My opinions are thus: it is the prerogative of churches to discriminate as much as they like. Marriage as a holy institution has always been the bailiwick of the church. Marriage as a legal institution, indicative of shared assets and the other status changes that go along with it, is the province of government. With the introduction of an amendment to outlaw gay marriage, the two are mixed. Any two sentient creatures should be allowed, by U.S. law, to share assets, if they can pony up the money for a marriage license and sit down with a justice of the peace. That's what's in contention here. I think churches necessarily discriminate. The idea of Heaven and Hell seem to make that discrimination pretty clear. But that's okay - it's the point, actually.
So, basically:
Marrying whoever you want? Good, should be allowed, should not be outlawed, certainly no amendment. That's for things like, you know, suffrage and poll tax.
Church refusing to perform that marriage and still getting all its tax dollars? Equally good. Point of the church, even, to make some people welcome and others outcast, and to gain revenue by welcoming more people.
Discrimination? Done by legal institutions, bad. Done by employers, bad. Done by moral institutions, inherent and necessary.
Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's. - Matthew 22:21
For the most part I believe in the less government the more freedom individuals have. I had to think long and hard about this. On the first glance one would think that I am against the ammendment. However, without this ammendment I see the government or at least certains parts of it now imposing it's will on what is marriage and what is not. Marriage has always meant a union between a man and a woman. Why are we trying to redefine marriage?
In short, I am for the ammendment because otherwise I see certain elements of the government trampling over the true meaning of marriage. However, I am perfectly fine with civil unions. I see no problem with that. I don't know why this isn't an appropiate comprimise at this time.
The only alternative that I would be somewhat comfortable with is if the meaning of marriage got redefined (which I personally see the peversion of the English language and the meaning of words for the benefit of a minority) that states could then define for themselves what marriage means and doesn't mean and states could then refuse marriage contracts from other states if they don't meet certain criteria.
All other possible objections aside (and I do have more):
Marriage was also once defined as a white man marrying a white woman, or a black man marrying a black woman, but never crossing that line. Do you object to the fact that the definition was altered in that manner?
That was also a perversion of the word marriage. Marriage has always been a man and a woman and nothing more. You are showing me one perversion of the word in order to justify another perversion.
1. The condition or practice of having more than one spouse at one time.
So marriage has always meant a man and a woman, eh?
The 'true meaning' of marriage, morally and socially, is fluid. Only recently in human history did it come to mean what it currently means. Marriage at one time was a reference to the husband legally owning his wife. But things change in the social sense, thankfully.
The 'true meaning' of marriage, legally, is shared property, shared assets, joint taxes and the other various government-mandated things that accompany it.
I refuse to believe that any evolution of language is perversion - it's a hallmark of a growing society, and societies that don't grow stagnate. Stagnation is death. However, just taking your 'civil unions are fine' comment...
Does that mean civil unions that allow sharing of assets, property, taxes and other things are also 'fine?' If so, then I don't see what your argument is. Because that's exactly what a marriage is, legally. It's a civil union that allows two people to share property and assets because they intend to be together forever.
It is also entirely separate from a church-recognized union that uses the same word. Words are allowed to have different meanings. That's part of the beauty of the language we have, despite its perversion. You are arguing a legal issue with morality. They are separate spheres, though they sometimes intersect. In this instance, however, they don't. Murder is legally wrong because it infringes on another person's right (to live); it is morally wrong because it removes a person before 'their time' has arrived, and because a book says not to kill. Making same-sex marriage illegal is akin to eating pork being legally punishable. They are on two separate planes. Churches can define marriage however they want; the government will have a different definition, primarily lacking the inclusion of some benevolent all-powerful father figure.
And in response to Heather's earlier comment about discrimination and non-profits: that's just completely false. My grandfather was a Southern Baptist minister. He refused to marry the following: people who had been divorced, people who were not Christian, people who were racially mixed and white people who wanted to marry blacks.
