"The church faced two options with the approval of the new law, said Robert Tuttle, a George Washington University professor who studies the relationship between church and state. One choice was to expand the definition of domestic partner, as the Archdiocese in San Francisco did years ago, to include a parent, sibling or someone else in the household.
"The second choice was to do what the Washington Archdiocese has done: eliminate benefits for all spouses.
"'For decades, the church has been at the forefront of worker benefits, so this move cuts against their understanding of social justice and health benefits to all possible,' Tuttle said. 'But obviously, you can see they felt there was a real conflict between those values. They feel they weren't left with much of a choice.'"
Click here to read the full story in the Washington Post. [edited to fix URL]
143 Comments
Another misleading NOM blog headline. Actually, this one is far worse than misleading, it's an outright lie. It's another blatant attempt to distort reality because reality doesn't support your agenda (or keep the checks flowing into your mailbox). Nobody forced the church to do anything. The church was free to continue providing spousal benefits to its employees. They chose not to. This argument that peoples rights should be limited so that others may continue to discriminate against them is really old and tired.
Forcing others into believing what you believe is not how freedom works Steve. Everyone is equal, not just you. Elevating the gay agenda over the rights of people to act in accordance with their beliefs is contrary to the principles that this nation was founded on.
TC Matthews wrote: "Forcing others into believing what you believe is not how freedom works Steve. Everyone is equal, not just you. Elevating the gay agenda over the rights of people to act in accordance with their beliefs is contrary to the principles that this nation was founded on."
It's interesting that a poster here points out the very real fact that the church was not told to discontinue spousal benefits---they were allowed to continue doing so, just under a definition that admittedly does not sit well with them. In response, TC (and I'm sure others) point out that basically that forcing others to conform to your view of the world is not OK. In other words, telling this archdiocese that "this is the way it works...you either do it this way or you don't do it at all" is a violation of their civil rights.
And YET...in stark contrast....the regular members of this blog are CONSTANTLY reminding those of us who support same-sex marriage and/or identify as LGBT that we CAN get married, we just have to marry someone of the opposite sex---because that's the rules. Either we do marriage the way you've designed it, or we don't do marriage at all.
Hmm...sounds like familiar logic, huh?
Pot, I'd like you to meet my friend, Kettle! LOL
Erik, the constitution, and the framers who wrote it took great pains to make sure that the government would never interfere in the free exercise of religion.
"The United States government must not undertake to run the Churches. When an individual, in the Church or out of it, becomes dangerous to the public interest he must be checked." --A. Lincoln
Having the government dictate to people what they can and cannot believe, what is and is not morally acceptable, infringes on those rights and freedoms. No one is stopping gays and lesbians from living their lives how they will, but forcing the people to accept moral dictates from the state as gospel crosses the line. The constitution guards against activists who want to use the government as a bully pulpit to force their own version of morality on everyone else. Activist homosexuality is a religion or system of belief just like any other. One of those powerful proponents now in power, Chai Feldblum has said, Homosexuality is right and good and the state has a duty to promote it. Yet that is not the role of government. Forcing others to believe what you believe is not how it works. There must be good reason for society to promote homosexuality as it does marriage.
Let me give you a hint: Assuaging guilty consciences with the state's stamp of approval on your chosen lifestyle is not it.
This story is getting ripped to shreds by commenters in the Washington Post. Interesting seeing what they have to say. Basically this is like saying, "Diner forced to close because Black people can eat at the front counter."
TC, you seem to ignore the fact that not all religious people are against marriage equality. In fact many pastors in DC gave their full-throated support to the DC Council and gay marriage rights.
TC - You still seem confused by the definiton of freedom of religion and how far reaching that freedom is. You seem unwilling to accept the fact that religious freedom does not mean that the rest of society must be legally required to conform with your own personal beliefs. Simple question for you: Many religions disapprove of interfaith marriages. Does the fact that our laws allow marriage between people of different religions mean that the religious freedoms of those who disapprove are being infringed upon?
Gay is not race. Perhaps a better analogy would be, "Vegetarian diner forced to close because meat consumption quotas not met." Since when did the government get into the business of dictating morality? Don't you have a problem with that?
Emma, I don't care one bit how many pastors this or that. This isn't an argument that is held in a religious vacuum, and the government ought not put itself in the position of crowning one religious thought over another. Separation of Church and State prohibits the government from taking sides. Either society has a reason to support marriage independent of religion or it doesn't. We know what marriage benefits bring to society. What benefit does promoting homosexuality bring?
If you can't answer the question, perhaps you ought to check your tiara.
"If you can't answer the question, perhaps you ought to check your tiara."
Really? Is this how one adult speaks to another in a purportedly civil debate over differences of opinion?
