Both sides gear up for costly Calif. fight over gay marriage
Print Friendly VersionBy David Finnigan
Religion News Service
LOS ANGELES -- The election-year fallout from last week’s ruling by the California Supreme Court to allow same-sex marriage has both sides of the religious and political landscape building their barricades.
Gay marriage advocates are jubilant but cautious as they hold onto their landmark court victory, while the opponents hope to make it a major issue in the November elections.
"A lot of people are very angry about the court's decision, calling up, e-mailing, asking what they can do to help," said Andrew Pugno, the attorney for backers of a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage and, if approved by voters, trump the court's decision.
With funding from Focus on the Family and other groups, the "Protect Marriage" measure has gathered more than 1.1 million signatures to qualify for the November ballot.
"An anchor of the coalition has been the churches that gathered these signatures. They provided the bulk of the manpower to make this happen," Pugno said. "In some ways, the arrogance of the court has really ignited the anger of the voters and given a boost to the marriage amendment."
Pugno said his group will petition the state supreme court to stay its decision "until the voters have a chance to have a final say on this issue." Without a stay, same-sex marriages would begin June 15.
The decision could prove difficult for the presidential campaign of Sen. Barack Obama, who appears likely to become the Democratic nominee. Obama has said he opposes gay marriage but supports equal rights for gay couples.
May 16, one day after the ruling, the California Republican Party Web site said "it will be interesting to see how Barack Obama tip-toes around this issue."
The United Church of Christ, of which Obama is a member, applauded the decision. The UCC voted to support civil marriage for same-sex couples at its General Synod in 2004.
"Until all couples are able to marry, their separate status will never be equal status," said the Rev. John Thomas, the UCC's general minister and president.
Thanks so much for taking
Thanks so much for taking the time to answer. In response to the divorce question, I'd say for the same reason that divorce is substantially the same for straight couples, with or without children.
I agree totally that couples do not need government to confirm their relationship. Even the church says that it is not the minister of the sacrament, but the couple themselves. My concern is now and always has been about justice and equal protection of laws.
Would a 'list' include a
Would a 'list' include a narrative something like this:
"relationships ... characterized by fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection and respect, careful, honest communication, and the holy love which enables those in such relationships to see in each other the image of God ..."
The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy
"Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you." (John 20:21)
By the way, this is language
By the way, this is language from DO39, a resolution passed by the General Convention of the Episcopal Church in 2000 dealing with sexuality. These words seek to establish a standard of mutual regard and faithfulness to God expected of heterosexual and homosexual persons seeking the gifts of the Spirit.
The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy
"Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you." (John 20:21)
Dear William D. Lindsey: You
Dear William D. Lindsey:
You say: "The problem for many people is obviously the gay thing. And I would argue that people just have to learn to get over that thing." and then you compare the homosexual rights movement with the Black civil rights movement; but you are not engaging in a fair 'apples to apples' comparison.
People are not born homosexual, they aquire it and can be cured of that disordered tendency toward acts of sexual perversion. Blacks, on the other hand are born that way (black) and cannot change, it's innate character.
You end by saying: "People need to get over such visceral repulsions when justice and human rights are at stake. The gospel calls on us to do that."
So where in the Bible does it tell us that we should not be repulsed by sexual sins? It appears Romans 1:24-32 and Genisis 19 make it clear that God is repulsed by the very actions you are trying to legitimize.
Bayard Rustin, famed civil
Bayard Rustin, famed civil rights activist, said that the struggle for justice in both communities was the same. He was able to make this determination since he himself was both black and gay.
Philipjohn: Please explain
Philipjohn:
Please explain something to me:
Those who stand in judgement of homosexuality frequently quote the mosaic laws in the old testament as proof of the righteousness of their condemnations of homosexuals.
There are approximately 600-700 mosaic laws, and Jesus clearly stated that he did not come to change the laws. I'm quite certain none of us are obeying all of them. I'm also quite certain that more than a few of them are missing from the cateclisms. Shouldnt the rest of us be just as harshly condemned for not following the all or parts of the other 599+ mosaic laws as homosexuals are condemned for breaking one?
Philipjohn, I know that I am
Philipjohn, I know that I am not attracted to women, but that I am attracted to men. This is not something that I chose. Therefore, I believe people do not choose their sexuality. However, your comment has cause me to wonder whether there are some people who are sexually attracted to both sexes, who at some point do choose.
