Newsweek makes the case for GAY MARRIAGE: massive uproar from fundies/freepers.

[Nikki Stone1]

http://www.newsweek.com/id/172653

"Let's try for a minute to take the religious conservatives at their word and define marriage as the Bible does. Shall we look to Abraham, the great patriarch, who slept with his servant when he discovered his beloved wife Sarah was infertile? Or to Jacob, who fathered children with four different women (two sisters and their servants)? Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon and the kings of Judah and Israel—all these fathers and heroes were polygamists. The New Testament model of marriage is hardly better. Jesus himself was single and preached an indifference to earthly attachments—especially family. The apostle Paul (also single) regarded marriage as an act of last resort for those unable to contain their animal lust. "It is better to marry than to burn with passion," says the apostle, in one of the most lukewarm endorsements of a treasured institution ever uttered. Would any contemporary heterosexual married couple—who likely woke up on their wedding day harboring some optimistic and newfangled ideas about gender equality and romantic love—turn to the Bible as a how-to script?...

The battle over gay marriage has been waged for more than a decade, but within the last six months—since California legalized gay marriage and then, with a ballot initiative in November, amended its Constitution to prohibit it—the debate has grown into a full-scale war, with religious-rhetoric slinging to match. Not since 1860, when the country's pulpits were full of preachers pronouncing on slavery, pro and con, has one of our basic social (and economic) institutions been so subject to biblical scrutiny. But whereas in the Civil War the traditionalists had their James Henley Thornwell—and the advocates for change, their Henry Ward Beecher—this time the sides are unevenly matched. All the religious rhetoric, it seems, has been on the side of the gay-marriage opponents, who use Scripture as the foundation for their objections.

The argument goes something like this statement, which the Rev. Richard A. Hunter, a United Methodist minister, gave to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution in June: "The Bible and Jesus define marriage as between one man and one woman. The church cannot condone or bless same-sex marriages because this stands in opposition to Scripture and our tradition."

To which there are two obvious responses: First, while the Bible and Jesus say many important things about love and family, neither explicitly defines marriage as between one man and one woman. And second, as the examples above illustrate, no sensible modern person wants marriage—theirs or anyone else's —to look in its particulars anything like what the Bible describes. "Marriage" in America refers to two separate things, a religious institution and a civil one, though it is most often enacted as a messy conflation of the two. As a civil institution, marriage offers practical benefits to both partners: contractual rights having to do with taxes; insurance; the care and custody of children; visitation rights; and inheritance. As a religious institution, marriage offers something else: a commitment of both partners before God to love, honor and cherish each other—in sickness and in health, for richer and poorer—in accordance with God's will. In a religious marriage, two people promise to take care of each other, profoundly, the way they believe God cares for them. Biblical literalists will disagree, but the Bible is a living document, powerful for more than 2,000 years because its truths speak to us even as we change through history. In that light, Scripture gives us no good reason why gays and lesbians should not be (civilly and religiously) married—and a number of excellent reasons why they should...."

___________________

The Newsweek author speaks on the huge negative reaction from fundies:

http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid4576406001 (audio)

The link to send a positive email to Newsweek:

http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/campaign/newsweek/3s3bssk9ajndxm6d?(Human Rights Campaign--write a positive email)

[saltpoint]

1. 'Am surprised the fundies are upset here because I didn't realize

so many of them could read.

They have time to read NEWSWEEK but not the New Testament?

This is an odd world, ain't it?

[Nikki Stone1]

2. Newsweek is written at a lower grade level.

:)

[saltpoint]

3. LOL. Plus, there's lotsa pictures.

[Nikki Stone1]

5. And sometimes of celebrities!

:)

[saltpoint]

6. LOL! Which is durn good, 'cause since Anna Nicole died,

I just don't know what to do with myself.

[Nikki Stone1]

9. I was going to have a few suggestions but...:)

They were not ready for prime time. :)

[Deep13]

4. It was intolerant of Newsweek to point out the obvious facts.

How dare they try to deprive mainstream Christians of the right to make others suffer for their religion delusions!

:sarcasm: (In case it isn't obvious.)

Of course they stopped short of stating one obvious fact: the Bible is a pack of lies with no relevance to the real world.

[bluedawg12]

7. "Let the letters and emails come."

"One era's accepted reality often becomes the next era's clear wrong."