To the other supporters of traditional marriage values who are likely sitting at their computers and reading this dialogue----I am puzzled. I have read on this site and in your press releases and comments how offended you are by assertions of "bigot" and "hatred".....and, yet, when you see the language and tone of conversations like the on in these comments, is not entirely clear to you now how and why terms like that enter so freely in this debate?
I do not believe that one side of an argument can snipe and name-call and verbally bully in that fashion (or allow those who are speaking on behalf of their shared position to do so unchecked) and then take offense when the other side of the conversation takes issue with it!
"Simple question for you: Many religions disapprove of interfaith marriages. Does the fact that our laws allow marriage between people of different religions mean that the religious freedoms of those who disapprove are being infringed upon?"
I think this is a very valid criticism. If, for example, the DC Catholic Archdiocese wanted to state that they were only willing to extend spousal benefits to their employees' legal opposite sex spouses who practiced Catholicism and had never been previously married/divorced (because I do believe that those are pretty standard facets of a church-recognized marriage), would as many people be as willing to step forward and cry foul?
First of all---How condescending and disrespectful to presume that this is about "assuaging guilty consciences." I, for one, do not have a guilty conscience. I am comfortable, clear and confident in who and what I am---as are the people who care most about me and about whom I care most (including my Southern Baptist father not to put too fine a point on it!) I would like to point out, however, that it seems yet another hypocrisy for a regular member of this blog to resort to that kind of personal attack/disparaging statement when a dissenting opinion or criticism is offered....when those on "your" side of the argument are so oft to point out the harmful and unproductive nature of labeling and personal attacking of divergent viewpoints. It really confounds me how the glaring "what's good for the goose is NOT good for the gander" situation that continually arises here isn't more obvious and concerning!! *sigh*
Beyond that, however, this blog is and was specifically about "spousal benefits" and NOT about you, or anyone else, being required to morally accept me or my partner or any other LGBT person in this country or world. To be entirely honest, I can live with the fact that there are people in this world who do not like and/or approve of me, my relationship or my community---that's kind of par for the course for humanity, isn't it? What I am far LESS comfortable with is the clear inequities for same-sex couples that exist around access to health insurance, taxation, social security &/or pension benefits, survivorship, estate tax, hospital visitation, medical decision-making, etc.
And certainly I will now brace myself for Chairm and many others to step forward & regale us with tales of how this list of rights are an invalid argument for "SSM"....but in the spirit of understanding someone else's point of view I'd suggest reflecting on the fact that these rights don't FEEL very invalid to those of us who lack them....and that in a system whereby opposite-sex couples access these rights simply by virtue of entering into a government-sanctioned relationship, it seems a logical course of action to seek out government-sanctioning of OUR relationships in order to access OUR equal rights. In a society where these inequalities and disparities are a demonstrable fact----it seems that the statement "No one is stopping gays and lesbians from living their lives how they will..." is more than a little disingenuous.
Forcing anti-Catholic policy on Catholic organizations is not extending freedom, nor protecting freedom, but the other way around.
Forcing others into believing what you believe is not how freedom works TC. Indeed, everyone is equal as you pontificate. But, as the pigs in Orwell’s Animal Farm, you evidently feel that you are somehow more equal than others.
Please comprehend this variation of what you have said--elevating catholic dogma over the rights of people to act in accordance with their beliefs is contrary to the principles that this nation was founded on.
Steve framed this issue correctly. Erik accurately presented the NOM mentality. Emma made an excellent point about how another’s claim of religious discrimination would be equally valid if gay marriage were not permitted. Dusty related a valid analogy. And TC blew smoke.
“What benefit does promoting homosexuality bring?”. Honestly. As if the government must promote all that it permits.
Erik, love the bellyaching on style, looks like you've got some of your own....
Tiara anyone?
Ovi, you are free to believe as you will, however, you are not free to force those beliefs on other people. Freedom is for everyone, not just those included in LGBT or Q.
"“What benefit does promoting homosexuality bring?”. Honestly. As if the government must promote all that it permits."
Are you against the promotion of homosexuality? You are against it being taught in the schools? Really? Let's be honest here, because if you really believe that homosexuality is the same, if homosexuality is good and right and equal to marriage, then you have to agree that if the government promotes marriage it will also have to promote homosexuality. So, be honest about your position. If you're not for the promotion of homosexuality, then how are you going to tell the schools, government etc. that it can't be promoted? How are you going to guarantee the freedom of those who disagree?
Let's be honest. You're not.
Raynd, just how are you forced to believe something different? Is your marriage or life less meaningful today than it was yesterday (before Washington D.C. started issuing marriage licenses for gays and lesbians?). If so, you doth protest too much... The problem may reside in the self righteous finger pointing and blame.