Perhaps, we should limit our consideration of the morality of homosexual behavior to those who have the option of choosing. Given that one must morally limit oneself to one partner, is it immoral for someone attracted to both sexes to choose to be with a member of the same sex?
Dear philipjohn~ It is a
Dear philipjohn~ It is a shameful comparison but I will go ahead with it anyway: As beauty is in the eye of the beholder,so for the mst part, is racism and homophobia.
Are you repulsed by the knowledge that most of the couples surrounding you at mass are or have been practicing birth control, an abomination of the sexual reproductive teaching of the church and that many of the young couples (if attending at all) are cohabiting in non-marital sin? Unlike racial differences these abominations are not immediately visible, more scary I would think. I suspect that you have managed to overcome those revulsions so why not 'the gay thing'.
You might also note that William's point you uptake on is in reference to justice and human rights not the personal/sectarian moral issue. War is immoral but legally (usually) rationalized; the death penalty is immoral but legal or at least legalized. There is much in your/our lives that we might morally object to but actually do accept emotionally, legal or not.
If you maintain the 'right' to be repulsed by homosexual sins, as you put it, you have an equal obligation to be repulsed by all that is immoral legal, legalized, overt and covert. Have a good, peaceful day.
Because as long as one
Because as long as one believes the lie that being "gay" is genetic, one will NEVER be able to develop Healthy and Holy relationships and friendships from the start.
Hmmmm, now this is
Hmmmm, now this is interesting, anne. I believe that being "gay" is genetic or determined biologically in some such way. AND I have healthy and holy (oh, woops, Healthy and Holy) relationships and friendships, and have from the start. Now, what does that do to that theory?
Anne: Please explain to me
Anne:
Please explain to me in more detail:
--- how my personal beliefs about the root cause of homosexuality
insure that I will "NEVER" be able to have a healthy and holy friendships
--- how those beliefs guarantee that I will "NEVER" be able to have a healthy and holy heterosexual romantic relationship.
Wow, Anne, how can you be so
Wow, Anne, how can you be so sure that it is not genetic--or epigenetic? Even if you don't believe the science of this is conclusive, wouldn't you have to admit that it likely originates from something beyond the control of the individual and, therefore, is not a choice?
It seems that the only choice you would give a person with same sex attraction is to live without physical intimacy of any kind. Unlike a priest, monk, or sister, who chooses celibacy for him or herself, you would choose celibacy for any person who is attracted to members of the same sex whether he or she is religiously inclined or not. Do you think you have the right to make that judgement for someone else?
Paul said it is better to
Paul said it is better to marry than burn. For gay folk then there would be only the burning.
Christ Has revealed God's
Christ Has revealed God's intention for Sexual Love within the Sanctity of a Holy Marriage between Husband and Wife in communion with God. Those who are not Married are called to be celibate. Homosexuality is about sexual physical intimacy within a relationship which is not consistent with God's intention for Sexual Love. Love is not possessive nor is it manipulative. A priest, monk, sister etc. have chosen not to be Married and are thus called to be celibate. We are all called to have Holy relationships with one another in communion with God.
Interestingly enough,
Interestingly enough, philipjohn, just this week, results of a new (and highly regarded) scientific study about the brains of gay and straight people have been released. I suggest that you take a look at the study, since it provides further evidence for what the natural and social sciences now regard as proven: that sexual orientation is innate.
As to the question of whether black civil rights and gay civil rights can legitimately be linked, I recommend that you read Bayard Rustin's book "Time on Two Crosses." As a black gay man who was extremely influential in advising Martin Luther King, Rustin came to the conclusion that black and gay civil rights are linked, that the movement for civil rights for African Americans logically extends to the movement for civil rights for gay folks.
Indeed, as the movement for civil rights for people of color made significant inroads in American culture and in our legal system, Rustin concluded that "The barometer of where one is on human rights questions is no longer the black community, it's the gay community. Because it is the community which is most easily mistreated."
I am certainly aware of the texts you cite as bash-texts used against gay people. In my view, those texts are misused and misinterpreted--just as the texts I heard constantly quoted as a child to justify subordination of black people to white, and visceral repulsions of white people against black people, were misused and misinterpreted.