-Jon Meacham Editor of Newesweek, in this issue's: "The Editors Desk."
......
He knows exactly what he's doing, what he believes and the reason why they put gay marriage on the cover. Good for him!

[Nikki Stone1]

8. I liked that statement myself

But let's support with some positive feedback.

[hfojvt]

10. whoops. Error. Error.

"First, while the Bible and Jesus say many important things about love and family, neither explicitly defines marriage as between one man and one woman."

Mark 10: 6, and Matthew 19: 4 and Genesis 2: 23

"And Adam said 'this is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. She shall be called woman because she was taken out of Man' Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." Genesis 2: 23-24

My memory says this verse is quoted at most weddings.

"But from the beginning of creation, God 'made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate." Mark 10: 6-9 direct quote from Jesus

Newsweek makes a better case for civil unions:

"As a civil institution, marriage offers practical benefits to both partners: contractual rights having to do with taxes; insurance; the care and custody of children; visitation rights; and inheritance. As a religious institution, marriage offers something else: a commitment of both partners before God to love, honor and cherish each other—in sickness and in health, for richer and poorer—in accordance with God's will. In a religious marriage, two people promise to take care of each other, profoundly, the way they believe God cares for them."

A church, as a private institution, should be free to do its own thing, whereas civil rights should be available to all.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

11. If you go to city hall, you are given a marriage license and you get married.

Nobody is trying to force churches to change their rules. The churches aren't involved in this at all just as they aren't involved in marriages at city hall. We just want everyone to have the secular institution that the government provides for couples. And that is marriage, not civil unions.

[CTyankee]

12. But, but, if you allow gay marriages then you'll have to allow polygamy

and eventually, "man on dog".

[bluedawg12]

21. Is there a sarcasm emoticon missing or are you serious?

Is there a movement afoot for polygamy? Then deal with it on legal grounds. Gays are fighting with a reasoned legal argument.

As far as man on dog, hey I love my dog, but he is not going to provide an informed consent for marriage and he is not going to be able to take care of me in sickness and in health, so I can't back that up. :sarcasm:

[CTyankee]

24. Oh dear, I am so sorry. I thought my CT emblem would somehow keep me from

scorn here.

Yes, of course,it is sarcasm. I was thinking about Rick Santorum as I wrote this. Just a little phrase I always loved (ok, perversely loved), even tho I couldn't really decipher it. But it was so oddly put that I couldn't resist.

Sorry I wasn't more forthcoming.

Yours in solidarity!

[bluedawg12]

25. Thanks for clarifying.

It wasn't scorn I asked because I did not want to jump to any conclusions about your reply.

Any enemy of Satanorum is a friend of mine! :fistbump:

[CTyankee]

26. In an awful way, you have to miss him. Who else could be so revealing

as he was in his "man on dog" statement?

Sometimes we get blessings in disguise. I live for these moments but perhaps better things are to come and I can be more cheerful...:hi:

[ConsAreLiars]

36. and then, heaven forfend, dog on dog (The Horror! The horror!) and then

dog on leg and dog on blanket. And man on hand and, Holy Fucking Jesus, who can even imagine what might come (no pun intended) next? Oh, wait ... (Well, never mind - excuse me for a short while.)

[verges]

57. I always thought that was a stupid argument as well. nt

[hfojvt]

14. the Newsweek writer hints at this

"In that light, Scripture gives us no good reason why gays and lesbians should not be (civilly and religiously ) married—and a number of excellent reasons why they should...."

And I would not be sure about the "NOBODY is trying to force ..." because I am sure there are some people who would just love to force those 'bigots' to do what they hate. Just like some people want to force Eharmony to provide homosexual dating service and just like proponents of Proposition 8 claimed that Massachusetts marriage law then required (forced) a Catholic adoption agency to adopt children to gay couples.

[readmoreoften]

15. If the Church can't provide the best homes for kids, then they have no business in the field.

Who the hell is the Catholic Church to rob a kid from loving parents? Sorry, the kids RIGHTS to have loving parents trump the Church's RIGHT to be bigoted assholes.

[mondo joe]

19. Indeed. The service is supposed to benefit the kids, not the agency. NT

[mondo joe]

18. If an organization can't provide adoption services in compliance with secular law, it

should get out of the business.