"First of all---How condescending and disrespectful to presume that this is about "assuaging guilty consciences." I, for one, do not have a guilty conscience. I am comfortable, clear and confident in who and what I am---"
Erik, if you are so comfortable, clear and confident, why do you insist on calling same sex relationships marriage when they are obviously different from the unique and life giving man/woman relations? If you truly were proud, and confident, you wouldn't be begging society for their stamp of approval.
Erik, Verbal bullying? lol. Are you serious?
You still haven't answered the question. What benefit does promoting homosexuality have?
Are single mothers also denigrated by society? How about polygamists and polyamorists? Marriage between a man and a woman has many good, healthy reasons to be promoted. Why should homosexuality be promoted above all other variant sexual practices?
Sorry if you feel personally threatened by honest questions Erik, but that is at the heart of the argument.
"Is your marriage or life less meaningful today than it was yesterday?"
If my benefits were cut to placate government nannies who thought it was their business to dictate morality to the church, then yes, I'd say there was a problem today that wasn't there yesterday (before the law was passed codifying discrimination against anyone who opposes the normalization of homosexuality.)
How does losing your basic freedoms affect your family? Ask the good people of D.C. who just got their benefits yanked in order to comply with the new law.
Now that's tolerance, LGBTQ style.
“Marriage between a man and a woman has many good, healthy reasons to be promoted.”
Such as? Why promote opposite-sex marriage over same-sex marriage? Why would the state have a preference?
“Why should homosexuality be promoted above all other variant sexual practices?”
It shouldn’t be. Feel free to encourage the state to promote all variant sexual practices equally, or none..
"Feel free to encourage the state to promote all variant sexual practices equally"
Kevinn, I'm so glad to hear an honest SSMer.
Well, like I said. Let's be honest why don't we Kevinn....
What sexualities do you feel aren't being adequately represented, Raynd?
""Feel free to encourage the state to promote all variant sexual practices equally""
Given your admission Kevin, can you see why there is a concern that neutering marriage actually destroys it? You've already announced your approval, or at least your apathy toward marriage as a unique and valuable societal standard. If we were to include all variant sexual relationships within the bonds of marriage, what then would marriage mean? Nothing.
How would the dissolution of the family affect your family?
TC, Erik need not answer your ingnorant loadred question. Are you still beating your wife?
How does governemnt currently promote marriage? If government decided to leagalize drugs in order to end the violent and failed drug war, would that be the equivalent of promoting drugs? Oh. So sorry. I know. Gay isn't marriage. Sex isn't drugs. I forgot how you don't do well with analogies.
FYI TC. Gay people are not begging. They are demanding equal protection under the law.
Actually, it was Erik who didn't do well with analogies. Scroll up.
OviPolitico,
The basic discussion is this: How does the government decide on public policy? On each side you have a separate train of thought, a separate "religion" if you will, or set of beliefs. One side is comprised of the normalizing homosexuality crowd, they believe homosexuality is innate, and immutable, etc. and they want public policy to support those views. The other side, this case represented by the Catholic church, but not limited to it, believes that homosexual behavior is not an immutable trait, but is an immoral behavior, and they want public policy to support those views.
How does the government decide which set of views to support?
The separation of Church and State doctrine prohibits the government from arbitrarily choosing one doctrine over another based on "faith", or rhetoric alone. To do so would give the government the aura of becoming a state religion, and promoting a state religion is against everything the founding fathers set out to accomplish.
So how does the government decide? What is its role?
The government must look to the best interests of the people. Marriage between a man and a woman is time tested, proven, and scientifically backed as the BEST option for raising children and families. So the question is, why would the government back SSM? What does homosexuality have to offer society? What are the independent evidences, separate from homosexualist dogma, that show that homosexuality is productive and worthwhile to society?
TC writes, "Why do you insist on calling same sex relationships marriage when they are obviously different from the unique and life giving man/woman relations?"
Two points:
1. Several states and several countries already recognize marriage equality, so although obviously not all same-sex relationships are marriage (any more than all opposite-sex relationships are marriage, I might add), those couples that choose to marry are in fact... married. Regardless of the gender of the two individuals involved. This is simple legal fact.
2. Those unique life-giving man/woman relationships aren't restricted to married couples -- procreation is a biological thing and is not mutually inclusive to civil marriage.
Emma,
1. Misnaming a coupling doesn't change what it is.
2. You got it! The unique life giving relationships certainly are NOT restricted to married couples, anyone anywhere can shack up any time and have a chance of pregnancy. HOWEVER, that is not what society wants, it creates unstable, short termed unions and children produced by those unstable unions have a much harder time growing up into stable, balanced adults with a healthy understanding of how to raise their own children. Hence, the stress society puts on children being born within married families, and the whole purpose of marriage.
