assuming what I believe. I'm not even sure where I stand on the whole SSM, gays in the church, and so forth, but I guess that's OK because there is never a shortage of people around here who will tell what I believe. For the record I do believe that people should be free to discriminate if that is their desire, even if I disapprove of such discrimination, I am not so narcissistic as to think my desires should be the basis of law. This should not be taken as proof that I approve of anything besides individual freedom. For those who think that the First Amendment will protect religious liberty, the First Amendment also protects freedom of association, how's that working out?

The fact that SSM, if legalized, would add another protected category to the anti-discrimination statutes, makes discussing these kinds of issues very much relevant to the SSM discussion.

Bryce Bryce Bryce,LOL

I'm sorry that this "imposition of gay rights" is such a problem for you. Do I agree with Christianity? No. Do I feel as if their rights should be taken away? Absolutely not. That is the difference between my position and yours. I believe the two can co-exist. I don't feel that my view is any more important than yours. As a leftist, I'd never dream of trying to take anything away from you. Your side, on the other hand is perfectly happy with stripping the dignity away from others to maintain your "position". Tolerance and modern Christianity (most often) do not even belong in the same sentence. My priority is equality. I don't need to nip and tuck or misconstrue Christianity because it has nothing to do with me or my life. Do you feel the same way about the liberal viewpoint? Are Christians willing to live and let live? Do they believe that we can coexist? Or do they believe that America should be governed based on THEIR principles? So yeah, my position does say something about my priorities...it says that I believe in a truly equal existence with all those around me whether they share my views or not. When Christians let go of their selfish "mine mine mine" attitude, then we'll be moving in the right direction.

Andrew Sullivan just weighed in with a must read on the topic (says what I was thinking better than I ever could):

The fear-mongering ad by National Organization For Marriage is here. HRC's rebuttal is here. Good As You's response is here. There is not much I can do to rebut the lies that Maggie Gallagher is touting here in an ad designed to ignite culture war hatred of gays, replete with apocalyptic imagery, and ominous Beck-like invocations of pink-fascist doom. But I can note that as one of the first and longest campaigners for marriage equality, my own commitment to religious freedom in America is as ferocious and as impassioned as any Christianist's - and I'd be happy to compare my record with Gallagher's.

I've been prepared to back the Boy Scouts and the St Patrick's Day parade against my gay brothers and sisters on this score; I've opposed hate crime laws protecting gays; I've even defended the right of Christianists to fire employees because they are gay. I went through an extended form of ostracism in the gay world for a long time because of my refusal to countenance anti-religious bigotry, just as I refused to countenance anti-gay bigotry. This was not the easiest path but it remains for me the only principled one. In so far as intolerance of people of faith exists, I will join any movement to protect their rights and defend their dignity.

But if there's a social stigma attached to the public expression of homophobia, that is just a function of living in a free society.

So deal with it, guys. And take one small moment, if you can, to think how gay people have lived in a society that, until very recently, assumed that the very heart of our lives was evil and wrong and unmentionable. If we survived millennia of that, pounded into our minds and souls often by our own families, as early as our first consciousness, backed up in many places by the threat of violence, I have a feeling evangelicals can survive a little cultural disapproval. There was a time when Christians actually embraced such disapproval as a sign of their divine calling.

But that was when Christianity was a faith and not a means for one political party to grasp and maintain power.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/04/fisking-the-christianists.html#more

You're absolutely correct, Bryce. I have chosen my position and equality is my priority. Can you say the same?

"Many if not most Christians don't think that gays are being denied any rights by not having their relationships recognized by either church or state as marriages"

Well of course not, LOL! That would require them to stop and think of someone other than themselves, now wouldn't it? It's all about them as it always has been.

You lose nothing by gays having the right to marry. You will have the same right, just as you will retain your right to your bigoted viewpoint and disapproval. I believe that one day, Christians may very well be the minority. And guess what, the same laws that protect minority groups today will be in place to protect Christians ans they very well should! The real problem here is Christians having to accept that the world does not revolve around them. They will not be forced to marry anyone (as if that's really what gays have their hearts set on, LOL) nor embrace the gay lifestyle. The bottom line here is that the religious right will have to learn to get along with others. A real basic principle that I would think a follower of Jesus would be easily able to grasp. In any event, no worries man. Your right to fervent hatred is forever protected:)

Well, you know, Erica, every time someone has predicted the death of Christianity it's the culture that predicted that death that has ceased to exist.

In fact, I have a feeling that when you number all the kids gays and liberals have, and compare that number to the number of kids traditional Christians have, the future generations are much more likely to go back to seeing homosexual acts as immoral and marriage as being strictly a male-female thing than they are to making Christianity a historical afterthought.