William D. Lindsey
William, what logic could he
William, what logic could he possibly use to make such an argument? One can easily prove that a "Black" man is the same as a "White" man through DNA, and is thus entitled to the same rights as any Human Person. One can easily prove that a fetus, has the DNA of a Human Person and is thus entitled to life both inside and outside of the womb. You are entitled to the same rights as any man. That does not mean that someone is entitled to any special rights because you are involved in "gay" behavior.
Natural and Social Science has NO proof that a "gay" sexual orientation is innate. Just because many social scientists believe in the concept of self-gratification, doesn't mean they are right. A study on brain waves is not evidence for a genetic cause for homosexuality.
Anne, I feel quite sure that
Anne, I feel quite sure that no amount of evidence I could offer for the increasing and widely accepted conclusion that sexual orientation is innate will change your mind. Everything depends, of course, on how we read evidence.
I maintain that a large majority of unbiased citizens, as well as the vast majority of scientific authorities who have dealt with this subject, would agree with the observation of Judge Jeffrey Bayless in his 1993 Colorado court decision against an amendment to the state constitution that would have upheld legal discrimination against gay citizens.
In his decision in the case of Evans vs. Romer, Judge Bayless notes, "The preponderance of credible evidence suggests that there is a biological or genetic 'component' of sexual orientation, but even Dr. Hamer, the witness who testified that he is 99.5% sure there is some genetic influence in forming sexual orientation, admits that sexual orientation is not completely genetic."
Note Judge Bayless's stress on credible evidence: the term "credible" is key. The preponderance of credible evidence suggests biological, genetic components to sexual orientation, even in the absence of what you call "proof" that homosexuality has a genetic cause. In the absence of proof of a "gay gene," there are abundant indicators that sexual orientation is innate--and fair-minded people generally recognize this now.
The U.S. Supreme Court upheld Judge Bayless's decision in 1996.
You state, "One can easily prove that a 'Black' man is the same as a 'White' man through DNA, and is thus entitled to the same rights as any Human Person."
One can also easily prove through DNA that a gay man or a lesbian man are genetically human in the same way that makes other human beings human, and thus entitled to the same rights as any human person. Courts and society increasingly recognize this.
Is it not shameful that the resistance to this simple recognition--and to the civil rights of a minority experiencing unjust discrimination--is fueled most of all by religious groups?
William D. Lindsey
Bill, I remember following
Bill,
I remember following the case on court tv. The decision which granted the preliminary injunction is among the most beautiful I've ever heard. I have found both the supreme court and the CO decisions on the web, but I can't find that simple, eloquent ruling on the preliminary injunction. Do you know where I can find it?
Thanks. Frannie
Frannie, darn this system
Frannie, darn this system that lets replies slide through, with no way to track them! (And I should darn my own laziness, that I don't search old threads often enough).
In any case, I hadn't intended to ignore your June 28 question. Am only now seeing it.
A transcript of the complete ruling of Judge Jeffrey Bayless in the 1993 case is at www.qrd.org/QRD/usa/legal/colorado/evans-v-romer.RULING.
William D. Lindsey
Thanks, Bill, but after all
Thanks, Bill, but after all your diligent research this still isn't what I'm looking for. I'm looking for the trial court decision in the evidentiary hearing (Nov. 1992) which granted the initial injunction which was sustained by Bayless. It was simple and lovely and included language like "our evolving sense of human decency." I can't find it anywhere and it's a shame because even though I only heard it once as it was delivered, it will remain in my memory as all that I would like to say.
I think it says more often
I think it says more often in the Bible (at least the New Testament) that we should not hate, nor judge, nor accuse than it does about (God's) repulsion by sexual acts. Ask a gay black man (except Michael Jackson) if he feels he could change his sexuality any more than he could change the color of his skin.
Where do people go to be "cured" of their bigotry and idolatry? Probably not the same "doctors" that they go to be cured of their sexuality.
In the final judgement, I would rather be accused of sins of love rather than sins of hate.
jstab, what do you think
jstab, what do you think Christ meant when He said,"Go and sin no more"? Hate the sin, not the sinner. Love requires that we judge sin by telling the Truth. Sin is in conflict with the Truth and thus with God. Christ, at the hour of our death, will determine who is worthy of His Kingdom. To enable a person to sin by not speaking the Truth is also a grave sin. Love requires Charity. Charity requires Truth. If we Love someone, we desire Salvation for them.
Anne do your really believe
Anne do your really believe this is a charitable statement based in love?