2b. That unique life-giving quality of man/woman relationships IS however restricted to opposite sex unions by mother nature (darn her), which is why society supports marriage between one man and one woman and no other shack up, combination of random individuals.
2b. We don't limit our lives to what mother nature generally proscribes. We shape mother nature and our role within it. Otherwise we'd still be living in caves and sick to death of chomping down on raw meat. It isn't the government's role to only allow what you call mother nature's restrictions.
Again, there is no one from the normalizing homosexuality crowd who will take on the question? Emma, you want government to accept and promote homosexuality, but you want it to do so on faith. In effect, you want government to cross the line from advocating what is clearly in the best interests of society to advocating what gay activists preach in their churches.... "just because".
“How does the government decide on public policy?”
Well, we know it can’t make public policy that denies Equal Protection to some group. That’s what marriage statutes in 45 states currently do. They grant marriage rights to straight people but not to gay people. Big problem, constitutionally.
We also know that the government does not support religious views. That’s why divorce and adultery are legal, it’s ok to work on the Sabbath, dishonor your parents, worship non-Christian gods, etc.
As with adultery and divorce, when same-sex marriage is legal, religious people can choose to not marry someone of the same sex, to honor their faith beliefs.
Society values marriage as the institution best suited to raise children under. Since all 50 states permit same-sex couples to raise children, it is in society’s interest to undo discriminatory marriage statutes that restrict marriage to only opposite-sex couples. Because it is better for children to be raised by married parents, states should want children to be raised by married parents, regardless of the gender of those parents.
Another way to look at it is, what is the state’s interest in denying marriage to same-sex couples?
Kevinn,
Equal Protection doesn't apply, everyone can marry equally. There is no litmus test for sexuality at the marriage license counter, if you disagree, I'd encourage you to try to show otherwise.
Government supports religious views all the time, when they align with the public good. (Thou shalt not steal?) What government is not allowed to do is support religious views that go against the public good. Creating motherless and fatherless children goes against the public good.
Supporting the homosexual religion's views without a basis in public good crosses the line between church and state. The government has gone too far in D.C.'s case. They are promoting the dogma of the homosexual religion, at the cost of the public good.
"Because it is better for children to be raised by married parents, states should want children to be raised by married parents, regardless of the gender of those parents."
Again, misnaming people as married doesn't transfer the benefits of marriage. The benefits of marriage are tied to factors that same sex couples cannot replicate by nature.
TC, I think SSMers tip-toe around the underlying assumptions upon which their SSM idea is constructed. That's why they can't answer your question about their demand that the government's big hairy hand be used to promote their SSM idea.
The lack of a legal requirement for same-sex sexual attraction, same-sex sexual romance, same-sex sexual behavior, that means a great deal, if we are to apply to the SSM idea the same insistance on legal requirements that SSMers use to attack the marriage idea.
And that negates all the SSM talk about gayness and about sexual orientation and all the rest. They've negated the underlying assumptions of their own idea.
Yet we have this assertion of supremacy of gay identity politics. So the homosexuality stuff is a ruse. The real purpose is to innoculate the ideology -- the belief system -- that fuels the SSM campaign.
That peculair sectarianism is a direct affront to religious liberty and freedom of conscience.
It makes me so upset that people of faith cannot have a say in the government that controls them, and now they're going after the churches. This isn't about marriage, it's militantly anti-religious.
Recall how integration forced universities to stop admitting students? Or interracial marriage stopped the government from performing other marriages?
--
Jeri, it is easy to see why man/woman marriage is valuable to society, race doesn't change that. The question is, why would same sex coupling be valuable to society? You still haven't answered the question. Simply stating that it's "just like interracial marriage" isn't enough, because ssm is not like interracial marriage. In fact, it is not like it at all.
Is the average gay person really better off, because the Archdiocese of Washington is out of the foster care business? Does it really improve the quality of any lesbian's life that the Archdiocese believes it has to discontinue health benefits for spouses?
In the wake of the District of Columbia’s new same sex marriage policy, these changes have happened.
Item #1: In DC, the Catholic Archdiocese discontinued offering health care benefits to spouses. Why? Because the Church does not recognize same sex unions as “marriages,” even though the DC City Council insists that they are. So, to keep from running afoul of the same sex “marriage” law, they will discontinue health benefits for spouses of newly employed workers.
Conform to the new regime. Or else.
Item #2: The marriage licenses in DC no longer say “bride” and “groom.”
