I'm sure some people are confused about the difference between a "marriage" and a "civil union" and don't understand why it matters to many people in the LGBT community which one they are are allowed to experience. Here's my quick take on the core argument, and keep in mind that I'm not a constitutional scholar.
Here is a prefatory comment.
Religiously inclined Americans hold a wide range of ideological perspectives when it comes to the nexus between civil society and their churches. Some, like the televangelist Pat Robertson, think this is a christian nation and that Christian "rules" and "laws" should dictate the behavior of the people living inside of the boundaries of the United States. Others, such as Jehovah's Witnesses, call for a severe separation of church and state and do not even support voting.
So what about marriage?
Depending on where you stand on the continuum, it is either a legal dictate of our secular government or a covenant from god...or both. Sociologically speaking, in every society there must be some sort of legal union that is sanctioned by the state or cultural leaders because people who hinge their lives together must account for emergent legal issues such as who is eligible to be a beneficiary of a person's life insurance, land and other estate payments. For example, are parents, spouses, or children primary beneficiaries?
But over time, such "legal unions" have come to involve god and so most religious bodies weigh in on how they are performed and what they signify. Generally speaking, the terminology changes when god enters the picture and we start calling these unions "marriages." And herein lies the brouhaha.
Why would anyone come to imagine that the "proper" coupling who deserves a marriage license must be a man and a woman? Where did we get this idea? Why religion, of course. We just walked into murky water.
And it gets murkier. Religious leaders in the United States have the power to dictate the conditions of these unions (i.e., marriages) that bind people together and settle secular legal questions and claims. In other words, people acting "on behalf of god" involve themselves in the affairs of the state -- which means that they are also acting, in effect, as "functionaries" of the government. So one would think that they should either marry everyone who wants to be married or be relieved of the power to perform ceremonies for select individuals on behalf of the government, ceremonies that create legal contracts that are recognized by the courts. If they refuse to do this, one could reasonably argue that they can no longer have the privilege of acting as agents of the state.
A way to resolve the problem is to say that everyone, including all religious believers, should have to accept a contract called a "legal union." People could still be married in their church, but that ceremony would not be sanctioned by the secular government unless a secular authority was there as a witness. In other words, without a secular representative that ceremony would not generate the rights and responsibilities of a secular union (e.g., determine a person’s estate beneficiaries and so on).
At issue is whether such "discrimination" under the rubric of the government is constitutional and whether religious believers should have the power to control the secular affairs of the state when they are acting in such a "discriminatory" way. This is, after all, a founding principle of the United States. (Of course, such religious believers who think homosexuality is a sin in the eyes of God rarely see their actions as "discrimination"; they're just carrying out God's will.)
In any case, this is the root of the idea that "prohibiting gay marriage is unconstitutional." At issue is that it's unconstitutional according to many state charters. With this in mind, it's only a matter of time before such anti gay marriage amendments are overturned in some states...or so it seems to me. But I'm no legal scholar. Remember, I'm the knucklehead who just last year said that we'd never elect a man named "Hussein" as our president.
I'll leave off with some words from Arnold Schwarzenegger in speaking about the passage of Proposition 8, the anti-gay marriage amendment in California: "It is unfortunate but it is not the end because I think this will go back into the courts. ... It's the same as in the 1948 case when blacks and whites were not allowed to marry. This falls into the same category."
And while Aaaaarnold is probably correct in saying that this will go back to the courts, it will certainly go back to the voters and they will eventually pass a pro gay marriage resolution. Exit polls show that a majority of young voters of color actually voted against Prop 8 in California (i.e.,the youth actually supported gay marriage). So it's just a matter or time before more waves of young people register to vote.
Watch Keith Obermann, the liberal commentator speak on this. I'm generally not prone to admiring such a one-sided perspective and for my tastes Obermann seems like he's filled with a mix of hot air and self-righteousness, but there is something unique about the way he pushes this issue right into one's face that makes me smirk. Perhaps it's my own self-righteousness and arrogance. He misses a couple of critical points, to be sure, but on at least one point--that this is really about love and relationship--it's thought-provoking. Of course, if you think that God frowns upon LGBT love, however it occurs, then don't bother to click on the link. It will just upset you. Wait, I just watched it a second time and I think it's really worth watching.