"Because as long as one believes the lie that being "gay" is genetic, one will NEVER be able to develop Healthy and Holy relationships and friendships from the start."
This statement by you is an outright attack on a gay person's ability to develop Healthy and Holy relationships and friendships, because you use the term NEVER. Apparently it doesn't matter if the person is chaste or celibate, they will NEVER be able to develop meaningful relationships, sexual or not. I guess you're saying one has to see their sexual orientation as a product of a disordered and evil mind rather than an innate attribute in order to recieve your love. Thanks but no thanks. You can keep your 'charitable' love.
Please note this: http://enlightenedcatholicism-colkoch.blogspot.com
Sorry Marie.COBRA is a
Sorry Marie.COBRA is a disaster that is mandated by the federal government but the insurance companies are trying to skim the cream of that too. A single payer compulsary insurance plan is the way to go. SOCIALISED MEDICINE is the republican name for it but it is otherwise known as national health insurance.
How might Obama "tip-toe"
How might Obama "tip-toe" around the issue of gay marriage? For one thing, he might point out that the origins of marriage have their roots in a concern for who will take care of the children and who will inherit the family's property. Given that modern day marriage laws go far beyond those concerns and provide benefits to heterosexual couples that give them an advantage over other pairings of people who form households, he might suggest that we revisit the concept of legal households and the economic challenges they meet and pose.
Though I have not read the reasoning of the California court. The reasoning of the court in Massachusetts was to overlook the customary understanding of marriage as being between a man and a woman and, instead, to focus on the benefits accruing to married couples in the modern day economy while equating the homosexual couple to the heterosexual couple in terms of the nature of their bond of affection.
The affection which bonds the homosexual couple is the focus of the UCC's support of civil marriage. The status to which the Rev. John Thomas refers, is a social status that will never be achieved by the government's imposing the "right" upon a society that is not ready to accept it. Efforts to educate children into accepting homosexual marriage as normal will backfire in that such efforts tend by default to drive parents into the anti-homosexual-marriage camp over objections as to how and when children are thus educated.
While Obama may not satisfy those advocating for marriage laws to be interpreted as applying to homosexual couples, he might be able to offer them recognition as economic entities that will allow them to become more visible, so that the affection in these relationships will be able to be seen by society, providing witness to its status as equal to that found in a heterosexual romantic relationship. Certainly, if the major goal the homosexual community is acceptance, this route would be much more productive than the route which energizes those viscerally opposed to homosexuality.
In every loving relationship
In every loving relationship their is a bond of affection. Why does anyone have to accept homosexual sexual acts? Where in the Constitution does it say that we must accept homosexual sexual acts? Why must we give special rights to those who want to engage in homosexual sexual acts? The government does not have the right to tell us that we must accept homosexual sexual acts. No government has the right to demand that anyone has to accept homosexual sexual acts.
The Constitution says every
The Constitution says every citizen is guaranteed equal protection of laws. You cannot make one set of laws for Catholics and another for Jews, one for whites and another for blacks, one for heterosexuals and another for homosexuals.
Nobody should get special rights. You should not have a special right to heterosexual acts. If someone decided she did not accept your heterosexual acts, the government could not force her to do so. But conversely the government could not force you to cease and desist because someone else objected.
There is an interesting history of laws in America concerning sexual behavior. In Puritan Boston, for example, it was illegal for a husband to kiss his wife on Sundays. Masturbation could put you in the stocks. But as a society we have learned not to impose particular restrictions on the general public without
a compeling reason to do so. So rape and child sex abuse are still illegal, but they are illegal for everyone.
When I look at your post I see the phrase homosexual acts 5 times in 6 lines.
But what I do not see is an explanation of why someone else's private relations makes you so vehement. I asked you in another exchange whether you disagreed with Fr. Corapi who said that oral sex was fine in a sacramental marriage as long as it ended in unobstructed vaginal insemination. Is oral sex what you find so unacceptable? Millions of married heterosexual couples do not share your disgust. Even St Paul tells us (in 1Cor.?) that a wife's body belongs to a husband and a husband's body belongs to a wife. In Hebrews he tells us the marriage bed is undefiled. I am totally at a loss to understand what it is that distresses you so and why you react that way.