Also, from the U.S. Presbyterian Church Office of the General Assembly, Chapter 4: 'Ordering Worship for Special Purposes', article 9, 'Marriage': a. In preparation for the marriage service, the minister shall provide for a discussion with the man and the woman concerning
(1) the nature of their Christian commitment, assuring that at least one is a professing Christian, [cut] b. If the minister is convinced after discussion with the couple that commitment, responsibility, maturity, or Christian understanding are so lacking that the marriage is unwise, the minister shall assure the couple of the church’s continuing concern for them and not conduct the ceremony.
So obviously, religious institutions can refuse to marry whomever they please, and do so - you wouldn't expect two Hindus to be married at a Catholic church, would you? These organizations don't lose their non-taxable status because their discrimination is inherent and recognized as such by law.
I'm a tad confused. We were discussing the meaning of marriage and wither or not it applies to same sex unions. Polygamy is a separate issue unless you are inferring that you also want to legalize same-sex polygamy. *mgrin*
In essence your argument is that you want the government to redefine the meaning of marriage. That is natural for a society to change. That marriage that is religious based and civilly based are two different things.
In essence my argument is that I don't want the government redefining marriage (i.e. the constitutional amendment). I agree that societies can and do change but I believe not always for the better. That if marriage is religious based then why not keep it the same word and if it is civilly based why not use civil union in order to differentiate from the two?
We are never going to see eye to eye on this. In the end if the popular opinion is for a constitutional amendment then it will be voted in. If they is no overwhelming popular opinion then it won't get voted in. From what I see and hear you believe it won't get passed so why are you so vehement about it?
Polygamy is not a separate issue - that's my point. It's just one of a variety of meanings 'marriage' has had over the course of history.
I don't want the government to redefine the meaning of marriage. That's why I don't think an amendment is necessary. Currently, marriage is a union of two consenting adults who wish to share assets and property, legally speaking. I want that to stay the same. Redefining marriage would be placing limitations on that - introducing this amendment.
'Better' is relative, so I won't address that. But marriage has both a religious context and a legal context. Each of those is separate. They just happen to use the same word. The essence of my argument is that the legal and religious contexts of marriage should be recognized only within their respective spheres, and shouldn't influence each other. Of course, this is already happening. The Unitarian church has been marrying same-sex couples for nearly a decade now, but those marriages aren't legally recognized in most states. I see that as a problem, since it's interfering with the 'pursuit of happiness' clause in a document that forms the foundation of government where we live. Pinochle also uses the word 'marriage.' Is that any more confusing?
You're right; we're never going to see eye to eye on this. And you're right; popular opinion will dictate whether or not this takes effect. I am vehement about it because I'm not sure it won't get passed, and because it would set a precedent of morality interfering with law, and I don't want to live in a theocracy. It's my duty as a citizen to police the actions of my lawmakers and ensure they promote my interpretation of law, so it's my duty to form intelligent opinions and be vehement about them.
That's a non-issue. If that kind of thing were possible under the American legal system, there would be female priests. Religious freedom is a primary tenet of American law, and churches are already free to marry whomever they wish or to not marry whomever comes to them. That's already provided for under the Constitution.
The concept of civil rights working on a supply and demand system is possibly the most ludicrous argument I've heard. If you truly believe that, then maybe you should give up your right to vote and we should re-segregate schools, since obviously the equality given by women's suffrage and civil right legislation in favor of blacks took away the power of the white man.
I'm not sure how I can make my stance any clearer. There is a religious context of marriage - already within the sphere of the church - and a secular context of marriage - the thing same-sex couples are trying to make progress on. The religious context should continue to be the purview of the church, and government should have no hand in it. Legality, however, is the issue, and I think introducing an amendment would be trampling basic freedoms that are given to any American citizen. Churches (and parishioners) are free and welcome to view homosexuality as morally wrong, but it should not be legally wrong. If homosexuals are denied the right to marriage, you are effectively impeding their right to be homosexual and have the same rights as another person. If anyone were to tell you not to like men, then you would be outraged. It's equivalent.
{hating to debate indicates either a lack of rationality behind your argument of the lack of strength of purpose to defend it - it's like not being willing to die for your freedom}
Sorry I haven't been in this discussion at all. I'm sorely tempted to say I was busy having gay sex, but I wasn't. I was busy sitting through class, wishing I was.