23 comments:
Keith Olbermann’s video clip that is linked at the end of the previous blog makes a good point. Granted, he does not hit on a lot of the issues that gay marriage has been followed by, but I think he makes the best point: love. How much does it affect you who I love? Not at all. So why should the person some one chooses to love bother any one else? The point is it should not. Marriage is a religious commitment. It is up to a particular religion to decide whom marriage can exist between. However, it is not up to the federal or state governments to decide who should be joined in legal unions. These are two different commitments. One is spiritual and one is legal. There is no way that there will ever be a means to control who some one can love. Emotions cannot follow a law. So people are going to fall in love with whomever their hearts lead them to. Why, if this person is the same sex as you, are you denied to take that love to the next level? Why is person A good enough but not person B? This is an issue that should not even be on a ballot.
As far as weddings, marriages, legal unions (whatever they are called) go, I would one day like to take part in one with the woman of my dreams. As far as my opinions go about who gets married, I really have none. That is, I fell anyone should be able to commit their love to one another and have it recognized by world if that is how they feel. They can get married out of love or necessity; I honestly don’t have an opinion against it as long as it is consensual between both. Part of the reason I feel this way is because I have seen it go both ways. However, it is deemed “wrong” when the couple in love is gay and there is a big fuss thrown by society, but when a straight couple marries out of necessity, only a small fuss, if any, is thrown.
One of my biggest questions is where did marriage or unions get tied in heavily with religion? I currently have no religion and I’m in no hurry to take one. This seems to be a big problem for a lot of people today because a lot of them have a religion. They choose to include it with their marriage, much of the time getting married in their place of worship. Most times, people of different religion have to convert to one or the other in order to marry in the same place (at least from what I have observed). My parents however got married by the state, and their love is no different than anyone I have seen getting married through a religious service. In fact I prefer it this way because their union is recognized by the state (which is the biggest reason for the title of marriage anyway, apart from “officially” belonging and giving your heart and love to one another.) It seems to me anyone and everyone who wants or is in a union should have the opportunity to be recognized by the state and treated as everyone else in the same situation, no matter what their sexual orientation or religion. If a religion does not choose to accept same sex marriage, fine, that is what they believe; that’s what religion is anyway, it’s a belief. But governments have no right to deny a union between two people, no matter who they are. Love is something that should be recognized by everyone if it exists, and there is no reason that governments should not come to the same realization. Our government representatives were chosen to speak for us, not dictate who is entitled to marry who. And on that note, one last remark, I do not feel that “voting” is appropriate on this matter. Marriage or a union is something that I believe is a right that belongs to everyone and if it is going to be recognized for some people, then it should be recognized for all people.
Anyone who says that this country is a Christian based country and thus Christianity should play a part in its government is obviously an idiot who does not really have a clue about what this country is about. However, I do tend to agree that people of the same sex should not be allowed to get “married” if that is the belief any particular religion. If that religion does not allow it then that must be respected—which is also something our country is based on. Suddenly allowing people of the same sex to get married I feel would take away from those people who have, and will, make that same commitment under that religion. That is something they believe in and to just change it would then alter all that they have been taught and wish to teach to their children. Having said that, I do think that people of the same sex who wish to “get married” should definitely be allowed to form some sort of union that is recognized by the government. This would grant them exactly the same rights as any married couple. To do anything less than that would be treating them unfairly and as second class citizens.
This is a really interesting blog to me, because as much as I don't believe homosexuality to be right based on my beliefs, I do find myself agreeing with Laurie's standpoint. No matter what I believe, it still breaks my heart to see a couple withdrawn the right to marry a few seconds before their vows, as I watched this on the Today show last week. It also tears at me that someone you view as your significant other, as the closest person to you, someone you've given your heart to, doesn't have the right to visit you in the hospital in a life-or-death situation because of the fact that the state won't allow you to marry. It's this sort of denial of rights because of differences in beliefs that clearly does seem to me to be inequality in a country that proclaims discrimination to be unconstitutional. Regardless of my own personal beliefs and views on homosexuality, that is discrimination. I've recently been trying to sort through my beliefs as a Christian and how they relate to politics and the separation of religion and state. I just bought a book off of Amazon called Jesus for President: Politics for Ordinary Radicals, which sounds a bit over-the-top, but I'm still really interested in seeing the views portrayed in this book and how they relate to these current issues that we absolutely need to be thinking about and at least attempting to develop our own stances.