[Nikki Stone1]

27. The same for pharmacies

"kick"

[mondo joe]

28. Indeed. The public benefit should come first, if you want the license. NT

[hfojvt]

29. fine and dandy, but you sorta prove my point

Because the next thing people would be saying is "If an organization (which is licensed to perform marriages) can't provide marriage services in compliance with secular law, then it should get out of the business." Which supports me against the person who said "we are not trying to force the churches to do anything". Maybe he/she's not, but maybe other people would.

[mondo joe]

32. Big difference. Adoption agencies perform a secular function. Church marriages are purely

religious - they do not convey legal status. The state does.

If churches conveyed the legal right this would be a different conversation.

[hfojvt]

35. Really, because I coulda sworn the pastor said

"by the powers vested in me, I now pronounce you man and wife". Is that just a lot of trapping over the mere signing of the document? I guess I might know that if I had ever gotten married. I coulda sworn the pastor served the same secular function as a Justice of the Peace. True, you don't need a pastor because a JOP can do it, but presumably you don't need a Catholic adoption agency if some other adoption agency can do it.

[4lbs]

39. Yes, as long as the marriage license app is signed, you don't need a pastor or JOP.

Think of all the marriages that happen at a City Hall.

The two parties sign the marriage license application, as well as the managing clerk and one other witness.

Bam! They're officially and legally married. No pastor quoting from the Bible. No JOP. No religious ceremony.

[hfojvt]

41. I cannot think of all the marriages that happen at a City Hall

because I did not know there were any. Seriously. As far as I know, all of the married couples I know got married in a church. I work for the city and at a place where many wedding receptions are held, and sometimes weddings. Nobody ever mentions getting married at a City Hall. It just isn't done that way 99.44% of the time.

[mondo joe]

46. Amd how many atheists have forced a church to marry them? How may Christians

have forced a Rabbi to marry them? How many Buddhists have forced a Catholic church to marry them?

The ceremony is religious, hence they can deny whoever they want.

Adoption is not.

[4lbs]

63. My parents were married without a religious ceremony. It was pretty much a City Hall wedding.

They got married 3 years after they had me, after they returned to the US.

[bluedawg12]

53. Marriage is a contract, a license is issued and verbal agreement is required.

http://www.revdavid.com/home/marriagelicenserequirements.html

>>Please note that California is a "ceremonial" state -- and you will need a ceremony to be officially married. The ceremony can be as short as saying "I do" with a third person to sign your license affirming that you did indeed declare you wanted to be married to this person. This means that just getting a marriage license does not mean you are married. A third party must sign the bottom of the marriage license for it to be solemnized.<<

[KitSileya]

43. That's cause the powers are vested in him by the state.

In other words, every Justice of the peace can perform a legal marriage, but not every religious cleric can - unless he or she has been vested by the state with the power to perform legal marriages. Marriage as a religious bond, on the other hand, can be given by each cleric recognized by their religious organization, to whomever they find fulfill the criteria set out by that particular organization. Which is why a JOP won't demand that your first marriage be annulled rather than ended by divorce before he marries you again - but a Catholic priest will. And if I declare myself priestess of the Church of Humanity Unchained and marry you and your opposite-sex honey, it won't be considered legal until I apply to the state for the licence to perform legally valid marriages.

[mondo joe]

44. You're confused. The pastor can perform a marriage, but the full legal weight

comes from the state.

It's nicety, for those who want it. But adopting a human being is very different - it's not a religious ceremony.

[verges]

59. A Church does NOT need

a license to perform a religious ceremony. The license provides the LEGAL rights that go along. By virtue of the First Amendment, a church can marry or not marry whomever they please. That part ain't changing.

[bluedawg12]

20. You have not cited one example of a Church being forced to change dogma and ritual.

Also, Eharmony was not forced into anything, they and their far right winf attorney "settled" out of Court.
They threw in the towel. They weren't forced.

You mentioned "Massachusetts marriage law then required (forced) a Catholic adoption agency to adopt children to gay couples." Yeah, that's about fair and equal right under law confered to married couples not about forcing a chnage of doctrin, dogma and ritual.

[hfojvt]

31. they were forced to defend themselves from a lawsuit though

but I guess that's not coercive. Especially since there is absolutely no chance that the courts wouldn't decide in their favor.