I wish I was here before the posts were deleted. I accept differing views, and I take it as an opportunity to help people get educated (let's face it, a lot of the issues involve the fact that oftentimes, people don't know too much about gays and are highly opposed to learning for whatever reason), but deleted posts makes it difficult to figure out what they actually said. I mean, okay, maybe they think that the points contained within were invalidated, but c'mon! I've been busy! And it's good to know what a lot of the arguments are.
I'm not going to lay out my arguments. Frankly. I have faith that people are telling it like I would. And SO much of it has been said before. I'm tired of this issue, and I don't see why people care. MORE IMPORTANT THINGS, PEOPLE, than whether two consenting adults want to get married and reap the legal benifits of that.
I will say this. I want what other people have. Society keeps pounding into us that marrying someone you love romantically is a wonderful thing, and it seems really unfair to be told that, AND that I can't do it because of the minority class I fall into. ESPECIALLY when there aren't any other valid reasons that I can think of why I can't.
Done now. Nap time.
Oh, and thanks Kevin, for fighting for my side. I appreciate it. Makes getting my beauty sleep so much easier. ;)
The problem with civil unions are that they do not give all of the protections that marriages give. For instance, spousal privlege is denied in law courts to civil unions. Inheritance, decisions on health problems, health care coverage, etc. are all other problems as well. Civil unions just don't give anywhere close to the same legal protections as marriages, and if you go that route, you just end up with the same problems which existed in all other 'separate but equal' societies.
Finally, I also believe in less governmental involvement in issues dealing with personal freedom. However, this appears to be more concerned with denying rights to people who are doing 'bad'.
But these are just the problems you enter into when a government takes on a religious institution: marriage, and codifies it with laws. It would be better if people got married in churches, and joined legally in town halls. In that way, the persecution of those churches which allow gay marriage, polygamy, etc. would end because what people want to do on their own time and through their own belief system is fine.
But for government, which should provide equal opportunity and laws, civil unions should only be about taxes and legal rights and I don't see why that should be restricted.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
ninetydegrees
Re: my nose begins here
on 27 Feb 2004 10:04 (UTC)My opinions are thus: it is the prerogative of churches to discriminate as much as they like. Marriage as a holy institution has always been the bailiwick of the church. Marriage as a legal institution, indicative of shared assets and the other status changes that go along with it, is the province of government. With the introduction of an amendment to outlaw gay marriage, the two are mixed. Any two sentient creatures should be allowed, by U.S. law, to share assets, if they can pony up the money for a marriage license and sit down with a justice of the peace. That's what's in contention here. I think churches necessarily discriminate. The idea of Heaven and Hell seem to make that discrimination pretty clear. But that's okay - it's the point, actually.
So, basically:
Marrying whoever you want? Good, should be allowed, should not be outlawed, certainly no amendment. That's for things like, you know, suffrage and poll tax.
Church refusing to perform that marriage and still getting all its tax dollars? Equally good. Point of the church, even, to make some people welcome and others outcast, and to gain revenue by welcoming more people.
Discrimination? Done by legal institutions, bad. Done by employers, bad. Done by moral institutions, inherent and necessary.
Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's. - Matthew 22:21
Re: my nose begins here
on 27 Feb 2004 11:06 (UTC)For the most part I believe in the less government the more freedom individuals have. I had to think long and hard about this. On the first glance one would think that I am against the ammendment. However, without this ammendment I see the government or at least certains parts of it now imposing it's will on what is marriage and what is not. Marriage has always meant a union between a man and a woman. Why are we trying to redefine marriage?
In short, I am for the ammendment because otherwise I see certain elements of the government trampling over the true meaning of marriage. However, I am perfectly fine with civil unions. I see no problem with that. I don't know why this isn't an appropiate comprimise at this time.
The only alternative that I would be somewhat comfortable with is if the meaning of marriage got redefined (which I personally see the peversion of the English language and the meaning of words for the benefit of a minority) that states could then define for themselves what marriage means and doesn't mean and states could then refuse marriage contracts from other states if they don't meet certain criteria.