The passing of Proposition 8 makes me sick to my stomach and I can't believe that it was passed in California one of the most liberal and largest supporters of President Elect Obama. May I also state that California is the home of one of the largest homosexual cities thing this nation, San Francisco. This passing of this Proposition brings up something that has bothered me since I could remember and that is the separation of church and state and how there is no separation at all. How can a religion play such a huge role on democracy, American was created because of a group of people were being oppressed for their religious views and yet religion controls this country. As you can tell my relationship with religion is almost non-excitant and I don't even bother with it because of things like this.
What I find that kills me the most is the fact that minorities turnout for this election was at record numbers and that they predominantly were a key factor in the passing of Proposition 8. With this huge step we took forward in electing a half-black male as our President you take another oppressed people and throw them even farther back and as a nation take two steps back. All I need to say is that I guess minorities that voted for this Proposition to forgot to "Keep This On the Down-Low" and if you know what I mean by that they you will understand why I am agree about this.
I am truly moved by Keith Obermann’s commentary on the human heart. As someone with family members apart of the LGBT community I have witnessed and pain and struggle they go through with discrimination. We come from a very Catholic family who has had a very hard time accepting these family members. Throughout the process of acceptance I have questioned family members various times about God, and how if God is this wonderful accepting spiritual person/thing (whatever), who creates all people within his own image, can God frown upon members of the LGBT community? Responses often included an awkward, uncomfortable silence that ended with “because the Bible says so.” To me this is not enough. First off, how accurate can a book that has gone through so many editions and additions be a reliable source of what God’s will is? Secondly, if we were made in God’s own image and likeness, then this spiritual figurehead is in fact a member of the LGBT community. Prop 8 demonstrates the heartless way in which our society functions. This piece of legislation is for lack of a better word, straight up mean. It is completely ironic that people have voted for Prop 8, while putting a black man into the presidential office. It shows that America has made little to no progression in accepting different, diverse if you will, ideas. Other countries are looking at the United States as moving forward because Obama is the president-elect, and I think that Prop 8 reflects poorly on us. It is unfair, and sad. Good, spiritual people often care enough for others to for others in selfless ways. Voting for Prop 8, is selfish. It’s like a “spiritual, Christian” individual just wanting to keep the marriage rights and other sub-rights associated with marriage, all to themselves.
The first thing I would like to address on this subject is something I feel very strongly about. I have a question. When did we decide that it was acceptable to treat the LGBT community as if they were not people? Why is it acceptable to deny them their pursuit of happiness? To not give them a liberty that is granted to drunken fools in Las Vegas? My response is that it is in no way acceptable. It is not acceptable that a gay man cannot visit his partner in the hospital because he is not "family." Of course, this person is not family. How could we even consider that someone's long time spouse be family. It is not acceptable that a gay couple cannot adopt a child because of the "hardship" it may cause a child in the future. Yes, this makes perfect sense, let's leave thousands of children without real homes because having gay parents is by far worse than any teasing they might encounter in the future. A main concern of those in our government that oppose gay marriage is that it is not supported by the Bible. I guess we all have forgotten that little ditty about separation of church and state. There are many current laws that blatantly contradict what is written in the Bible. I’m going to need a better reason than that George Bush. As for Proposition 8, people who voted for Proposition 8 in California to protect the sanctity of marriage are frankly, hypocrites. Perhaps they should try to combat the rising divorce rate that leads to broken homes and children who never recover.