It definitely is a change in dogma if their dogma is that "homosexual behaviour is a mortal sin" and yet they are forced to provide adoptions to couples that they consider immoral. They chose to end a service they were providing to children and to the state rather than violate that dogma. Is the state and are the children being better served now by other agencies? All well and good, but I still wonder why those other agencies, if they existed couldn't have served the larger public while leaving the bigoted agency to serve the bigots? As long as there's a pharmacy I can goto (and there are probably a dozen within five miles of me)(okay that was an over-estimate, there are only 10 in the yellow pages) then what is the point of demanding that every pharmacy or every pharmacy worker conform to my ethics rather than their own?

[mondo joe]

33. No church has to run an adoption agency, but if they do they have to conform to secular

law. The children and prospective parents have legal rights the agency can't deny.

There is, however, no legal right to be married in a church, which itself conveys no legal rights whatsoever.

Churches can and do decline to marry people now, and always have. Even heterosexual couples.

[hfojvt]

40. except they did that for 100 years

and then the law changed. Not a law about adoption agencies, but some other law about marriages, which seemingly had unintended consequences.

Again, you could make the same argument too. "No church has to perform marriages, but if they do, they have to conform to secular law."

I am guessing that adoption agencies deny children to some couples too, and always have. Even heterosexual couples. Kinda hard for me to see adoption as some kind of right any more than a church marriage. Or less. The argument would probably be not for the right of the couple to marry, but against the right of the church to discriminate based on sexual orientation.

[mondo joe]

45. Still confused. The church provides a ceremony in religion. There is no adoption ceremony.

It is a wholly secular function.

And though adoption agencies DO refuse to let some people adopt, they must do so within the boundaries of secular law.

[bluedawg12]

50. That's wrong. Catholic agencies in Mass. only for the past 20 years.

Not 100 years. Maybe nationwide, but not in Mass. where they pulle up their tent after 20 years because of their anti-gay bigotry.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/03/10/national/a111332S47.DTL&feed=rss.news

"The social services arm of the Roman Catholic archdiocese, which has provided adoption services for the state for about two decades, said the law runs counter to church teachings on homosexuality."

>>I am guessing that adoption agencies deny children to some couples too, and always have. Even heterosexual couples. Kinda hard for me to see adoption as some kind of right any more than a church marriage. <<

I am guessing they don't blanket deny a minority group adoption rights, de facto.

Adoption agencies are licensed by State's and must follow State law.

Church marriage is a ritual and does not follow State law.

What Churches do inside a Church is their business, but when they branch out, outside of the Church into various ventures, they must follow the law.

[bluedawg12]

51. That ( I am guessing you mean adoption) was a secular function not dogma.

The Church exercised it's rights and withdrew from providing adoption services after 20 years in Mass. ( not 100 years) because the Church wanted to be above the law and above civil rights.

In so doing THEY were indeed free to exercise their freedom of religion. So according to the Church, their freedom of religion is preserved.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/03/10/national/a111332S47.DTL&feed=rss.news

"The social services arm of the Roman Catholic archdiocese, which has provided adoption services for the state for about two decades, said the law runs counter to church teachings on homosexuality.

"Sadly, we have come to a moment when Catholic Charities in the Archdiocese of Boston must withdraw from the work of adoptions in order to exercise the religious freedom that was the prompting for having begun adoptions many years ago," he said in a statement."

[verges]

60. Because if one can do it, then all can do it.

Though it would be unlikely. I assume we're talking about birth control here (though it is slightly OT). If the corporate boards of Walgreen's, CVS and Rite-Aid all decided to only follow "Christian" values BC would become almost completly unavailable. Please note that that is only three companies.

[hunter]

13. Well that really contradicts the view of the Catholic Church and St. Paul, etc.

Why didn't Jesus take a wife? What about all those celibate religious people who followed? Are they only half a flesh?

[DonEBrook]

16. He didn't say that was the -only- definition though and then said re-marrying is adultery.

I'm not so sure the fundies are willing to accept that part of it.

[bluedawg12]

22. Mark was referring to divorce and makes a good case against divorce!

In fact, Mark was quoting Jesus, who was quoting Genesis which was talking about procreation. The NT twist is the proscription against divorce, which, is still legal in Judaism and they wrote the first book. So, there is a lot of selective scripture quoting out there in the world.

[bluedawg12]

17. You are confusing marriage as a civil institution with marriage as a religious institution

You are confusing marriage as a civil institution with marriage as a religious institution
when you say, “ Newsweek makes a better case for civil unions.”