Demography is destiny. Or so I've heard.

Sorry Rod, but the protections listed are worth as much as the paper they are written. oh! wait! its not even on paper, its an electronic image, even more ephemeral.

How many laws (state or federal) have been passed with various assurances given only to see those same assurances disappear like the night at dawn.

Erin: In fact, I have a feeling that when you number all the kids gays and liberals have, and compare that number to the number of kids traditional Christians have,...

Not everyone who grows up in a traditional Christian household remains so. Sometimes the stress on "culture wars" can push children in the opposite direction. I've seen it happen personally here with extremely conservative families, homeschooled or otherwise.

No Bryce, I don't take Christians' cries of persecution as seriously as I take gays' claims. Talk to me when Christians are drummed out of the military for acknowledging their faith; when the government refuses to recognize Christian marriages; when Christians face similar rates of violence that gays do; when Christians are banned from adopting; when politicians frequently malign Christians in order to score political points. You see, it's not just stigma gays are fighting, it's the laws in place whose sole purpose is to enforce that stigma (if not stigma, then the superiority of a certain heterosexual/Christian ideology).

I'm sorry, but being sued for violating an anti-discrimination law simply pales in comparison to what gays have been dealing with for just about all of recorded history.

That's not to say that we shouldn't try our best to avoid situations where Christians are forced to choose between following their religious conscious and being sued for violating anti-discrimination laws. I'd be perfectly happy if all gays and all gay supporters simply stopped patronizing anti-gay establishments and let the free market work itself out. That's one way to avoid such lawsuits. I think it'd help also if Christians could just try to be polite and respectful when dealing with gays (and vice versa). For example, if I were apartment shopping with my wife and the owner told me that they rented the apartment to someone else, I'd simply go on my way. However if the owner just had to tell me that they wouldn't rent to me because they disagreed with my 'lifestyle' and thought I was a deviant pervert, I would certainly be pissed, and I would be far more compelled to seek legal recourse (if I was lucky enough to live in a state that actually bans anti-discrimination in housing).

I truly believe that respect and common decency is the best answer to this apparent impasse over gay and Christian rights. If Christians simply live their Christian values and quit denouncing gay people and our families in loud and public ways, they won't be denounced as bigots by gays and our supporters.

Erica,

I think I speak for Erin as well as for myself when I say that your rhetorical incontinence suggests that you recognize that both of us are right -- me about the coming Christian blowback that you and your comrades are bringing about; Erin about how long-term demographics, not only but especially on a global scale, will show how misplaced is your rather naive faith in the Zeitgeist or the World-Historic Dialectic, a naive faith that most people outgrew about the time when the Berlin Wall fell down, beneath the weight of the hundred million bodies of those who were killed in the name of your faith.

You'll wake up one day soon to realize that it was you and your comrades who were drunk on an "opiate" and not "the people," and likewise that it was Christians who saw the future clearly all along -- in both a temporal and an eternal sense.

"Why is the First Amendment not enough? Why aren't the kinds of protections provided in most civil rights law and in Vermont enough?"

I've come to realize that nothing will ever be enough for the theocons. Because in the end, it's not really about religious liberty - it's about their deep, and blatantly obvious animus towards gay people. This fact makes compromise of any kind impossible, because they are not willing to compromise. For my part, neither am I, at least on the question of full civil equality for all citizens. But I'd be willing to meet paranoid types (*cough*Rod*cough*) halfway and offer them whatever "protections" they desired (within reason). Would they be willing to meet me halfway and treat gays like full human beings? Not bloody likely.

Just curious - why involve religion in clearly a legal matter? Not to be factitious but seriously, are the religious zealots really so clueless as to not see that marriage exists in at least two forms in this Nation? That it exists as mainly a legal status and then also a religious status? This is so completely obvious that it baffles me that the folks against gay marriage don't see this.

First, the religious side of the fence - The government has NO AUTHORITY to tell any church how it can define marriage - this is one of the core doctrines that you can thank Thomas Jefferson for and it's called "separation of church and state". Now on the other side is the law - and this is where the government not only has the authority BUT THE DUTY to ensure that the law is applied EQUALLY and WITHOUT BIAS to any person regardless of their stature, gender, size, shape, look, etc. - INCLUDING SEXUAL ORIENTATION. In this very secular nation, the law applies to all equally - end of story.