I was so outraged when I heard about the passing of Proposition 8 in California. I was even more shocked that the majority of black and Hispanic Americans who voted for Prop 8, and thus against allowing gay marriage. This seems extremely hypocritical to me since I look at both the civil rights movement during the sixties and the movement towards giving homosexuals equal marriage rights both an issue of civil rights. I don’t see one reason why homosexual Americans shouldn’t be able to join in marriage. Being married under the law should have absolutely nothing to do with G-D and everything to do with legality. Under the law, marriage is treated like any other business contract. Therefore, I see no reason as to why a couple must be heterosexual in order to enter into a legal partnership. If Churches, Temples, or Mosques refuse to marry same-sex couples, that’s one thing. They have the right to refuse to do so. However, I don’t believe that it’s the government’s place to disallow people to join together in what is in fact a BUSINESS contract. People really need to leave G-D out of this and look at same sex marriage as a joining of legal assists. I think people need to realize that it’s unethical to deny other people the same basic rights they enjoy just because they speculate that THEIR G-D disapproves of such deeds. If they truly believe that same-sex marriage is sinful, they should allow people to make their own “mistakes” (even though I don’t see it this way at all) and allow G-D to be the judge.
election day irony (111)
Hilary Courlang
“This isn’t about yelling, and this isn’t about politics and this isn’t just about prop. eight this is about the human heart”. Keith Olbermann is completely right. after watching is tv segment I was completely floored by his beautiful speech full of sentiment and human compassion. One of his main points that really stood out to be, and I hope stands out to all the people who are against LGBT marriage, is “why does this matter to you, what is it to you?” It makes no sense to deny these people of such a basic right when allowing it would cause no harm or pain to any one. The people who are against this really have no premise for it. LGBT are not harming anyone by marrying one another, they are just trying to be happy. And everyone deserves the chance to be happy. By endorsing prop eight LGBT are not only being stripped of their rights to legally marry, they are being stripped of their equality. They are now a subclass of straight, which isn’t fair at all. What give straight people the right to tell gay people they can’t marry. In theory, the tables could turn and they could be the ones telling straight people that they cant get married. What makes straight people better than gays, we are all humans and deserve the same chances and opportunities to be happy.
When it comes to the topic of gay marriage, I personally believe that if any two people wish to get married they should be allowed to do so. Who is the government to judge whom you can and cannot love. It is unfair to people who are homosexual that they cannot get the same benefits as a straight married couple. If they are not legally married they cannot get certain health or tax benefits that come with being married. When it comes to the religious point of view on this topic I would like to point out that Catholics are not supposed to have sex until they are married. Some of the religious views are from a time so long ago that it is not fair to expect people of today’s society to want to live by those rules or expectations. Religion is also a matter of personal choice so by making laws for the whole country because of what your religion says about homosexuality is unfair. If two people are in love they should be allowed to get married regardless of their sexual orientation. By not allowing them to get married we are taking away rights and benefits that every heterosexual American citizen is able to obtain, which is the same thing as discriminating.
Bravo Keith Obermann! You put into words what I have been trying to tell some of my more hard-headed insensitive friends for the longest time, and, I have to say you did it very well! I wish I could just pop out that video anytime a discussion like that comes up or anytime someone around me says or does something so pigheaded against gay people. For those people out there who think it is only right to solidify the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman, let them taste the hypocrisy of their own words.
I wish that some of these people who are so devoted to supporting Prop 8 would just think for once; think about the words that are coming out of their mouths. Many of these religious people supposedly dedicate their lives to the teachings of a holy book and a noble cause, but they won’t even give the meaning of the text some serious thought. So many people out there are just reciting the words and bending their meaning to suit themselves, or to ease the awkward feeling they get in their gut about certain things they aren’t particularly used to, when the true meaning of the words can only be found after truly absorbing the whole book. If they really want to respect the book, they should strive to understand it in its universal sense. A few quotes here and there, no matter how meaningful someone may think they are, should not be enough to form ones ethical base for his or her decisions in life. At this time, here in the 21st Century, the world is too complicated for that kind of thinking.
It is nothing less than doublethink to believe in acceptance, hope, and helping others while also agreeing with the fundamental beliefs of Proposition 8! That is the kind of understanding that will only bring more hatred and further solidify the boundaries we have cut in the fabric of our American community. That is the kind of thinking that will ruin our society. There is no reason why the religious community should be so adamant about excluding a group of people from something like marriage if that will give those people a chance at happiness.