D.C. Superior Court officials have prepared to implement the redefinition of marriage by rewriting its traditional applications and brochures. Its materials no longer ask for the name of the bride and groom, but rather ask for the name of the “spouse.”
The final pronouncement of “husband and wife” has also been removed as the default language. According to the Washington Post, at the end of civil marriage ceremonies judges will say “I now pronounce you legally married,” unless the marrying couple suggests something different.
Check it out: people are “legally married.” No one has the “status” of bride or groom, husband or wife. The natural concepts of husband and wife have been replaced with a purely legal concept. Thus does the state shove civil society aside.
This is in addition to the fact that the Archdiocese is no longer eligible for any city contracts for foster care and adoption. However:
The D.C. City Council’s law recognizing same-sex “marriage” purported to protect religious freedom. However, it required religious entities which serve the general public to provide services to homosexual couples, even if doing so violated their religious beliefs.
How nice.
http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/03/03/more-unintended-consequences-of-same-sex-marriage/
Great piece by Maggie Gallagher today too:
Maggie Gallagher :: Townhall.com Columnist
Should It Be Illegal to Be a Jew in Massachusetts?
http://townhall.com/columnists/MaggieGallagher/2010/03/03/should_it_be_illegal_to_be_a_jew_in_massachusetts?page=full&comments=true
TC Matthews,
"The question is, why would same sex coupling be valuable to society?"
*Do* same-sex couples have to be valuable to society? (Granted, there is anthropological and evolutionary evidence that homosexuality is beneficial to society. Having members of a community that are evolutionarily fit but have non-procreative sexual behavior gives us a veritable army of caretakers. From the animal perspective, that would mean hunting and caring for offspring. From the anthropological perspective, that would mean folks who pay taxes, support the economy, adopt unwanted children etc.)
Goodness, I wish the government only promoted or passed laws on things that are beneficial to society. But there's a distinct difference between things like voting laws and marriage laws. Voting restrictions are beneficial to society because voting has an effect on the public sphere. Marriage, however, is a private contract between two consenting, unrelated adults and the government. The impact of a couple getting married is limited to their immediate sphere of influence. But not all marriages are good ones. Not all marriages are beneficial to society. So why don't we see NOM clamoring in West Virginia for a constitutional amendment revoking Britney Spear's right to a marriage license in their state? Why do you keep pushing this false dichotomy at us: "couples must present some benefit for society or else they can't get married." I doubt any of you will sincerely answer these questions, so I'll try to form some responses of my own.
The answer to both these questions is the troubling notion: "if it's a man and a woman, it's a-okay!" We see this mantra repeated in nearly every one of Chairm's posts ("sex integration" etc.) and even in TC's last post ("it is easy to see why man/woman marriage is valuable to society, race doesn't change that"). These folks have somehow gotten themselves to believe that when a man and a woman get together, an angel gets it wings. Even ignoring their disturbing adherence to a rigid gender binary, there's so much wrong with this "man-woman make baby is best" mantra.
Firstly, it elevates procreative relationships above all others. Secondly, it devalues other legal (between consenting, unrelated adults) relationships. Third, and worst of all, it demonstrates a complete inability (or unwillingness) to accept lifestyles that don't align with their ideal.
Now, I don't even mean "accept lifestyles" in that you have to approve of other lifestyles. Just recognize that they are legitimate and exist. It's the blatant disavowal of the legitimacy of "variant sexualities" that troubles me. If you can somehow delude yourself into thinking that because a man and a woman can make a baby (and that all babies are born in wedlock, and that all married couples have babies), they deserve countless legal benefits that other couples, analogous in everything but gender, do not, then that's just fine, as long as you don't try to twist the law to reflect your minds set. But to then turn around and say that equal protection under the law somehow takes away your freedom of conscience, because you can no longer torture us on fenceposts or shoot us point blank in the head in a classroom or scream f*ggot when we "flaunt our sexuality" by engaging in the same displays of affection that straight couples take for granted...well, then I just feel sad. But that's just my gay "guilty conscience" talking, right?
They had a choice, yes. Either betray a core value of your faith by doing what the government insists that you do or change your policies.
It's not much of a choice.
LT, you didn't answer the question. You've said that you don't believe the procreative relationship is deserving of extra care and concern in society, but society disagrees, and for good reason. Unlike you, they can't and shouldn't follow unsupported dogma. Society has a vested interest in promoting marriage precisely because of responsible procreation. There is no "must" or "all" or force involved in procreation to receive this societal deference, "likely" or "possible" is enough.
"Never", or "physically impossible", isn't in that category as it is with two women or two men. So, why should society elevate same sex relationships? Try to leave your dogmatic assumptions aside.
