My thoughts on Gay Marriage. We out smart them.

[Quixote1818]

I think a lot of religious people see the term "Marriage" as a religious term, like for instance a "First Communion". Not necessarily a political thing. They think it's more connected with ancient religions when in fact it has a pretty broad meaning as I just discovered: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage They feel someone is trying to change their religion. Personally I think it's a bunch of BS but I can also kind of see their point too.


Maybe there could be a compromise between Religions and the state? Allow Religions to have a legal connection to the word Marriage and any ceremonies performed by the state to be "Civil Unions" either gay or straight. If a gay couple wants to get "married" then find a church that allows gay marriage like the Methodist church does and have a religious wedding. The Government then should respect what that church calls the union.

All this is, is a debate over semantics. Who fucking cares about the term Marriage? Just give it to the churches if they are so protective of it. That way gays will be able to get "Married" through a number of churches that allow it. Boy would that be a surprise to the Fundies when the state started recognizing Gay Marriages if they were done through certain churches. It would be a way to let them think they were winning then the Methodists and Unitarians would let gays in to Marriage through the back door. "No Pun intended".

[Solon]

1. Bullshit argument, already been used in at least 8 different threads over the past few days...

Every single one of them have been destroyed in various ways. Really, stop beating this dead horse.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

3. This horse is really dead

It's so dead, it's pulverized bones by now. They've been beating that body for years.

[Solon]

7. Its been dead so long, the worms that fatted themselves on the horse's flesh have died...

several of their generations back.

[Clovis Sangrail]

10. not dead.. it's the best argument there is

Make it a 1st ammendment issue-

The govt can't dictate to the churches who they can or can't marry -
the fundies will get behind that

Govt can't recognize one church over another -
the fundies will get behind that too

The validity of catholic marriage is then the same as a UU marriage.

I think more emphasis is being place on hating fundies and wanting everybody to agree that they're wrong about gay marriage.
It's incredibly stupid that this tack hasn't been followed.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

12. First, of all, a religious ceremony doesn't marry you, the piece of paper does

Secondly, a Catholic marriage has as much validity as a UU marriage.

I really don't think you understand marriage law or religion very much.

[Clovis Sangrail]

19. actually I do because I've gone round and round about this a few times

yes there is a strong civil reason for marriage... there's also a religious connection going back over 5000 years.

Some of the earliest depictions we have of Babylonian marriages took place where?
that's right... in a temple

Prop 8 et al passed based on people's perception of marriage as a religious institution.
They were told by their religious leaders that gay marriage is wrong so they voted to ban it.

Tilting at the religious windmill might make you feel self righteous but it's dumb as hell.
In case you haven't noticed people's belief in religion isn't based in logic or common sense...
so why, exactly, should anybody expect appeals to common sense or logic to convince large groups of people that their religion is wrong?

Trying to convince religious people that marriage isn't religious, when the bible tells them it is, is a fools errand.

It's much smarter to simply avoid that argument and use their own desire for religious freedom.
Why fight against them when you can get them to fight for you?

Who cares what the fuck they "think" about gay marriage.. that's not the issue.
.. or is it?

[Quixote1818]

24. Very well put! nt

[Solon]

25. Were the fuck is this "religious connection going back 5000 years"...

OK, you really displayed your ignorance there. :eyes:

[Quixote1818]

27. He gave it

"Some of the earliest depictions we have of Babylonian marriages took place where?
that's right... in a temple"

I don't know if that is fact or fiction but that was the "religious connection" he cited.

[Solon]

30. And in Ancient Egypt, another culture we adopted a lot from, marriages involved...

two people moving in together. Its not universal for crying out loud. Oh, and this is where "common law marriages" came from, more or less.

Not to mention in Europe, another culture, it was quite common to get married by a friend or family member, with a witness or two, not by a priest, and this occurred between the years 0-1000 C.E. approximately.