Now, I understand that everyone doesn’t always have the time to think about the moral direction of every decision they make, but come on people! This is a major issue for a ton of individuals out there! For once, doubt a little of your own infallibility and make a decision that is going to benefit the world we live in, or at least help some of those people find happiness. Acceptance, understanding, education, empathy: those are the things that will truly improve our society, not some kind of religious theocracy that spoon feeds quotes stripped of meaningful context. Hopefully sooner, rather than later, this wrong will be made right again… but I have no doubt that someday it will be legal in all states. Two men or two women will be able to create the same legal and civil unity that heterosexual couples have the privilege of creating, and it will be called “marriage”, plain and simple.
I think it's extremely ironic that so many people in our country talk about the progress and change we are making in electing Obama as our president and yet proposition 8 was passed in our country. I am a Catholic school girl from the time I was 3 years old up until Penn State, and I know how my religion has taught me or trained me to think about gay marriage. And I don't think that religion should dictate the "proper marriage" as solely the union between a man and a woman. Like you point out, it is about legal issues, not religion. Marriage, or unions, is a contract between two people, and by no means does a contract require both parties to be of the opposite sex. I don't believe in denying people who love each other the right to marry, because, honestly, who is it hurting? No one. I always thought it was funny that we were taught that God loves and accepts everyone, yet he frowns upon like gay marriages or same sex couples. I just think everything has some kind of catch 22, and this election is a prime example. we make one move forward and take one step backward. same-sex couples are just looking for equality in the way that we are given equality every day of our lives, and i hope that one day they can get that right and privilege to express their love for each other in the same way i will be able to do with my husband. religion should not act as an appendage of the government in deciding who should and should not be married.
Personally, I don't see how people can be so opposed to gay marriage. I'm not gay, or bi, or anything, just straight. But I would want a gay person to be just as happy as I can freely be. People that are so vehemently opposed to gay marriage seemingly always use a religious argument as their basis. Why would someone, say a Christian for example, who is all about equality, do not unto others etc., support something that just keeps other people down? Why don't you want them to be happy? How is a gay couple getting married going to affect your life? It's not like gay marriage would get legalized, then every other house on your block is a flamboyantly gay family. They won't teach about gay sex in schools. I hate when I hear a parent say "Well how am I supposed to explain to my son why his friend has two dads?" JUST TELL HIM! Holy shit, it's a part of this world. You tell him about that the same way you tell him about how people shoot and kill people they don't know, the same way you tell him about how people sell little girls into sex trades, the same way you tell him about how most of his clothes were made by slaves, how we're slowly destroying the planet and all it's life until it becomes inhospitable. Life sucks and there's a lot of shit you might just rather pretend isn't there but it is. And having two men or women who are in love get married and be happy should be the least of your worries. People are so fucking stupid it drives me crazy. Grow up, life isn't all about what you want or think is right. I think in the not too distant future, gay marriage will be legal. Unfortunately, they as a community are going to have to put up with a bunch of bullshit and discrimination until that happens.
Well, there was a lot said about the LGBT community which I guess I will comment about. I watched the video and I do understand what he talks about and how people think and feel about this issue. Personally, I believe I am very confused when it comes to this. I am Catholic, yeah I know, and so here is where it gets complicated for me. I have a lot of friends who are gay and truthfully it does not matter to me at all. I love my gay friends; they are so fun and so easy to talk to. However, I only have gay guy friends. I have never been close friends with a lesbian and honestly I do believe that I would feel extremely uncomfortable around her. Still, I would definitely not be disrespectful or anything, I might feel uncomfortable but I would still the respect anyone deserves. So, what I am trying to say is that when it comes to being around gay friends or people in general I do not have a problem with that. However, I am very confused about how I feel about the whole “marriage” thing. I would like the couples to have the legal rights as any other couple does but I just feel like it is wrong to call it a marriage. Honestly, I do not know what I would do if I had to vote for or against Proposition 8 (the anti-gay marriage amendment in California). Perhaps if I left god out of this I would vote for gay marriages but I always have to go back and think of what “I think is right in the eyes of God”. Even though I do think of what “god says is right”, for some reason I always think of what I would want my kids to see when growing up. I know for a fact that I would not want my children seen two men or two women kissing in the streets and holding hands making obvious of what they were doing. To me, it is just wrong for little kids to see that. I know I would want my kids to also be catholic and I have talked about this with my boyfriend. So, there is no denying it, I feel like it is wrong. It doesn’t bother me having gay friends or being around gay people, I do not have a problem with that. Maybe I would see everything differently if I actually knew a gay couple who was actually married and had a family together. I have never known of a gay married couple and so maybe that is why it is just hard for me to picture and understand. I really do not want to sound discriminatory because I certainly do not hate gay people. I guess all I can say is that it is very hard for me to understand something that I was taught is was wrong. I have an open mind about it, and I will keep it like that.