"But to then turn around and say that equal protection under the law somehow takes away your freedom of conscience, because you can no longer torture us on fenceposts..."
LT, it is irresponsible to suggest that freedom of religion includes harm to others. It is weak and irresponsible, and only shows your lack of respect for those who hold a different viewpoint from yourself. If you're having trouble making an argument that is responsible and respectful, you don't have to participate in the discussion.
TC: "It is weak and irresponsible, and only shows your lack of respect for those who hold a different viewpoint from yourself. If you're having trouble making an argument that is responsible and respectful, you don't have to participate in the discussion."
TC----This is a point on which you and I can, surprisingly, agree....however, isn't it a bit ironic for this advice to be coming from you?-----the very person in the discussion who introduced taunts like "check your tiara"----let's not pretend that jibe wasn't a very thinly-veiled homophobic remark in very poor taste that was not THAT dissimilar from openly name-calling a fellow a poster a "fagg*t"! (And if you'd like to poo-poo the validity of that criticism as merely a joke or witty reparte, I'd suggest you spend some time in the presence of a young person who is forced to endure slanderous and hurtful "jokes" of that nature on a daily basis.)
Perhaps, as previously accused, I am just "bellyaching about style"...and if that's my "tiara" then perhaps I should don it.....
...but, I'm sorry, the biggest challenge in this dialogue as a whole is its lack of civility. I hear & see people on BOTH sides of the argument, including the very leadership of NOM, calling for more respect, more understanding, more tolerance and more listening....and yet far too few actions seem to backing up the rhetoric.
Erik, you are seeing far more into the comment than was written. Check the paragraph just before that line. The government shouldn't be in the business of crowning one religion's ideas over another. It's metaphor, and it was spoken in response to Emma, who is female, and incidentally, not gay. No slight, innuendo etc intended to you. The point still stands.
Homosexuality is a competing religion and the state can't and shouldn't adopt it's tenets and promote them because of the separation of church and state doctrine. The state can only adopt policies that happen to coincide with the best interests of the public, for instance thou shalt not steal. That is in the best interests of the public, so it's ok for the state to adopt that principle and enforce it. In the case of SSM, there is only rhetoric and ideas, no evidence that SSM is beneficial to society. To have the government adopt it's precepts is as good as creating a state religion, to the detriment of all others.
Fair enough, TC....I'll concede that I may have misread the original context of the tiara comment. (Although, a subsequent poster DID indeed accuse me of needing to don my own tiara....and so while the criticism of the homophobic nature of the comment may not need be directed at you----the criticism of the disrespectful use of the turn of phrase in general remains valid to the conversation as a whole.)
To respond to your further points, however, I disagree that there is "no evidence that SSM is beneficial to society." You still have YET to respond to any of my concerns about the very clear civil legal inequalities that have crystallized around disparity in access to legal recognition of same-sex recognitions.
How is it "beneficial to society" that in parts of this country my partner or I should be forced to be ill or die alone because our relationship is not legitimized?
How is it "beneficial to society" to insure when I or my partner die, that our right to leave our worldly worth and belongings to our chosen partner will be taxed in a different, and disproportionately higher, way than our heterosexual peers?
How is it "beneficial to society" that should my partner or I end up in a situation where we need have medical decisions made for us, that the law in many parts of this country defaults to that decision-power resting in the hands of someone who is NOT our intended life-partner? (And, in some cases, is an estranged blood relative whose interest in our well-being may be dubious at best.)
And how is it "beneficial to society" that should we, as couples, not want to fall prey to the very situation just mentioned, that we should be held to a different and higher (and more expensive) legal standard of documentation (living wills, healthcare proxies, etc.) than our heterosexual peers?
And how is it "beneficial to society" that, after working and building a life together, should my partner or I pass away that the surviving partner is left with inherent access to survivor pension or social security benefits?
Jennifer says: "They had a choice, yes. Either betray a core value of your faith by doing what the government insists that you do or change your policies. It's not much of a choice."
...and, in truth, I don't entirely disagree that (at least in their view) it was not much of a choice.
But again, I come back to the fact that the members of this blog are constantly reminding me (and others in my community) that I CAN get married---just to someone of the opposite sex. So in essence....
I do have a choice, yes. Either betray a core value of my personhood by doing what the government (at least in most of the country) insists or just don't get equality. And, as you've rightly pointed out----IT'S NOT MUCH OF A CHOICE. *sigh*
TC,
You just got caught slandering someone with homophobic remarks and classically denied it. And where do you get that homosexuality is a competing religion? Are you serious?
Here's the interest the govt, and the general public, has in promoting homosexuality:
SO WHAT HAPPENED TO MATTHEW SHEPHERD DOESN'T HAPPEN TO ANOTHER YOUNG GAY MAN OR LESBIAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If you don't agree with this, then you are part of the problem, not the solution. Period.