So to all those who are freaked out about legalizing gay marriage - stop worrying. Gay folks have no desire to tell the church how to define marriage and if the day comes when a bunch of gay folk march on the Vatican to try and get right to get married in the Vatican, then guess what??? I'll be there with you to say no dice - the church gets to decide that one. But until then, let these people have the same natural existence we all enjoy.

Oh - and by the way - NO - I am not a gay man - I am a very happilly married man - but one who just believes in this great church of American Democracy - this is my religion.

So, Tony says he "...just believes in this great church of American Democracy - this is my religion."

And you have no qualms about imposing *your* religion on the rest of us...

"And you have no qualms about imposing *your* religion on the rest of us..."

Erin, if nothing else I'll give you this;you are phenomenally talented at getting things twisted. What saddens me is that you probably really believe that. I guess if I was that dilusional, it would be hard for me to see any other pov as well. But I guess if we're pretending that imposition isn't the Christian claim to fame, then I'll go along. But it's pretty tough to even think it with a straight face. How do you do it?

Bryce said: Many if not most Christians don't think that gays are being denied any rights by not having their relationships recognized by either church or state as marriages.

Gays disagree...

Yes Bryce. Gays DO disagree, but not about having their relationships recognized by the church. The church is the church's domain and the church can do what it wants, not only as it pertains to gay marriage, but also on a host of other things.

You said that Christians don't think that gays are being denied any rights by not having the church or state not recognize their marriages. That's fine for Christians to feel that way, it's just that THE STATE does not belong to Christians, even "most" Christians, or any other denomination. The state belongs to EVERYONE, tax paying citizens known as gays and lesbians included!

It seems that many Christians are of the attitude that the state should at leat unoficially defer to traditional Christian ideology as the final litmus test on all issues.

Christians are really setting the country and themselves up for something bad if they continue to actively influence government to impose the religious beliefs of what is NOW their majority on everyone else. That may be swell when you're part of the majority, but you folks are setting up a terrible governmental precedent for your ancestors.

There is NOTHING guaranteeing that Christianity will continue to be the majority religion in the U.S. When Christian conservatives actively work to influence Civil law, so that civil laws are in accordance with THEIR beliefs, what will you say when U.S. citizens who are say... Muslim become the majority in your state or country?

When Muslims obtain numbers large enough to be politically powerful, what will you do when they...using the political actions of Conservative Christians as an example, want to ban your grandchildren and their children from doing any and all things that violate Islam? If you operate under the popular Conservative Christian notion, that "the majority" SHOULD have THEIR beliefs reflected in the laws of the state, what will you say when the majority of any city, town, state or country isn't Christianity?

is THAT when Conservative Christians magically find the value in the idea of complete and total separation of church and state? If so, I PRAY for millions of Muslim conversions in the U.S.!

Why is it not enough for Chrisitans to live their own lives by their beliefs? Why is it not enough for Christians to impose Christian ideology on THEIR OWN lives, the lives of their family members and the members of their churches.

Why are Christians seemingly obsessed with reaching outside of their own lives to do EVERYTHING they can, to prevent scads of TOTAL STRANGERS from doing things which hurt no one, but simply violate Christian dogma?

Erin, looking at the timestamp on your last post, I'm hoping you got a good night's sleep.

I would ask you to expand the "American democracy as a religion" metaphor a bit, and suggest that you take a close look at the philosophical and practical environment our founders inhabited. It is very instructive on a number of levels, and has an answer to your last question: the Constitution was designed (however flawed) to permit a reasoned discussion and the attainment of a legal consensus on any issue that arises.

No caveats intended. Any issue.

It's a process, not a rule book per se. It is capable of change, however scary that may be. It was deliberately intended to be a guideline, not stone tablets for the ages.

200+ years ago, there were only Christians with any voice in the process. While it may be true that they didn't envision it, since then we have -- besides many more sects of Christianity -- a growing list of non-Christians who, under the secular thrust of the guidelines, have a right to be at the table. I submit that this development, and that (eventually) those others get to sit at the table with full voices, is a mark of the success of the original design.

These are the times we live in. We are dealing with social upheaval from inside the social structure. As a nation, we've dealt with industry vs. agriculture, slavery, women's suffrage, children's rights and immigration. We are still here. That, more than anything else -- including some strong sympathy I personally have for some of the complaints being aired -- is why I refuse to accept the degree of fear being expressed. I don't deny the motivations for fear. I never will. But I will have disapproval -- and for some, contempt -- for those who turn their backs on the process because today, theirs is not the voice that gets to make the decisions.

Your ideological fellow travellers have made some egregious mistakes. They made some heroic decisions and actions, as well. Now, its the turn of your ideological opponents to make mistakes and be heroes. Begrudging them their turn is, respectfully, unAmerican.