First off, I was surprised that Keith Olbermann started off his commentary with the statement that he had to “strain” to think of any member of his extended family being gay or having a colleague or close friend who still deals with the prejudice surrounding homosexuality. I was a bit surprised by this statement, for he seemed really passionate in his speech about Proposition 8 and gay marriage. I just thought that he would have some close relation to this issue, or know someone who has been targeted by anti-gay sentiment. However, I understand exactly where he is coming from. Love is love, no matter what form it takes. Over and over, when I talk to others about this issue, I tend to hear that homosexuality is a sin. Thus, gay marriage should never be legalized, or, if people clamor loud enough and fight for their rights (as I am sure they and I will continue to do regardless of this minor setback), then we can give them something called a “civil union” so they can have legal rights. That’s fair, don’t you see? I am just surprised at how often people think this is some sort of justification, or that people are really that invested to stand on street corners and hold signs condemning gay marriage. Don’t you people have anything better to do with your time? I guess I understand that certain religions are utterly against gay marriage, but I also have many gay friends who are religious. They do not see it as going against God, because they understand that being gay was not a choice for them. They knew early on that they were “different” (I keep hearing them say different than others, but I think they are exactly like me…they love, they want relationships, they want to have a good connection with another being, whether that be a man or woman , or hey, both) from other people, meaning straight people. So having the right to celebrate their love for another person is exactly the same as a straight couple wanting the same thing. Olbermann’s point about our president-elect’s parents not being able to marry in a significant number of states at the time of Obama’s birth (because of the difference in skin color) is a startling reminder of how we have persecuted marriage throughout history. Not allowing gay couples to marry seems, at least to me, yet another persecution of this ceremony that has been propagated throughout time. I know many people who would have trouble calling these marriages “marriages,” because they are between two people of the same sex. However, it is a clear point when we see marriage continuously being mocked by our own society. Drunk Vegas marriages? Shot-gun weddings? Marrying for money, or fame, etc.? And the fact that half of the marriages in this country end in divorce. All of these things surprise me when others claim the sanctity of marriage, yet where are the picket lines against this kind of marriage? Plus, isn’t divorce “wrong” for many religious followers? I agree with Keith on the fact that we should allow gay couples a chance at this. Love is love. And in this world, we surely could use much more of it.
I find it utterly perplexing and hypocritical that people who so strongly believe in God and Jesus and their Christianity can deny anyone rights related to love. God sent his Son down to earth to die for us, the ultimate act of love many say. And yet, we here on earth have always had a problem loving each other unconditionally the way that Christians believes that God loves us. Shouldn’t we be demonstrating our gratefulness and faith by showing that same love to our neighbors? Why is it that a decree from the book (Leviticus) that forbids eating shellfish is taken so seriously that people’s rights are taken away and their love defined as less worthy than yours? It seems like a stretch to me, something for the “righteous” to cling on to so as not to have to examine their own lives too closely. Doesn’t it make much more sense to listen to God’s decree to do unto others as you would have them do unto you? If you want to believe that homosexuality is a sin, fine, but why must you meddle so fully with other people’s lives? YOU are not the one committing the so called sin, YOU are not the homosexual. People lie, covet, steal, and take the Lord’s name in vain constantly. Are you going to tape their mouths shut or shackle their hands together? Please think about this. Why should anyone have the privilege to deny consenting adults their right to express their unconditional love? I hope that someday soon people will finally leave the judging to their God, and perhaps take more stock in THIS quote from the book of Leviticus than the other…“Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself.”