[Quixote1818]

33. I think you are both right

The point however that he was trying to make is that he can understand why some stupid people don't get it. It's not that they have homophobia but their churches have misinformed them about how broad the definition of Marriage really is. Though I am sure there is a percentage of homophobic folks in the mix too.

[Solon]

34. I just find all arguments people base on their opposition to gay marriage...

as being based on their religion(most likely Christianity) to be just flat out wrong. The Bible never clearly defined marriage, and if these people were internally consistent with their own damned Holy Book, then they should be for Polygyny at the very least(hey, the best type of marriage is the same as what the Patriarchs practiced, right?). I don't accept their framing at all, its based on a damned lie.

[Quixote1818]

36. Good points

You just said much of what was said in this video: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=251696&mesg_id=251696

I agree that is true with a large chunk of the population but I also have a good friend who's best friend is gay yet he still listens to what the Catholic Church says about gay marriage????? It completely befuddles me but I think he is sincere and his friend (our friend) accepts that in him.

[Solon]

44. I saw that video before, it was pretty good in demolishing Warren's idiocy. n/t

[Quixote1818]

46. Every time I watch it I get more angry at Warren

He is clearly a piece of shit! An utter dick headed ass hole! Probably not the smartest move by Obama but hopefully he won't compromise on the laws. If he does then he is a piece of shit too.

I see good points by both sides on this. I am just afraid a lot of DUers are talking past one another. I think it just means a lot more to some people than others, but I also see why it does mean so much to some and they want to be understood.

I am trying to approach this with an open mind and see both sides. I hate to see DU so divided over an issue I think most of us agree on.

[Solon]

47. The people I'm really puzzled about are those that, while they don't defend Warren's positions...

they claim that any condemnation of those positions means we are no better than him. Seriously, how fucked up is that?

[Clovis Sangrail]

40. that's just it...they're NOT consistent with their own holy book

religion is NOT based on logical thought
don't try to convince them that marriage, like religion, is really just a necessary social construct because they'll never believe you over their religion

it really doesn't matter exactly what the bible says (it's inconsistent anyhow)...
just like it doesn't matter that logically - constitutionally - the govt HAS to recognize same sex marriage.
what matter is what their current religious leaders tell them.

You know.. the pope.. Reverend Rick... Falwell..
No matter how kooky those guys are the faithful will always choose them over you or me... or the constitution.

[Clovis Sangrail]

38. I didn't say the religious connection was universal

or devoid of civic aspects.

I said it's there ... and that it goes back a looong ways.
A lot further than 1000 CE (read about Inanna's divine marriage in Sumerian culture)

A religious connection still exists for a LOT of people.
If it doesn't then why did 8 pass?

Denying that connection, or telling everybody who makes that connection that their religion is wrong, has a very predictable consequence.
They'll believe their religion and you become the enemy of their religion.
Not a great way to get them to agree with you.

[Quixote1818]

42. I think Cenk says it best when Rick Warren said Marriage is in all these

cultures and religions since the beginning of time, and so Cenk asks "But the Bible also says that if people commit adultery they should be executed." So if they want to remain consistent then Mr. Warren: "Should people who commit adultery be executed?" If he says no then ask him why he hates gays?

Regardless of what religions and cultures have said about Marriage for 5,000 years, to be consistent they CAN'T pick and chose which laws they feel should be followed. At that point the Bible falls flat on its face.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpRDiZnebPE

[Clovis Sangrail]

49. heh... christianity falls flat on it's face if you look at it funny for more than a second

the problem is they do pick and choose.. not just about marriage but about everything in their own book.

I really think that they're so logically inconsistent that it's folly to try to reason with them about anything they consider "the teachings of the church".
Just focus on what you want and the best way to get it... forget trying to get them to 'understand'.

I hate to sound anti christian because I know some christians who are really good people in certain respects but complete idiots in others.
I know a fundie who's a doctor... and a hard core creationist.
Everytime I see him I'm amazed that somebody could take all that biology and think evolution is a hoax.