The Newsweek article is making no legal argument at all for civil rights, it an attempt at religious dialogue.

Marriage in the United States is a civil procedure and the gay rights movement is for justice and equal rights under law. The way to confer those rights and duties is through the current standard in law, nation wide and the word is called “marriage.” It is not called civil union.

The article is not the legal basis for the current fight for same sex marriage rights.

The article is appealing for acceptance and tolerance of gays on religious grounds and doing so in a very respectful manner. They are simply engaging in religious dialogue, not legal dialogue, the article and Ms. Miller are not taking anything away from the freedom of Churches to decide how they wish to celebrate marriage and with whom.

Funny how the logic always jumps ahead to false conclusions such as, taking away the freedom of Churches?

Please don’t mistake the idea that anything in Mark, Matthew, Genesis has any relationship to the current battle for legal justice and gay civil rights.

I have read quite a bit lately about the Equal Rights Clause, the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the principle of separation of powers and due process as legal arguments supporting gay marriage equality, I have yet to read one brief relying on scripture.

The gay rights movement is not argued on a legal basis in this Newsweek article, so one cannot make any conclusions about civil unions or marriage from Ms. Miller’s piece.

Going back to the religious discussion, which is interesting on an intellectual basis and your examples:

"And Adam said 'this is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. She shall be called woman because she was taken out of Man' Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." Genesis 2: 23-24

That does not define marriage at all, becoming one flesh is procreative.
Also, if we take it literally, I wonder, how many people believe Eve was made from a part of the first man, Adam?

If we take it literally even further, a “man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife,” if this is literal, then, Eve being the first woman must have “become one” with one of her sons and he did not leave his mother, in fact, he would have had to become one flesh with his own mother.

Or if we accept the literal Adam and Eve as the first humans, than, Eve would have been the rate limiting factor for population growth, which means that the daughters of Adam and Eve would have had to procreate with either their father (Adam) or their own brothers.

Is the Bible supportive of incest?

If we are going to be literal, then, that’s what the Bible says, that the first woman (Eve) and/or her daughters slept with male family members.

That’s still incest.

Or, is it metaphorical and there really weren’t two people, and no one is cleaving, leaving and “becoming one flesh”, they are talking about sex and trying to explain reproduction to a nomadic people around 5,000 years ago?


"But from the beginning of creation, God 'made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate." Mark 10: 6-9 direct quote from Jesus

Mark 10: 6-9 is interesting because it has to do with divorce and not same sex marriage. This verse makes a better argument for outlawing divorce than for prohibiting same sex marriage.

Frankly, I am not appealing to any Church nor asking for any religious ceremony at all, they are indeed free to do what ever they want and they can call it marriage, civil unions, weddings, I do care that my partner and I are treated fairly under the law and the law is written to confer rights to us the same as any other married couple.

Now, if Church’s are offended and decide to call their ceremony a “civil union” fine, but I would argue against it, because civil unions are not really the same, they're not equal and different-sex couples would be offended.


BTW, if we accept that:

“As a religious institution, marriage offers something else: a commitment of both partners before God to love, honor and cherish each other—in sickness and in health, for richer and poorer—in accordance with God's will. In a religious marriage, two people promise to take care of each other, profoundly, the way they believe God cares for them."

Why would you suggest relegating same sex couples of faith to less than equal civil unions and then, on top of that, deny them the ability to achieve religious and spiritual commitment of: “love, honor and cherish each other—in sickness and in health, for richer and poorer...”? One does not need a Church to, love, honor and cherish each other—in sickness and in health, for richer and poorer. Which I believe is modern marriage ceremony language anyway and not Biblical.

Why would you want to deny same sex couples of faith the affirmation that they are able to, “promise to take care of each other, profoundly, the way they believe God cares for them.”

Let’s see in summary:

No legal status for same sex marriage.

Pawned off to less than equal civil union

Thrown out of the “house of God” for ceremonial functions.

And failure to even acknowledge that same sex couples would want to “promise to take care of each other, profoundly, the way they believe God cares for them.”

Not much of a deal in the name of fairness.

[hfojvt]

38. well I appreciate a more than one line response

but there's a lot to answer there.

First, some of these are not my arguments.