Frannie, I think all of us
Frannie, I think all of us know that we are called to treat our Husband or Wife with respect and that sometimes we fail to do that. Sexual Love is not possessive Love but unitive Love. St.Paul does not imply that a Husband and Wife are somehow free to do what ever they want to each other but rather that unitive love is a perfect complement of giving of self to the other through the union of Love.
ALL "homosexual" sexual acts do not respect God's definition of Unitive Sexual Love. Any sexual act that is not Sexual Love as defined by Christ does not respect God's definition of Unitive Sexual Love. If you do not understand this, you can not possibly understand God's intention for Sexual Love. I am surprised at your claim for being at a loss to understand this since it has been a Truth of the Catholic Church since the beginning. This is God's Truth and God's Truth is absolute.
Anne, Thanks for answering.
Anne, Thanks for answering. But I am still at a loss. Most of the acts gay folk enjoy are acts that married folk enjoy too. What is " Any sexual act that is not Sexual Love as defined by Christ "? I don't know where He defined any sexual acts.
I'd love a list, either of the approved or the forbidden.
Annedanielson, sexual acts
Annedanielson, sexual acts are done in private. The government already acknowledges in most places that it does not have the right to tell adults what they may do with one another in private. What we are discussing is accepting that two men or two women can be as helplessly in love with one another as others of us are with a member of the opposite sex.
This is suppose to be a
This is suppose to be a Catholic website. The "gay" agenda is to go into the classrooms of my children and grandchildren and force them to accept homosexual sex as normative. Today, the government does not have the right to openly discuss sex outside of procreation sex. What right does the Government have to promote the "gay" lifestyle or any other sexual lifestyle? What right does the government have to introduce anything but the Science of procreation sex in the classroom? "Gay" is a type of behavior that has no special right to be promoted in any way in the classroom.
Marie, if you believe that as a Catholic, anything you do in private is acceptable, you are mistaken. We are called to live our lives Loving one another in communion with Christ according to His Way to Love, not our way. It is a truth of the Catholic Church that Christ has entrusted The Deposit of Faith to His Church and that the Magisterium has the final authority to protect the Truth of the Deposit of Faith. No Man has the right to change God's Truth. We are called to defend the Truth. As a Catholic, you are obligated to be faithful to the teaching of The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Unitive Sexual Love in Marriage is not of the same substance as homosexual sex.
Christ's example of love was
Christ's example of love was not to have sex at all. Let's not confuse His Holy Celibacy with marriage. Even the Church does not treat them at all the same. Procreative sexuality is still second class. Why won't your respond to this simple fact?
Please note this: http://enlightenedcatholicism-colkoch.blogspot.com
"Procreation sex"? Whew.
"Procreation sex"? Whew. Glad we've passed that one. On to creative sex!
I was interested to see in
I was interested to see in your post that you have children. I would have guessed otherwise.
I agree. The government ought not to select out any group for special rights.
Everyone should have the same rights. Among these rights ought to be the right not to be harrassed, discriminated against or hung on a cross in Wyoming.
What would you do if you discovered one of your grandchildren is gay?
I would do as I have done
I would do as I have done with all my children regarding behavior that is not consistent with God's Truth. I would continue to Love them, and because I Love them, I would tell them the Truth. "Gay" is not a person, it is a sexual relationship with a person that is not consistent with God's Truth regarding Sexual Love. God's Truth is that Sexual Love exists within the Sanctity of a Holy Marriage in communion with Him, The Blessed Trinity. God desires that all Marriages be Holy from the start.
All people should be trated with Dignity and Respect. This does not mean that we must accept everyone's behavior as being worthy of respect.
Thanks again, Anne, for the
Thanks again, Anne, for the reply. I agree that love demands truth. How do you navigate the distinction between giving dignity and respect to the person and disrespect and indignity to the behavior? If someone offered me respect and disrepect at the same time, it would confuse me and cause me to doubt one or the other.
Anne, I agree with you that
Anne, I agree with you that the government oversteps its bounds when it tries to indoctrinate children into tolerance, but my disagreement is with the indoctrination part, not with the tolerance part. There is nothing wrong with understanding and learning to respect the human being in circumstances that we might not find acceptable.
I think there is far too much concern being shown over what is essentially a bodily function and instinct that most people learn to control the way they do other bodily functions and instincts. I feel that it is intrusive to critique in detail how people carry out these things.