Re: my nose begins here
on 27 Feb 2004 11:21 (UTC)Marriage was also once defined as a white man marrying a white woman, or a black man marrying a black woman, but never crossing that line. Do you object to the fact that the definition was altered in that manner?
Re: my nose begins here
on 27 Feb 2004 11:25 (UTC)Re: my nose begins here
on 27 Feb 2004 11:32 (UTC)Work, sadly, comes over political debates. I'm sure someone else will continue in my stead, however.
Re: my nose begins here
on 27 Feb 2004 11:35 (UTC)Re: my nose begins here
on 27 Feb 2004 12:04 (UTC)1. The condition or practice of having more than one spouse at one time.
So marriage has always meant a man and a woman, eh?
The 'true meaning' of marriage, morally and socially, is fluid. Only recently in human history did it come to mean what it currently means. Marriage at one time was a reference to the husband legally owning his wife. But things change in the social sense, thankfully.
The 'true meaning' of marriage, legally, is shared property, shared assets, joint taxes and the other various government-mandated things that accompany it.
I refuse to believe that any evolution of language is perversion - it's a hallmark of a growing society, and societies that don't grow stagnate. Stagnation is death. However, just taking your 'civil unions are fine' comment...
Does that mean civil unions that allow sharing of assets, property, taxes and other things are also 'fine?' If so, then I don't see what your argument is. Because that's exactly what a marriage is, legally. It's a civil union that allows two people to share property and assets because they intend to be together forever.
It is also entirely separate from a church-recognized union that uses the same word. Words are allowed to have different meanings. That's part of the beauty of the language we have, despite its perversion. You are arguing a legal issue with morality. They are separate spheres, though they sometimes intersect. In this instance, however, they don't. Murder is legally wrong because it infringes on another person's right (to live); it is morally wrong because it removes a person before 'their time' has arrived, and because a book says not to kill. Making same-sex marriage illegal is akin to eating pork being legally punishable. They are on two separate planes. Churches can define marriage however they want; the government will have a different definition, primarily lacking the inclusion of some benevolent all-powerful father figure.
And in response to Heather's earlier comment about discrimination and non-profits: that's just completely false. My grandfather was a Southern Baptist minister. He refused to marry the following: people who had been divorced, people who were not Christian, people who were racially mixed and white people who wanted to marry blacks.
Also, from the U.S. Presbyterian Church Office of the General Assembly, Chapter 4: 'Ordering Worship for Special Purposes', article 9, 'Marriage':
a. In preparation for the marriage service, the minister shall provide for a discussion with the man and the woman concerning
(1) the nature of their Christian commitment, assuring that at least one is a professing Christian, [cut]
b. If the minister is convinced after discussion with the couple that commitment, responsibility, maturity, or Christian understanding are so lacking that the marriage is unwise, the minister shall assure the couple of the church’s continuing concern for them and not conduct the ceremony.
So obviously, religious institutions can refuse to marry whomever they please, and do so - you wouldn't expect two Hindus to be married at a Catholic church, would you? These organizations don't lose their non-taxable status because their discrimination is inherent and recognized as such by law.
Did I miss anything?
Re: my nose begins here
on 27 Feb 2004 12:57 (UTC)In essence your argument is that you want the government to redefine the meaning of marriage. That is natural for a society to change. That marriage that is religious based and civilly based are two different things.
In essence my argument is that I don't want the government redefining marriage (i.e. the constitutional amendment). I agree that societies can and do change but I believe not always for the better. That if marriage is religious based then why not keep it the same word and if it is civilly based why not use civil union in order to differentiate from the two?
We are never going to see eye to eye on this. In the end if the popular opinion is for a constitutional amendment then it will be voted in. If they is no overwhelming popular opinion then it won't get voted in. From what I see and hear you believe it won't get passed so why are you so vehement about it?