TC, I agree with you about "as good as creating a state religion, to the detriment of all others".
The antagonistic dogma comes from identity politics of the gaycentric sort. It has transformed the concept of homosexuality into a socio-political identity that places group above individual and that places that particular group above society.
Of course, milder forms of identity politics has its place but no form of it ought to be innoculated against dissent and opposition, the way that gay identity politics has pressed its asserted supremacy into the conflict over marriage law. That's going as far as the white racialist assertion of supremacy.
It doesn't limit is infringement to opponents, but it begins there and becomes entrenched by a minority in the name of a group identity to which people are herded, one way or the other. Most people are tolerant, but this is not about cooperation or live-and-let-live: it is about compliance.
I think your comments show you've noticed this, too.
Not all people who experience same-sex sexual attraction (aka homosexuality) are adherents to this form of politics; and not all who sympathize with those who have that attraction are on-board with the tactics, strategies, and the goals of the SSM campaign -- which is the new leading core of the gaycentric programme.
Indeed, about 1 in 5 openly "gay" voters cast Yes ballots for Proposition 8. And there are opponents to the SSM merger from among the openly homosexual segment of the population. The radicalism of the SSM campaign is deliberately hidden behind a veneer of "mainstream" posturing.
I think your calm remarks here have helped to puncture that facade.
Chairm....I'm sorry but that logic has as many holes in it as you claim the SSM logic does.
A minority (vocal or otherwise) of same-sex-attracted &/or gay-identified individuals who, themselves oppose SSM, do not inherently disqualify the merits or value of SSM for all people who share that identity, behavior or attraction. There are prominent & vocal HETERO opponents of HETERO marriage, as well (think Kurt Russel and Goldie Hawn...Susan Sarandon and TIm Robbins...etc.). Their existence & views don't inherently undermine the value of opposite sex marriage----and it CERTAINLY shouldn't be used as validation for the universal removal of heterosexual marriage rights for all opposite-sex-attracted individuals.
Furthermore, your critique of gay identity politics is flawed, as well. The fact is that we ALL play "identity politics" of all sorts all the time. Without "identity politics" we would have little barometer to assess who and what we are in comparison to the world around us.
My father, who is a Southern Baptist Minister, has the identity politic of both clergy and christian....and he is a man and a father and a grandfather, all of which add to his identity...furthermore he lives in a rural community and so that becomes another layer of his identity politic...and he's a hunter...yet another layer. And so on and so forth...and around each of these identities gets formed both a political and a social identity----and does that social identity mean that he automatically becomes a part of a hive mind? No, of course not. But does it create for him a sense of community with others who share his experiences, beliefs, values, identities, etc.? Yes, of course it does. (As is evidenced if you ever put him in the same room who is a clergy member....or a rural resident...or a grandpa...or a hunter....or all of the above!)
The truth is that even being a member or supporter of NOM is, itself, a form of identity politics----you are establishing yourself as either an opponent of equality for LGBT people or as an upholder of traditional marriage (or both)...a defining identity that informs not only who you are but with whom (both individually and as a group) you identify most...both socially and politically.
Gay identity politics is no different----no better and no worse---and your assertion to the contrary is insulting. For some people, their identity as LGBT is indeed, as you've stated, not a core aspect of their personhood, and doesn't entirely govern their thoughts, values, etc. For others, however, (myself included) our LGBT identity is indeed a defining and core characteristic....one that, by our own assessment, is an innate indicator of who and what we are----and while we may indeed have many other identities that come into play (male, white, college educated, athletic, US citizen, harry potter fan & disneyworld enthusiast)....it is every individual's right to make decisions in their own way and for their own reasons how they PRIORITIZE their own identities.
For you to presume to tell me, or anyone else, that "gay identity politics" is flawed or substandard (and further to equate it to white supremacy----an odd parallel in a conversation that often wants to avoid all comparisons between race and sexuality) simply BECAUSE it is gay is as problematic as my saying that Christian identity politics (an equally real phenomenon) is flawed merely because it is Christian. It is NOT a valid criticism of identity politics at all----instead it is just a revealing glimpse into an individual's own personal biases and prejudices.
"Erik, love the bellyaching on style, looks like you've got some of your own....
Tiara anyone?"
You can continue to look the victim, or you can take the comment as it was intended. If you insist on behaving like royalty, divinely appointed, crowned, unassailable, and yet patently indefensible, too good for everyone to have to defend your position then what can I say? if the tiara fits.....
Jason, because bad things happen, and have happened, doesn't mean your solution has value. If you don't agree with this, you are a part of the problem, not the solution, period.