"Why would you want to deny same sex couples of faith the affirmation that they are able to, “promise to take care of each other, profoundly, the way they believe God cares for them.”"

I don't think I said anything about that. First, I was debunking the article's claim that 'the Bible does not say anything about same sex marriage.' Three verses say that's wrong.

Second, the vote in California shows that a majority of voters, even in California, prefer their marriage ceremonies be left alone. When the word is sacred to them, then they are willing to fight very hard over the word. Since, presumably, we are more rationally fighting over the rights and privileges why not give them a hollow victory with the word? Why should the word matter so much to us?

So here are the arguments I hear against civil unions

1. The benefits of them are not federal.
Okay, marriage benefits are instantly federal, but that's not an argument against federally recognized civil unions.

2. Separate is inherently unequal.
Emotional bullsh*t. If the only difference is the name, then a rose is still a rose no matter what it is called. If you compare that to schools that's apples to bowling balls. You clearly cannot provide one school that is equal to another. It does not seem nearly that hard to provide one secular contract that is equal in rights to the religious one. It's like having a blue ticket or a red one and they both get you a ride on the same benefits train.

Again, it's not about what I want

"Thrown out of the “house of God” for ceremonial functions.

And failure to even acknowledge that same sex couples would want to “promise to take care of each other, profoundly, the way they believe God cares for them.”

Not much of a deal in the name of fairness."

It's about what those churches want and I support their right, via the first Amendment, to practice what they want even if I disagree with it. Live and let live. If a church has beliefs that I don't like then I can join another church. If you are against the Law or the state forcing them to change their practices, then we really should not have an argument.

[girl gone mad]

42. "It's about what those churches want and I support their right"

What about the church that believes same-sex couples should be married under the law?

Why don't you support their right to practice what they want? Why do you feel that it's okay for the state to force other religious people's bigoted beliefs upon them?

Interracial marriage used to be illegal on similar grounds. Would you also support outlawing interracial marriage because the Bible condemns it?

[bluedawg12]

48. Here's where the OP conflates gay civil rights with Churches

...what Churches want is not the subject of gay civil rights. It is the fair and equal application of the law to same sex couples.

[bluedawg12]

47. Gay marriage rights is about equal application of rights under the law.

It has nothing to do with Churches.

As far as civil unions, marriage is the legal term, thus, should be applied equally.

[Nikki Stone1]

23. The article addresses the quote you bring up, hfojvt

Read the whole article.

[hfojvt]

34. that was not much of an address

and is gonna anger more people than it convinces probably.

"But as Segal says, if you believe that the Bible was written by men and not handed down in its leather bindings by God, then that verse was written by people for whom polygamy was the way of the world."

Translation, "See the Bible doesn't say anything against gay marriage because it's not the word of god, just something written by men."

Yeah, that will convince every fundy. Convince them that the author is inspired by Satan. Besides that, she is making a better argument for Biblical support for polygamy than she is for Biblical support for gay marriage.

Also you might have told some other people to 'read the whole article'

"So the frustrating, semantic question remains: should gay people be married in the same, sacramental sense that straight people are? I would argue that they should. If we are all God's children, made in his likeness and image, then to deny access to any sacrament based on sexuality is exactly the same thing as denying it based on skin color—and no serious (or even semiserious) person would argue that."

[bluedawg12]

49. This is only Newsweek's Miller's POV, gay rights is NOT about

"gay people be married in the same, sacramental sense that straight people..."

I know it get's confusing when a MSM article writes an ecumenical piece exhorting religious tolerance for same sex marriage and it's easy to confuse this piece with the actual gay rights movement for legal justice.

They are not one and the same.

I don't believe in outreach. I don't think their bigotry is my problem. I don't give a flying f*ck about being married in a Church.

I do think that justice under law is a fair demand, however.

[Nikki Stone1]

52. How can one square the Adam and Eve quotes with the polygamists like Abraham?

It seems that the Adam and Eve story was written much later than the historical scraps about Abraham and Isaac.

[alfredo]

30. Kick for us skeptics.

[DainBramaged]

37. When the Fundies agree to ban divorce, I'll agree to ban gay marriage

[Orangepeel]

54. I sure as hell won't

I know you are being facetious, but the fundies can stay away from my personal life entirely

[DainBramaged]

55. I am, but you know what I mean, those insidious bastards are toxic

and lets say a movement is started to ban divorce. Who do you think would scream the loudest? Mr. Family Values or folks who have been in a committed relationship for decades and don't worry about such man-made rules?