I was shocked when I was first exposed to the level of detail the Catholic Catechism goes to in prescribing and proscribing details of how married adult people are to behave in their most intimate moments. This is not something that I encountered growing up as a Lutheran, but it was something that clearly had come to trouble my husband who I came to realize was already being victimized by all these exacting standards before he had any experience of sex at all.
I tend to think that when the Catholic Church wrote its Catechism it was with the intent of giving individuals guidance in their own lives should they wish to seek it and not with the intent of giving them a weapon they could use in a quest to perfect the lives of others.
You wrote:The status to
You wrote:The status to which the Rev. John Thomas refers, is a social status that will never be achieved by the government's imposing the "right" upon a society that is not ready to accept it.
If this were true, black folk would still be sitting in the back of the bus. People's hearts and minds were changed AFTER the court's decision.
Frannie, Prejudice against
Frannie,
Prejudice against black people and discrimination against them has not been eliminated. Many laws were changed in order for there to be an improvement in the situations of these people, but they continue to have more absurd obstacles placed in their way as they conduct their daily lives than those of us who are white do.
If gay people marry under our marriage laws, I dare to say that no prejudices whatsoever will be eliminated and discrimination against them will continue to happen in those areas where it currently does. The only thing that will change is something that should be changed for a broader segment of the population whose sexual behavior is irrelevant, including siblings who continue to live together throughout adulthood, children who continue to live with their parents throughout adulthood, and others who may not be related but who have decided that living together and depending upon one another in times of need throughout their lives will be their way of life.
It is easy to think that marriage provides enormous benefits, but it does not. Beyond the concerns regarding procreation, there are other concerns. Consider that the divorce rate is a reflection of how difficult marriage is, rather than that heterosexual people are not so good at making commitments as homosexual people are presenting themselves as being. In some states, there are community property laws. Just as one example, how many homosexual marriages will there be in which the love of someone's life turns out to have married him or her in order to get half of his or her assests?
Those gay people who want to marry now have already committed themselves to one another without the benefit of legal ties. That is in their nature. However, when it becomes typical to marry rather than just to live together, then less savory situations come to light.
Your argument that nefarious
Your argument that nefarious folk could use gay marriage laws to fleece their partners is true. But that does not constitute a legal impediment to straight marriage, so it ought not to do so for gay couples. Caveat amator.
Yes, we are still two nations, one black and one white. But you cannot say that the lives of black folk are as limited today as they were in 1954 and Brown v the Board was a major factor in that improvement. Can you imagine a black person running for president in 1954?
Why, why, why are you so willing to call up great numbers of weak arguments against extending marriage rights when you are so obviously a decent, tolerant and fair person?
Since sexual orientation is
Since sexual orientation is not a race, by your logic, everyone who wants to partner with someone else, should be able to receive special benefits. Having sex with someone doesn't guarantee that your Love is any stonger than anyone elses. Parent's with unmarried older children, since they Love them, should demand the right to benefits for their children,even if they are adult. An elderly brother and sister who Love each other, should also be able to demand special benefits etc.
Actually, Anne, even though
Actually, Anne, even though I am arguing against homosexual relationships falling under our marriage laws, I am arguing for wider recognition of households.
You are free to make that
You are free to make that argument, as long as you include friendship as a "household" as well. I am sure anyone can make an argument for a thousand different types of "households" that would consist of different Loving relationships but would that be practical?
Perhaps, Anne, it would not
Perhaps, Anne, it would not be practical in the sense that one can identify a constellation of benefits that all households should be granted. However, I think we can identify hardships that are imposed upon a non-traditional household that are not experienced by the households made up of married partners. These should be eliminated for those households that identify themselves as being negatively affected by such hardships. Right now, this is not possible because we only recognize one type of household--that made up of married partners.
I believe the court made
I believe the court made reference to Brown v the Board in that separate but equal is unherently unequal (and therefore unconstitutional).
I do not believe that the major goal of the gay community is acceptance. One cannot allow the quality of life to be dependent on another's likes and dislikes. I believe the movement is for justice and equality. That's a matter of law and not of emotion.
Frannie, While I would not
Frannie, While I would not deny that as a group gay people suffer some ridicule and hostility, I don't think of them as members of a group that is widely subjected to injustice and inequality. It appears to me that quite a number of gay people are doing much better than most people economically and that their relationships are in very good shape despite their not being able to legally marry.