[Solon]

16. Uhm, you don't even know how marriage works in this country?

Since when are UU marriages less valid legally than Catholic Marriages? :wtf:

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

21. I better tell Pacifist Patriot about that

:rofl:

[Clovis Sangrail]

29. well..my UU church will marry same sex couples. It's not a legal marriage.

It's not recognized by the state and isn't entitled to the same rights as to a catholic marriage.

so...ummm.. how is it that I don't understand how marriage works in this country?
:shrug:

[Solon]

32. Uhm, you are conflating two different issues to make your point, which you seem to be lacking. n/t

[Clovis Sangrail]

45. not at all but I'd love you to try to explain how I am

The topic was gay marriage and the first amendment - specifically the "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" bit.

ie: govt isn't supposed to make a law favoring one religion over another.
Recognizing one church's marriages as a legal union while not recognizing marriages from another church provides a legal and social advantage to one church over another.
Hence, it's a law respecting the establishment of a religion.

If we force this interpretation a catholic marriage and a UU marriage have the same validity.
Right now all catholic marriages in the US are recognized as legal unions.
The same cannot be said for UU marriages, because, at least where I am, they will marry same sex couples... which is NOT recognized by the state.
ie: they are not equally valid

So how am I "conflating" two different issues?


follow up question: did you actually know the definition of 'conflate' when you wrote that ?

[Pacifist Patriot]

51. Clovis, please see my post at #50.

If a couple is married in a catholic church by a catholic priest in a full mass ceremony, but they did not obtain a marriage license from the state---they aren't married.

In my state, the absence of a license legally affects what I am allowed to say at the "Declaration of Marriage." I have had to do some fancy dancing at the last minute for a few couples who forgot their license at home. I had to change the wording so the guests (parents!) didn't guess what was going on, but I wouldn't be held legally liable if they did not follow up with presenting me the valid license.

In one case, they had someone run home to grab it for them. We snuck off during the reception to perform the legal marriage ceremony. So technically, the couple wasn't married in my church, they were married in a side ballroom at the Crowne Plaza.

Yes, we UU clergy will preside at marriage ceremonies for same gender couples. Wish I had more of them actually, but sadly I am in a state that has recently taken even further steps to oppress the GLBT in this regard.

I will solemnize a ceremony joining together to consenting adults into a lifetime partnership. Their respective genders make no difference to me. Sometimes the ceremony results in a legal union, sometimes it does not. But it has absolutely nothing to do with where it is performed or which church is blessing the union. It is 100% whether or not a valid marriage license has been issued by the state.

By the way, I've had a number of heterosexual couples come to me for purely symbolic ceremonies. But at least they had the option, eh?

[Pacifist Patriot]

50. Okay, here we go.

First of all, the government cannot dictate to churches who they can and cannot marry. That was true yesterday, true today and likely to continue to be true in the future. I hope!

The government has complete control over who may or may not be issued a marriage license.

The couple obtains the license and then selects the individual whom they wish to officiate the ceremony and sign the license.

The couple may go to a justice of the peace, a member of the clergy, a clerk of the court, a notary public (in three states) or a licensed officiant (in some states).

If the couple wishes to be married within the context of a religious ceremony, they ask the clergy to perform the ceremony. At that point, it is entirely up to the clergy (or his/her denominational rules if in a hierarchical religious body) whether or not he or she will solemnize the vows and sign the license.

Without a valid marriage license from the state, it doesn't matter if the couple is married in a catholic cathedral, a conservative temple, a methodist church, a UU fellowship, the little chapel of Elvis or on the beach.

The marriage ceremony does not render the couple married. The license issued by the state is what makes the person married.

In the eyes of the law.

We're talking civil rights and discrimination here. If we value inherent human dignity and therefore value equal protection for all of our citizens, than a Marriage License is what we're talking about.