Lauren Mullin
SO, I feel that people don't understand the difference between a piece of paper and a sacrament and often the two get merged. Let me first shed some light on why marriage as the sacrament is recognized as a union between a man and a women: Jesus was the first priest according to Christian teaching, and by being the son of God and the first priest and also a man he was said to be “ married” to the church meaning the church is his bride, because the original meaning of sex was to be a holy union between a man and a women in the presence of God solely to produce and promote life, and only life can be promoted through and man and women. So since Jesus was married to the church the tradition as lasted on. That piece of history is a little known fact to most and I think at least sets up why the tradition is in place. As far as same-sex marriage goes, I personally think that all types of marriages should receive the same full legal rights and should be respected, but I also think that saying priests should be forced to marry all types of non at all because they are acting as function so of the government is being disrespectful to the foundation of the church. If one tradition unravels then what is stopping the whole foundation to come crashing down. If I were to use a metaphor to describe what I am trying to say I would use the idea of a square can be a rectangle but a rectangle is not always a square in other words a marriage between a man and a women(the square) can be both a legal union and a sacrament, but a same-sex marriage cannot be a sacrament. That is the only difference between being married in a church and not. Please keep in mind I am not trying to say that I agree with this ideal but I am just trying to explain and maybe provide a rationale for it.
I was very surprised when California did not pass proposition 8, partly because CA is seen as being a trend setter in the United States and I usually think of the people there as being more open-minded. But also, as a nation I wrongly assumed that if we were willing to push down the barriers between races and elect a mixed president, then surely we could do the same for people of different sexualities? I wonder if part of the reason is that homosexuals have not suffered in the same ways that African Americans have in this country, meaning that the LGBT population have struggled in private whereas slavery and discrimination against people of color has been largely out in the open. I do believe that white guilt was a factor for some who voted for Barack Obama but does such a thing as “hetero guilt” exist? Perhaps it does, but clearly it is either not strong enough or not felt by enough people to push for the equality of all sexualities. I think a good point was made about the absurdity of the state's power to deny people unions. Those who are voting against gay marriage are mostly doing so on the basis of their religion, and that violates the separation of church and state. We are allowing the church to influence politics by means of democracy, and that is why I believe a completely democratic government is a dangerous thing; who or what is going to protect the minorities when the majority is in the wrong?
California passed proposition 8 forbidding gay marriage to be legal. California is one of the most liberal states, and where there are a high number of African Americans and Spanish people. People who have experienced and fought so hard for equal rights are denying equal rights to homosexuals? I do not understand how this makes sense. If you know the struggle you and your people have underwent for equal rights, how could you deny that to other people? These people fought so hard to have an African American as our president for the changes that it will bring to minorities, and still will deny others equal rights, which they fully deserve. It is very hypocritical of these people to vote for proposition 8, and claim equal rights among their own people. I understand that religion might have a big impact on people’s decisions but religious texts were written centuries ago and should not be taken literally. If religions do not want to accept that it is a marriage that is fine, but the state should realize it is a marriage and these people should have equal rights as any other couple who are married. Marriage has become such a mockery in our state with all these reality shows, and these two people are really in love and just want this love to be recognized how can we deny that? I think the vote for proposition 8 was very hypocritical and gay couples should be allowed to marry.
If I was Christian, I would be outraged at the monopoly the loudest Christians had over this issue. Some of the most compelling arguments I have heard in favor of gay marriage have come from Christians. I read an article from a conservative once who believed they should demand that homosexual people be allowed to married. To him, under Christian values, for the sake of children, the family, and stability, if people are living together, raising families, and having sex, it would be wrong for them not to get married. I think it’s up to every individual to decide if marriage is right for them but I appreciate his point that families would be better off with happy, stable marriages, no matter the coupling.
I don’t think the government should thrust their might on the churches and demand that they allow homosexuals to marry. But a legal union by the government should have no questions concerning god as a part of it. No matter how loud some people may yell that the US was founded as a Christian nation, the fact is that many founders, while they were usually religious and spiritual, were not Christians. Even the founders that were Christians signed onto the idea of religious freedom, selecting no belief system as the correct one to determine state laws by.