[Nikki Stone1]

62. Amen, orangepeel.

:)

[bluedawg12]

56. It seems that some clergy wear two hats: JP and "Reverend?"

Ahh..I think just understood why some fear "clergy" will be forced to wed gays. Apparently some clergy wear dual hats: civil and religious.

Now correct me if I am wrong, I am working through this presently.

But, based on some of the comments here it seems like some clerics (Reverends, was the term used in one reply, if I recall correctly) that some clerics are both: reverends and justice’s of the peace.

>>n., pl. justices of the peace. (Abbr. JP)
A magistrate of the lowest level of certain state court systems, having authority to act upon minor offenses, commit cases to a higher court for trial, perform marriages, and administer oaths.<<

I have been to Catholic weddings–always in a Church edifice-- and have not heard a priest state: “ Now by the power vested in me by the State of...I pronounce you man and wife.”

However, it is possible that same clergy wear two hats, the State granted JP hat and a Church affiliation.

So, it’s true, that if same-sex marriage is a State law then, they as JP’s could not refuse marrying a same sex couple as a JP function.

However, a cleric functioning strictly in a religious role could and have refused marriage based on religion. We know this is true as a member of one faith, cannot today, walk into and demand a cleric of another faith to perform a wedding in the cleric’s own tradition.

So, protecting that segment people who want a dual JP/clergy ceremony and to use that as a reason to deny all same sex couples is unfair, because there is a remedy:

Same sex couples can go to a secular JP, or a JP/Clergy who offers same sex marriage.

Different sex couples can go to a secular JP, or a JP/Clergy who offers different sex marriage.

But a JP could not refuse to perform a wedding– as a JP.


This has nothing to do with strictly religious marriage ceremony functions.

It is wrong to deny one entire class of citizens equal rights to marriage, simply so another class of citizens can have a dual JP/clergy ceremony.

JP’s can resign. Being a JP is a secular function that has nothing to with the rights of clergy to perform strictly religious wedding ceremonies.

The JP issue already came up in Mass. in 2004:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2004/04/18/wedding_quandaries?pg=full

>>Although there has been no definitive legal ruling, many observers believe that justices of the peace cannot refuse to marry couples because they are gay. And so, a month before the first gay couples may legally marry in Massachusetts, some justices of the peace who oppose same-sex marriage may simply resign.

<snip>

Jonathan Zittrain, a Harvard Law School professor and a justice of the peace, argues that refusing to perform same-sex weddings violates the central tenet of the Supreme Judicial Court decision last November -- that banning gay couples from marrying is unconstitutional. "The justice's job is not to judge people who are seeking to get married," he said via e-mail. "Rather, it's to witness and record their solemn oaths under the law, and perhaps to contribute to making the ceremony as meaningful as possible."

In Massachusetts, justices of the peace are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Governor's Council for seven-year terms. Their number is limited; each city and town is entitled to one justice of the peace for every 5,000 residents. Justices cannot charge more than $75 for each wedding they perform in their hometown, or $125 for weddings in the rest of the state.

The state constitution gives the governor, with the consent of the governor's council, the right to remove justices of the peace. But since Romney opposes gay marriage, observers doubt he would seek to remove those who refuse to perform same-sex weddings.<<

.......

But starting May 17, Vozzella may be required to marry gay couples who request his services. As a justice of the peace, a gubernatorially appointed position, he has the authority to perform wedding ceremonies.

Although there has been no definitive legal ruling, many observers believe that justices of the peace cannot refuse to marry couples because they are gay. And so, a month before the first gay couples may legally marry in Massachusetts, some justices of the peace who oppose same-sex marriage may simply resign.

"There is a possibility I would just turn in my appointment," said Vozzella, who owns an insurance agency and lives in Walpole. "From what I've heard, there's a lot of people who feel that way."

The prospect of gay marriage has led to soul searching among some justices of the peace. Many who personally oppose same-sex marriage say they will perform gay weddings if asked; they have sworn to uphold the law, they say, even if it violates their own beliefs.<<

[RobertDevereaux]

58. Good for them I look forward...

...to reading this issue.

[Nikki Stone1]

61. I hope we can get another recommend on this one.

:)