Who takes that license, witnesses the vows, declares the couple married, signs the license, files it with the clerk of courts is already irrelevent.

So essentially you're kind of just asking for a perpetuation of the status quo.

Legislation has paved the way for shifts in social thinking in the past. No reason why it couldn't do so again. Legalizing marriage for same-gender couples (gay marriage is a stupid phrase by the way. The word marriage doesn't need a modifier -- a marriage is a marriage.) will help normalize love between two people of the same gender within society as a whole. Legislation should be based on the principles within our government documents, not what some people's religious beliefs find sinful or just icky.

[Clovis Sangrail]

54. the status quo is that same sex marriages are not given the same legal status

how is changing that "perpetuating the status quo"?

It's pretty naive to think that who takes the license, performs the vows, etc. is irrelevant.
If it really were irrelevant we'd have legally binding same sex marriages now ... and we don't.
The state doesn't issue same sex marriage certificates ( quibbling over using "same sex" or "gay" is stupid as it needs a modifier to be identified for discussion) regardless of Episocopal or UU ministers being OK with it... why is that?
The reasons aren't civil - I think it's pretty clear the legal benefits of marriage are a civil right and everybody should be treated equally - it's because Catholicism, evangelicals, and other religions are opposed to it.
And they have enough adherants that their religions are politically more relevant than yours or mine.
That's not right but it is true.

Religious freedom seem a much smarter place to argue this issue from because many of those opposed to gay marriage will oppose govt interference in religion just as vociferously.

I fully understand the difference between the civil ceremony and the religious ceremony, but obviously enough people don't that 8 passed in California.
Trying to educate people that there is a difference is a noble goal.. but one I think that is doomed to failure as long as major religion's leaders are telling their flocks that you're interpretation of marriage is wrong.
The religious leaders are going to win that battle (and did on Nov 4)

Most people consider getting the marriage license a formality attached to the religious ceremony... not the other way around.
This might not be generally true in the UU church but it certainly is among the congregants of the church I grew up in.

[Quixote1818]

4. Nice to meet you too.

:pals:

[Solon]

5. I don't mean to be a complete asshole...

But frankly, this argument has been rehashed on DU multiple times over the past few days, and I simply don't have the patience to argue against it yet again. What should I do, put links to all my posts in my clipboard and just keep on pasting it into these types of threads, again and again?

[Quixote1818]

9. Legally it probably is impossible

because I don't think the state could recognize it as a religious term. Then again, perhaps that would pave the way for legalizing Marriage for gays if the courts declared the term Marriage as a secular word and not a religious one.

Sorry, I haven't been on DU much the past few days so I didn't see those other threads.

[Solon]

11. Well, its not only legally impossible, but politically as well...

One of the biggest arguments against gay marriage is that it will destroy marriage as an institution. We don't need to empower their argument by actually asking for the government to do exactly that, in a legal context. Most people in this country will view any renaming of Marriage to any other word or term as a "downgrade". This is the only thing I can think will be more unpopular, with both gay and straight people, than Same Sex Marriage itself.

ON EDIT: Even if you kept Marriage as a legal institution, but implemented a separate but equal institution of Civil Unions, remember, anyone can enter a Civil Union, so soon enough things start becoming confusing and redundant.

[Quixote1818]

13. If it were "downgraded"

then perhaps straight people would suddenly see how gays feel. They would know the real feeling of being a second class citizen. Perhaps then they might fight for gays to have the right to get married.

[Solon]

14. Straight people are the majority, so unless a court of law is going to strike down marriage itself..

and it will stand on appeal, its going to be impossible to get rid of it. This line of thought accomplishes nothing.

[Quixote1818]

20. I don't take the idea seriously either, but I think it makes people think

I have brought the idea up in arguments before and people always seem to find it interesting that if churches really did decide what Marriage was then there would be gay Marriage in America.