I do think that in those instances where gay people have children--biological or adopted--they do not have the same kind of legal support they need to provide them with as stable a household as heterosexual couples do. Furthermore, I think that as their time together as a couple lasts into old age, they are deprived of some of the legal protections that heterosexual married couples enjoy.
Nevertheless, their needs are different in that it is still impossible for them to have biological children together by "accident".
Homosexuality by itself is not an injustice to be righted. Therefore, I believe household needs, rather than sexual behavior, should dictate legal protections.
Marie, I have to admit that
Marie, I have to admit that your comment frustrates me.
And for that reason, I'm trying to take a deep breath and think about why you and I see things so differently here--a topic I've raised before. In other words, I am trying to understand and appreciate where you are coming from in saying that you don't think that gay people as a group are "widely subjected to injustice and inequality."
I remind myself that you've said that, insofar as you know, the parish your husband and children attend has no openly gay people at all in it. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
That leads me to wonder how well you actually know gay people as individuals. I'm stating that not as accusation, but as thinking-through-starting-points, so I won't go off the deep end and rant against what you say here. It's simply a given that many American churchgoers, many folks in the American heartland in particular, just don't know that they do know many gay people. Gay folks often aren't visible in some areas, though that's changing these days (and the fact of invisibility does say, to me, much about the injustice these folks cope with).
I also remind myself that you have stated you are committed to equal rights for gays and have advocated for those in your area, and for this I'm grateful.
All that having been said, I find it difficult to understand how anyone really does think that gay people as a group aren't subjected to injustice and inequality. There seems to me abundant evidence to the contrary.
When most citizens can walk into a j.p. office, get a marriage license, and marry, but gay people can't, how CAN there be justice and equality for us? Marriage is also more than a public statement of a commitment to form a lasting union of love and support for each other.
It's an economic institution with many attendant privileges, and to be in an unsanctioned marital relationship automatically excludes one from those.
Case in point: my partner Steve has just gotten a job. We're extremely happy. We endured torment at our previous institution (injustice I would maintain was premised entirely on our being an openly gay couple).
I am without a job and without health benefits. The new job has no partner benefits. So I remain without benefits. We are not sure we can afford benefits, largely because our willingness to take the last job has saddled us with a second mortgage for a house we cannot sell.
We have it better than many gay individuals and gay couples I know. Lesbians, in particular, often struggle with economic difficulty because of the double jeopardy of being female and being gay. But gay men can and do also live on the economic margins. Every time I hear the false argument that gay folks are economically privileged, I think of friends such as my friend S., who cannot afford dental care. He is a retired military person living on a tiny pension. He also lives with HIV.
Moreover, he has been unable to find a doctor locally who will treat him because he has HIV. There is ONE dental clinic in our area that will, on a rotating and occasional basis, provide dental care to people with HIV or AIDS. A few years ago, he had badly abscessed gums that were bleeding, and no way to get treatment except by driving, in that state 150 miles to another city. He also had no money to pay for the treatment.
I could go on and on, but I won't do so. Instead, I would encourage you to avail yourself of resources in your own area to meet people like this. PFLAG is a good start. You might also watch "For the Bible Tells Me So."
I do not want to come off as condescending. I know you have lived a number of places and have a wide range of experience. Still, I find it difficult to believe that there are still folks "out there" who seem not to know enough gay people at a personal level to realize we come in all kinds of varieties, and have all kinds of economic and social niches--but that no matter who we are and where we live, we do not have federal-level protection from basic discrimination, and we do not have access to rights (including the right to marry) that others take for granted, with all the privileges attendant on some of those rights (partner benefits, tax breaks, rights to make medical decisions on each other's behalf, rights to bequeath to and inherit from each other, etc.).
William D. Lindsey
William, My husband lost his
William, My husband lost his job in February. Our COBRA payment for health insurance was over $1,300 a month, so we have had to let that go. It will have been four months of unemployment when he starts his new job, which involves our relocating across the country again. We don't know how long it will be before we sell our current home, but we will have to pay the mortgage plus rent until we do. Because we have never lived near relatives since we had our first child and so have not had anyone but ourselves to attend to the children's needs, I have not been employed for the past 19 years. We have lived on savings and $408/week of unemployment benefits since mid-February.
