Crunchy Con

Vermont gets gay marriage the right way

Tuesday April 7, 2009

Categories: Homosexuality

I am opposed, as you know, to gay marriage, but if states are going to have it, Vermont just got it the right way: democratically, through legislative action. Of course it didn't start that way in Vermont, but that's how it's ended. A social experiment as radical as same-sex marriage should not be attempted without democratic consensus. Vermont has that now, and even though I think they've done the wrong thing, at least the elected representatives of the people have done this.

But is it going to end that way in the rest of the states? No. Gay marriage supporters will get it democratically if they can, but if they can't, they'll have it imposed on unwilling polities by the judiciary.

It is increasingly obvious that the US Supreme Court is going to have to rule on this matter soon. It is an untenable situation for a same-sex couple to be married in Vermont and Massachusetts and Iowa, but not in Texas, Nevada and Montana. I believe SCOTUS will constitutionalize gay marriage, and that being the case, it might be better for my side if it gets done sooner rather than later. If done sooner, there might still be enough backlash left in the American people to get a constitutional amendment passed erecting a high barrier or protection around religious institutions. Thoughts?

Advertisement
Comments
SJohn
April 9, 2009 2:18 AM

Moreover, what about the churches (such as some UCC affiliates, not to mention the MCC, and probably the Society of Friends) who will gladly marry two men, or two women? Aren't their members' religious freedoms being violated by the State not upholding the sanctity of such marriages?

(btw, apologies to all SoF members if I have misstated your beliefs.)

DHatzenbuhler
April 9, 2009 3:23 PM

"No one is forcing the church to marry anyone. My church's pastors constantly turn people away who aren't committed to marriage counseling or living a Christian lifestyle. Why is that so hard to accept?"

I accept this fact. The people you cite are interested in being married by a minister, preist... because they would like to be married by them and be accepted by their religious community.

The progressive movement is committed to tearing down organized religion. Many openly gay couples are committed progressives. Why would they not use lawsuits in the civil courts to further this goal?

Kathryn in California
April 10, 2009 1:49 AM

DHatzenbuhler
I accept this fact. The people you cite are interested in being married by a minister, priest... because they would like to be married by them and be accepted by their religious community.

The people in my church who've been married are already accepted by their religious community- they are family, all brothers and sisters in Christ. They are loved. The want their own minister to marry them in the way that many people have know who they'd like to be the officiant. They've already gone through pre-marriage counseling.

If marriage means a religious ceremony in a church, then they're married. If they're same-sex then what they don't have is a certificate from the state, unless it happened during the summer.

Dan S.
April 23, 2009 3:43 AM
http://thecommonloon.blogspot.com

A perfect storm of sex, religion, fear and anger has clouded our capacity to think critically about both marriage and homosexuality. The vicious cycle of backlash and nastiness will continue even longer if we continue to allow the issue to be framed by all-or-nothing activists and protesters who dig their trenches deeper each year.
.
This much is clear to me: gays cannot be expected to reverse their orientation any more easily than conservatives can be expected to sit idly while the historic understanding of marriage is redefined. Calling for a culture war ceasefire would be noble, but also unrealistic without a forum for respectful disagreement and dialogue.
.
As I see it, the only way out of this briar patch is through the thorns.Our best option might be to actually sit down and have a sober conversation about the touchy stuff: sex, religion, fear and anger. Slogans and sound bites won't work in a thicket this tangled.
.
If anyone is interested, I've come up with a few recommendations to help each side argue their case more persuasively (for a change):

http://thecommonloon.blogspot.com/2009/04/how-not-to-argue-about-gay-marriage.html

Chas
May 19, 2009 3:02 AM

Those who think that the religious community is only concerned about the legality of ministers being forced to marry gay couples are short sighted to the reality of what has already happened. Two women in New Jersey filed a discrimination lawsuit which resulted in a Methodist church being fined and losing their tax exempt status. A California doctor refused to provide in vitro fertilization treatment to a woman in a lesbian relationship. The doctors referred her to their partners, who were willing to provide the treatment. But no, that doctor was sued and lost in the California Supreme Court. In Mississippi, a mental health counselor was sued for refusing to provide therapy to a woman looking to improve her lesbian relationship. The counselor’s employers fired her—a move that was backed up by the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. In Massachusetts, Catholic Charities was told they had to accept homosexual couples in their adoption service, or get out of the adoption business. They chose correctly—get out of the business. In Albuquerque, a same-sex couple asked a Christian wedding photographer to film their commitment ceremony—and sued the photographer when she declined. In New York, the Albert Einstein College of Medicine at Yeshiva University refused to allow same-sex couples to live in married student housing, in keeping with the school’s orthodox Jewish teachings. In Mississippi, a mental health counselor was sued for refusing to provide therapy to a woman looking to improve her lesbian relationship. The counselor’s employers fired her—a move that was backed up by the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Convinced? Individuals need religious protection too, because the gay community is happy not to respect the religious beliefs of persons who take the Bible literally and prefer to honor God rather than politically correct persons.

Read All Comments

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Please type the text you see in the box below to verify your post and help us prevent spam. You have a limited time to type - you may wish to compose your comment in a separate document and paste it here upon completion.

Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Advertisement

Search This Blog

About Crunchy Con

Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.

feed icon Subscribe

RSS Feed

Receive updates from Crunchy Con

Advertisement

Advertisement


About Beliefnet

Our mission is to help people like you find, and walk, a spiritual path that will bring comfort, hope, clarity, strength, and happiness. More about Beliefnet.

Legal

Copyright © Beliefnet, Inc. and/or its licensors. All rights reserved. Use of this site is subject to Terms of Service and to our Privacy Policy. Constructed by Beliefnet.

Advertisement

Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.