[Solon]

26. Frankly, I not nearly as interested in convincing the people whether Gay Marriage should be legal...

I'm more interested in what the judges who Obama will appoint believe. Gay Marriage is much more likely to become a nationwide reality through the court system than the ballot box, just like Interracial Marriage.

[Quixote1818]

31. I agree

Legally, it's not something people should be voting on. It's clearly a civil rights issue and it's pretty cut and dry if you look at the true definition of Marriage, that gays should be able to marry. Not to mention the separation of church and state makes this as simple as 1 + 1 = 2.

[KittyWampus]

18. Actually, it's the way European countries have approached it. So you just displayed your ignorance

And let it be noted, you are one of the shit-stirrers who gets off on stoking the outrage.

[Solon]

23. And your one of those people that is completely blind to homophobia displayed by Warren...

Your opinion means jack shit to me.

[KittyWampus]

37. blind to his homophobia? No I'm not. But I'm not a shit-stirrer like you who gets off stoking the

outrage.

[WillParkinson]

2. And do you think that other churches will accept this marriage?

This idea has been put forward already and it has been shown numerous times why it will not work.

Who cares about the term marriage? Enough people to ban it in 38 states.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

6. I have put this idea into practice

Legally I was married by a judge at a county courthouse. Quite a bit later, I chose to have a religious ceremony. I think this is how it should be. As an ordained minister, I do not like being able to sign a wedding license in order to legalize a marriage. I would rather that this function be left to secular officials like judges and JPs.

As I have stated before, I would be delighted and honored to spiritually unite anyone.

[mondo joe]

8. Good idea. What are you going to do to make it happen?

[Solon]

15. He's got a magic wand of influence and control of straight people!

How else do you think this will happen.

:rofl:

[KittyWampus]

17. You have it right. It's the way European countries have done it. So the assholes deriding you

are just displaying their ignorance.

And the DU'ers who posted above me are some of the FEW DU'ers who are doing everything they can to continue stoking outrage.

Call it Civil Unions For Everyone or Domestic Partnerships for everyone.

Let Marriage designate whatever ceremonial (secular or sacred) tradition a couple wishes to have after signing the legal contract in the court house.

[Solon]

22. Yeah, well, that's the problem the United States isn't Europe...

And even in some places in Europe, Civil Unions/Domestic Partnerships aren't equal to Marriage.

[hulklogan]

28. It amazes me that anyone would rather dump marriage altogether before giving it to gay people.

Would they really want to go through all the trouble of changing the entire structure of marriage in this country, including the wording in thousands of statutes, regulations, and legal documents, all to keep it away from gay people?

[KittyWampus]

35. Oh, no one is talking about "dumping marriage". Just letting the word designate whatever secular

or sacred ceremony any couple of any persuasion has after signing a civil contract.

And it's not changing the entire structure.

It literally would changing one word on the legal contract people already have to sign.

Your overwrought characterization is absurd.

[hulklogan]

39. So you're telling me that the several hundred instances of the word marriage

in the Colorado Revised Statutes wouldn't have to be changed to reflect this new legal idea? Multiply that by the 50 states and local jurisdictions and the US Code and CFR and you have thousands and thousands of things that would have to be rewritten.

Isn't it easier just to let gays get married?

[Starbucks Anarchist]

41. Is this the "Get Smart" line of thinking?

[Quixote1818]

43. It was supposed to be satire. Not to be taken too seriously.

Just an interesting perspective with no chance in hell of ever working.

[Maven]

48. They don't want us to have ANYTHING

They don't care what it's called

They want us to DISAPPEAR

This is not feasible or necessary, politically or legally

They will accuse of trying to "destroy" marriage

Etc.

Etc.

I appreciate the effort but please, no.

[Orangepeel]

52. sure, if you can convince the majority to give up something they perceive as a right

as quickly as they are willing to take it away from someone else.

[Pacifist Patriot]

53. My thoughts on equal marriage rights for same gender couples.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4700877