Erin's "And you have no qualms about imposing *your* religion on the rest of us...", meaning Constitutional government, and Rod's earlier Kalb inspired railing on against 'Modernity', which apparently means all the Enlightenment era political thought that led to the nation's founding just leaves me shaking my head.

If someone cannot even accept the premise that the discussion takes place within the scope of the principles that underpin the Constitution, there is apparently no end to what they will be embrace or deny if it ends in defeating gay marriage.

stefanie

"instead of Jefferson's vague Deism of "Nature and Nature's God," or "The Creator."

Nothing vague about Jefferson Deism. Like the other founders he was a natural law Deist.

Tom Toles at the Washington Post has a great political cartoon on gay marriage; you can find it here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/opinions/tomtoles/?hpid=opinionsbox1

Who is that same sex couple on top of the cake?

Liberty and Justice.

I think they make a pretty good couple.

Bryce, I tried, I really tried, but I cannot let you lay 100 million deaths in 50 years at the feet of "liberals, leftists, and progressives."

Or, if you insist on it, then I shall insist on that many and more deaths laid at the feet of Jesus over the last 2,000 years; further, with the same logical conclusions you make.

Bryce, Hun, all I "invoked" was the idea of equality. Because as I've previously stated (to your deaf ear, no doubt)I do not care to impose any control of your life or worldview. But that is YOUR side's way of doing things, isn't it? If you want to continue the whiny martyrdom that's fine, but before you continue,you should know that Christians have brought that on themselves. I can debate with you all day long, but the truth is that Christians are doing themselves in with no help from anyone else. Because the fact is, people are tired of the hypocrisy, judgement and the behavior that emanates from your side that in all honesty is anything BUT Christian. If you knew how to be Christians and live your lives without the greed of trying to live everyone else's too, then you probably would not have be (I'm sorry to say ) the nuisances that you've become. I truly feel that no one should ever try to take away the liberties of anyone (Christians included). If someone were trying to ban Christianity, then I would surely fight for that as well. But the fact is, the religious right wants the rest of America to live by their Dogma and it's really gotten tiresome. It's more than just a want infact, it's an expectation. I think you need to look inside your own selfishness before you go pointing the finger at someone else, namely a group of people who just want the same rights that you enjoy.

"-- even if that responsibility manifests itself only as refraining from the kind of self-righteous Zeitgeist-triumphalism in which Erica engaged"

And with that, we're introduced to your perception of equality. What a surprise. This is America...check your Christian narcisstic fear-mongering at the door. You've riden them both until the wheels have fallen off. If it comforts you though, by all means, continue to believe that it's the leftists who are the problem. Your brand of denial is really something to behold, but it does bring about a yawn or two.

ALL
Bryce is hardly alone….

The idea that same-sex "marriage" is very much a part of the radical egalitarian war on human nature and a manifestation of a Marxist dialectic is fair and accurate.

The godless state-ism is only one manifestation. The idea of Frankfurt school Marxism and feminisms leftist master/slave Hegelian dialectic is well subscribed.

Most Recently First Things published The Will to Disbelieve by Mary Eberstadt –along these same lines (If anyone is interested)

In terms of vision, belief, tactics & motives the lineage is clear.

Here's the thing I don't get, Franklin: since when is the idea that it takes a man and a woman to get married a strictly Christian notion?

The way so many SSM people seem to think, the world was one crazy day-glow paradise of gay marriages, group marriages, incestuous marriages, marriages which actually described the legal relationship of celibate spinster sisters, etc. until those evil Christians came along and restricted marriage to male-female sexual pairings.

That's not the case at all.

All human societies have been founded around the idea that it takes some combination of males and females willingly entering into a sexual partnership (not merely a legal one) to form a foundational unit of society. Now, I'm at a loss to explain this--gosh, why should all those pagan and Christian and Jewish and Muslim and other groups have thought there was anything different or special or unique about bonds between men and women, or, increasingly throughout history, one man and one woman, that needed to be encouraged and stabilized with society's involvement?

Gee. I guess it was bigotry. Couldn't have had anything to do with setting up a framework which would nurture and protect children by letting them know not only their mothers (because until Cat Cora's type of experiment a child would always at least know who his mother was) but also his father, who without marriage tends not to be around for the kids, which is still true today. Couldn't have been meant to be for the benefit of future generations, for the transmission and communication of that society and culture's values. Nope--because marriage does not, has never, and can never have the slightest thing to do with children.