Re: my nose begins here
on 27 Feb 2004 13:20 (UTC)I don't want the government to redefine the meaning of marriage. That's why I don't think an amendment is necessary. Currently, marriage is a union of two consenting adults who wish to share assets and property, legally speaking. I want that to stay the same. Redefining marriage would be placing limitations on that - introducing this amendment.
'Better' is relative, so I won't address that. But marriage has both a religious context and a legal context. Each of those is separate. They just happen to use the same word. The essence of my argument is that the legal and religious contexts of marriage should be recognized only within their respective spheres, and shouldn't influence each other. Of course, this is already happening. The Unitarian church has been marrying same-sex couples for nearly a decade now, but those marriages aren't legally recognized in most states. I see that as a problem, since it's interfering with the 'pursuit of happiness' clause in a document that forms the foundation of government where we live. Pinochle also uses the word 'marriage.' Is that any more confusing?
You're right; we're never going to see eye to eye on this. And you're right; popular opinion will dictate whether or not this takes effect. I am vehement about it because I'm not sure it won't get passed, and because it would set a precedent of morality interfering with law, and I don't want to live in a theocracy. It's my duty as a citizen to police the actions of my lawmakers and ensure they promote my interpretation of law, so it's my duty to form intelligent opinions and be vehement about them.
Re: my nose begins here
on 27 Feb 2004 19:25 (UTC)The concept of civil rights working on a supply and demand system is possibly the most ludicrous argument I've heard. If you truly believe that, then maybe you should give up your right to vote and we should re-segregate schools, since obviously the equality given by women's suffrage and civil right legislation in favor of blacks took away the power of the white man.
I'm not sure how I can make my stance any clearer. There is a religious context of marriage - already within the sphere of the church - and a secular context of marriage - the thing same-sex couples are trying to make progress on. The religious context should continue to be the purview of the church, and government should have no hand in it. Legality, however, is the issue, and I think introducing an amendment would be trampling basic freedoms that are given to any American citizen. Churches (and parishioners) are free and welcome to view homosexuality as morally wrong, but it should not be legally wrong. If homosexuals are denied the right to marriage, you are effectively impeding their right to be homosexual and have the same rights as another person. If anyone were to tell you not to like men, then you would be outraged. It's equivalent.
{hating to debate indicates either a lack of rationality behind your argument of the lack of strength of purpose to defend it - it's like not being willing to die for your freedom}
-k.
Re: my nose begins here
on 27 Feb 2004 23:52 (UTC)I wish I was here before the posts were deleted. I accept differing views, and I take it as an opportunity to help people get educated (let's face it, a lot of the issues involve the fact that oftentimes, people don't know too much about gays and are highly opposed to learning for whatever reason), but deleted posts makes it difficult to figure out what they actually said. I mean, okay, maybe they think that the points contained within were invalidated, but c'mon! I've been busy! And it's good to know what a lot of the arguments are.
I'm not going to lay out my arguments. Frankly. I have faith that people are telling it like I would. And SO much of it has been said before. I'm tired of this issue, and I don't see why people care. MORE IMPORTANT THINGS, PEOPLE, than whether two consenting adults want to get married and reap the legal benifits of that.
I will say this. I want what other people have. Society keeps pounding into us that marrying someone you love romantically is a wonderful thing, and it seems really unfair to be told that, AND that I can't do it because of the minority class I fall into. ESPECIALLY when there aren't any other valid reasons that I can think of why I can't.
Done now. Nap time.
Oh, and thanks Kevin, for fighting for my side. I appreciate it. Makes getting my beauty sleep so much easier. ;)
Re: my nose begins here
on 28 Feb 2004 11:39 (UTC)Finally, I also believe in less governmental involvement in issues dealing with personal freedom. However, this appears to be more concerned with denying rights to people who are doing 'bad'.
But these are just the problems you enter into when a government takes on a religious institution: marriage, and codifies it with laws. It would be better if people got married in churches, and joined legally in town halls. In that way, the persecution of those churches which allow gay marriage, polygamy, etc. would end because what people want to do on their own time and through their own belief system is fine.
But for government, which should provide equal opportunity and laws, civil unions should only be about taxes and legal rights and I don't see why that should be restricted.