I believe there are plenty of challenges for gay people that are unique to them, but not being allowed to marry is not really one of them. There are plenty of people who cannot marry one another. The reason for this is always founded in concern for offspring and familial biological and social relationships. I think it is appropriate to respect the reasons that marriage laws exist, and to not muddle those with the economic benefits that the IRS provides to married couples. Households are economic units, and marriages usually create a household, but not always. The economic inequities that exist between households of married people and other households should be addressed instead of changing things so that anyone can marry.
Quite frankly, aside from the economic benefit, I do not see why gay people wish to have the government oversee their most intimate relationships.
Marie, I'd like to add
Marie, I'd like to add something to what I said to you in my first response to this posting.
In a previous posting on this thread, you say, 'Nevertheless, their [that is, gay partners'] needs are different in that it is still impossible for them to have biological children together by 'accident'."
In the posting to which I'm now responding, you say, "There are plenty of people who cannot marry one another. The reason for this is always founded in concern for offspring and familial biological and social relationships. I think it is appropriate to respect the reasons that marriage laws exist, and to not muddle those with the economic benefits that the IRS provides to married couples. Households are economic units, and marriages usually create a household, but not always. The economic inequities that exist between households of married people and other households should be addressed instead of changing things so that anyone can marry."
Here's what concerns me with the tenor of your argument here and in previous postings about your reservations regarding gay marriage. Though you say that marriage as an institution developed primarily to provide for offspring, what you really seem to be arguing here is that marriage as an institution developed primarily for procreation.
You suggest that strongly when you talk about the impossibility of gay couples having children except "by accident."
I think this argument is wrong-headed for all kinds of reasons. Since I encounter it everywhere these days, I'd like to address some of its inconsistencies.
First, people can and do procreate without benefit of marriage. I'm not saying that's ideal. I completely agree that marriage needs to exist in order to assure that the children of all sexual unions are provided for.
Still, it's illogical and nonsensical for some of those opposing gay marriage to suggest that gay marriage will stop the human race from procreating. Gay people both in gay unions and in conventional "heterosexual" marriages have children all the time. I have no reason to imagine that legitimating gay marriage is going to end the human race. It surely hasn't done so in Massachusetts, Spain, or anywhere else.
Second, people marry for reasons entirely unrelated to procreation--heterosexual people, I mean. People marry to form a family that may include the couple itself, and unrelated individuals. People choose not to have children when they are capable of having them, and they marry in order to enjoy companionship, to support each other, to have support from the community, and to allow their lives together to be strengthened so that they can contribute to the community.
The churches--including the Catholic church--recognize this. The churches do so because they do not refuse to marry people incapable of procreation due to physical problems or their ages.
That being the case, it seems inconsistent, not to mention cruel and unusual, for society and church to forbid marriage to two people of the same gender simply because they are incapable of procreation (with each other).
I'm especially fascinated these days by how the marriage-is-for-procreation argument is running like wildfire through many Protestant churches opposing gay marriage and gay rights. These are churches that have long, long accepted artificial contraceptives. These churches accept your position in the thread on moral truth and relativism, when you say that "contraceptive intercourse is a Godsend," in many cases.
Churches that have long accepted the use of contraceptives can hardly turn around now that gay people knock at the door and say that marriage is only for procreation, all about procreation, in saecula saeculorum.
I am not persuaded by the marriage-is-for-procreation argument, when it comes to forbidding gay marriage.
William D. Lindsey
Frannie, I have been away
Frannie,
I have been away from my computer for a couple of weeks and could not find a way to get to this set of responses from elsewhere. You ask below how it is that I can be opposed to allowing gay people to marry when I am otherwise reasonable about gay people. I think it has to do with how I personally view marriage--as something between my partner, myself, and the power of the universe (aka God) that is intruded upon by religious organizations and governments.
I do not feel that anyone needs an organization to affirm love or that anyone should have to get a license to engage in sex. Therefore, when I look upon licenses and upon Sacraments, I look at them to see what role they play in society, and it always comes down to making people live up to their commitments.
It seems to me that arguments in favor of gay marriage frequently include pointing out how committed partners already are, so that I cannot help but think that marriage of either kind (civil or religious) is not necessary, and it seems to me that should such a relationship come apart, the way so many heterosexual marriages do, there is no reason for either the partners or society to concern themselves with forcing the individuals to live up to the commitments they made.
Perhaps, Frannie, you could give me some examples of why divorce of a gay couple should be viewed as equal to the divorce of a couple that has born children together. Then I might be able to look at this differently.