Marriage, say the gay activists, has always been nothing more than society's stamp of approval on your love 'n sex relationship, and because society approves of you, society grants you tax breaks and hospital visits. Since that is all marriage ever has been, is now, or ever will be, then it's nothing but discrimination to tell *these* adults they can have a marriage, but *those* they can't. Gender has nothing whatsoever to do with marriage--it never did, it never can, and it never will. Children have nothing to do with marriage--they never did, never can, and never will.

I don't know how it's possible NOT to see what a radical new interpretation of marriage that notion is, and yet it is what same-sex marriage advocates are saying. Oh, sure, some will insist they're not really saying that, but the reality is that by insisting that SSM is the same thing as heterosexual marriage, and by demanding that SSM be treated exactly equally in the law, that is exactly what they are saying.

I guarantee you that we will see a further erosion of fatherhood in this country as a direct result of SSM. We will see a time when married fathers will have to adopt their own biological children if they want to claim them on taxes etc., or if they don't want a court to arbitrarily declare that someone else in the child's life has become a "psychological parent" or a "de-facto parent" and strip him of his rights to see his children or be involved in his children's lives. With marriage already seeming like a bad investment to men, who usually get the short end of the stick in divorce and custody proceedings, I don't see this situation as improving the lives of children already at risk from our culture where "sex without consequences" always means that children are put dead last and must suffer the effects of the sexual selfishness their "parenting partners" display.

My honest feeling is that if society thinks civil marriage has nothing to do with children at all, then society has lost its prevailing interest in marriage. Society doesn't interfere in any other sexual relationship, after all. There's no such thing as a "friends with benefits" contract which gives you inheritance rights and tax breaks. There's no such thing as a "coed contract" which covers your college sexual excursions. If American society has decided that marriage means nothing but "benefits the state gives you for making a temporary, legally breakable promise to stay with the person you're currently engaging in sexual behavior with," then I insist that the State no longer has any compelling interest in marriage at all, and must abolish it as a civil state, as a simple matter of justice.

Now, because I'm a Catholic I can't promote that, because I think the State should have some concern for making sure that a child's parents remain married to each other. But if you tell me that civil marriage does not, can not, and never can have anything to do with children or their protection and stability, then abolish it--what good is it, and what business is it of the State who anybody's sleeping with or wants to visit in the hospital?

This is a first take on your response, Erin, so please don't take it as a complete reply. Also, may I gently remind you that I have never thought of you as a bigot, let alone called you one. With that, I definitely understand your sensitivity around that.

Funding of public schools has gone around the tax-base and government mandate circle many times, and a recurrent (ubiquitous around here) theme has been one or both of: "I'm childless, and you have no right to make me pay for it..." and "I send my children to parochial school, and I shouldn't have to pay for both."

I am put in mind, also that public, mandated education grew out of the advent of child labor laws, which in turn were established to address exploitation by industry (and not a few farmers). I further note from history one of the primary motivations for the establishment of a parochial school system: obligatory prayer in public schools using Protestant prayers.

That history is an example of the societal recognition of its obligation to our children, their value to the current generation and the future of our society, and subsequent losing of the sight of that.

As a parent, and further as a product of public education, you may expect me to stand firmly and adamantly on the side of keeping that obligation to our children, and further accepting partners in that effort from any camp, including Catholics who don't like paying taxes for public schools. With that, I am firmly and adamantly against mandatory prayer in public schools, teaching religion in any way that resembles evangelising (and yes, should any religion attempt it, I will oppose them), or allowing the local religious majority to dictate curricula according to their beliefs.

So, am I pro-child or anti-child? Am I simply complex, or a hypocrite? Those are serious questions, and I would make serious answers to them if asked.

If SSM proves to be a detriment to children in any significant proportion to current laws and practices that are already a detriment to children, then I will act, just as I am acting now in those ways I can to fight those current laws and practices. What I can tell you about that from my personal, local perspective is that the several homosexual couples in committed relationships that I know (with one exception) would all be better parents than the many parents I know about and with whom my wife deals on a daily basis as a special ed teacher and liaison (she deals personally, for her school, with mental health pros, lawyers and private services such as specialized schools). With my support for those homosexual couples' demand for equal treatment under the law, I would never advocate for the denial of or removal of those students' parents' rights to marry and have their marriages recognized by law. I would, in fact, stand up in opposition to that denial or removal, and I'd call upon those homosexual couples to do the same. Knowing them as I do, I would expect them to do it.

"No, it doesn't ask "Americans" to surrender a "core belief," because not all Americans hold that as a core belief. What it does is ask people who hold that core belief to continue to do so in their own lives and mind their own friggin' business.

What part of this is so hard to understand?"

Right on!