I get most angry on this issue when I hear people talk about protecting the traditional institution of marriage. I wonder if they remember that polygamy and the subordination of women was once widely accepted in marriage as well. Well, thank God, Allah, the deities, whoever, that marriage can change.
My parents are religious and I was raised some what religious too, but I don't see how religious law has be followed in our government. I don't have masters in either government or religions but just from my personal view, how does preventing gay marriage benefit anyone? Make our neighborhoods better? I am thinking over and over about the comment that this situation is like preventing black and white marriage and it fits perfectly together. And if you think yes to any of the questions above, would you agree to it if I switched gay marriage to a black and white marriage?
Now, by trying to put myself in religious point, that it is a good will to prevent gay marriage because it is against god's will. God created a man and a woman as couple, and not man and man, to give and take love to each other. Then giving a birth to a child and sharing their love to the child, they can represent true image of God's will and love, understanding God's love and giving back the love to God, which is the purpose of our life. Also without following this law, people of America is hopeless and will follow the path to the fall of the Great Roman Empire. Assuming that citizens of Roman Empire started to lose their sanity and focus because they did not follow laws from the bible, which one of them is no gay relationship. In order to save ourselves, government should embrace all of the god's law into the constitution, including preventing gay marriage.
I know I support gay marriage, however, I can also see why religious people are against it as well. Sam said that he has no tolerance when a colored people are against gay relationship but I think with same belief and faith colored or white, I don't see why he should feel that colored people have to be more understanding. Yes, it make some people unhappy, however premarital sex feels good too and religion do not allow it.
Coming back to support of gay marriage, I don't think religion should play a big role in our government, and I am not saying that all the laws that agrees with the bible should be taken away, because I believe us, individual humans, can make laws on our own to ensure, equality, order and happiness to as many people as possible on earth, and preventing gay marriage just don't sound ensuring equality. If you want people to follow your religion, you don't have to do it in politics, show me how you are a better person than me because you followed your religion, impress me and the others, enlighten me before forcing me.
Biblically, marriage is to be the holy and sacred union of a man and a woman. That is how God intended it to be, and was it was created to mirror the most intimate relationship one can have on earth (before reaching heaven). Before there was a concern for legality (issues involving beneficiaries, etc), marriage was “becoming one flesh”- where the man loves his wife as he loves himself (nourishing and cherishing her) and the woman respects her husband. Eventually, yes, the unions had to come under legal terms, so that issues such as life insurance beneficiaries could be addressed/established, but the title, “legal union,” still refers to marriage, does it not? Isn’t it merely just a title tagged/attached to the underlying MARRIAGE? With the way/direction the world moved, I guess official licensure did need to come into the picture, but I think marriage should still be held in a sacred place in the hearts of men and women. I realize the divorce rates are rising, so people assume others “do not take marriage seriously,” that “it just isn’t what it used to be, anymore.” But what if, in a few generations, people look back at what is now being allowed as “legal unions,” and think the same thing?
I must admit that I am rather irate in some sense about California and Florida’s decision on banning marriages after a day of triumph. People rejoiced and praised their glory of Obama’s victory. Less than 48 hours later couples around the world were grieving about something that we’ve fought so hard for. Many couples were recently married over the last couple years and now its all null and void. It makes me begin to wonder about the people who pass these laws and bills. If our country was built on so many laws on religious and state, why aren’t we revamping a lot of their clauses. Sam, made a great point about fornicators, and sodomites in class. Technically, we all will go to hell and the gates of heaven will reject us all! Homosexuality is someone’s bedroom preference and marriage and civil unions are precious ans sacred. No matter who decided to practice them! In my discussion group, we’ve discussed that many heterosexual marriages end in divorce anyway. Quite frankly, I’d grant a couple that would vow to stay together forever versus a bickering unhappy couple. Everyday I watch the news and politicians and it angers me, because there are so many other problems in the world that we could be focusing on. Not denying people of their rights and freedoms and love!
Post a Comment