"Here's the interest the govt, and the general public, has in promoting homosexuality:
SO WHAT HAPPENED TO MATTHEW SHEPHERD DOESN'T HAPPEN TO ANOTHER YOUNG GAY MAN OR LESBIAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
So Jason, you propose keeping people from being killed by imposing homocentric ideology in the form of state religion? And do you also get to sit on the throne and declare who is homophobic and ought to be silenced as well?
I propose that there are much better ways to discourage violence in society than imposing state religion of your particular preference.
"Gay identity politics is no different----no better and no worse---and your assertion to the contrary is insulting. "
Erik, we all have identities, things we identify with, etc, however when those identities, or groups we identify with supersede rights of others in importance, for instance in this case, gay rights groups trampling the rights of religious people to believe and act according to their beliefs, when being "gay" is more important than being a member of responsible society, then there is a problem.
White supremacists are an easy example of this. They take one characteristic, in this case, color, and elevate it above everything else, thus creating a socio-political entity, or group with whom they identify. The problem is that this identity group is so elevated in their priorities, that the rights and freedoms of others become less important.
No matter who you are, whether you're a member of the KKK, a gay rights advocate, a Black Panther or a really really avid knitter, putting some group identity before the wellbeing of others is always wrong.
Jason, your comment is completely off topic. What does Matthew Shepard have to do with Washington DC, SSM and the Catholic Church? It was a violent crime. It has nothing to do with marriage laws.
"Jennifer says: "They had a choice, yes. Either betray a core value of your faith by doing what the government insists that you do or change your policies. It's not much of a choice."
...and, in truth, I don't entirely disagree that (at least in their view) it was not much of a choice.
But again, I come back to the fact that the members of this blog are constantly reminding me (and others in my community) that I CAN get married---just to someone of the opposite sex. So in essence....
I do have a choice, yes. Either betray a core value of my personhood by doing what the government (at least in most of the country) insists or just don't get equality. And, as you've rightly pointed out----IT'S NOT MUCH OF A CHOICE. *sigh*"
This is an interesting comment. This is exactly what I was talking about earlier. You have two veins of thought, two socio-political identities, two religions, two ways of thinking and two sets of values which are incompatible. Why should the government choose the gay centric view?
Erik you are upset because you can't be married without betraying a core value of your personhood, according to your words. You elevate your gayness above Jennifer's right to freedom of religion and conscience. Yet there are many people who cannot and will not ever marry, or who have married and who now are not. Are they inequal also? Are they betraying core values? or are your core values artificially elevated because you want so badly to have your lifestyle praised by society that you are willing to trample the rights of others in order to get it?
You know I've read this blog and the comments posted here for some time...just to get a sense and a feel for where the conversation is and what is being said "on the other side"...but have, until yesterday, pretty much refrained from participating because I was unsure if there was a value to it. Sadly, my suspicions have been confirmed and, thus, will likely be my last post in this conversation....but.....
....TC, you can give me your rhetoric about how no one person's identity, or resulting politics, should be allowed to supersede or trample the rights of another group based on their identity-----but it rings ENTIRELY HOLLOW when that is exactly what you and the supporters of NOM are doing. Trumping my identity with your own identity as person of faith or traditional marriage advocate or both. You are, in effect, guilty of the very accusation you make----your identity supercedes LGBT and tramples my, and my community's, access to very real civil equalities.
If your mission was, indeed, to make sure that full equality in the absence of establishing superiority of one group or value system over another-----then you would be offering solutions to the problems of civil inequity that I have now posted multiple times...solutions that would allow for full equity under the law AND for the protection of religious freedoms.
It has not escaped my attention, however, that neither you nor any other member of this dialogue has yet responded to the questions about why these civil inequalities should exist and why, as a culture, we should support them. Instead you and your ilk here must resort to gay-baiting and condescending remarks about "needing so badly to have your lifestyle praised."
I neither want nor need your praise....but I, and other LGBT people, do deserve equality; and, more importantly, we also deserve respect----and, sadly, that is clearly in very shorty supply here.
Erik writes-To be entirely honest, I can live with the fact that there are people in this world who do not like and/or approve of me, my relationship or my community---that's kind of par for the course for humanity, isn't it? What I am far LESS comfortable with is the clear inequities for same-sex couples that exist around access to health insurance, taxation, social security &/or pension benefits, survivorship, estate tax, hospital visitation, medical decision-making, etc.
*****
I agree with you, Erik. Why don't we create something that addresses those very real and important issues? I'm sorta thinking outside of the box here but...perhaps we could call it a Domestic Partnership or a Civil Union.
"Trumping my identity with your own identity as person of faith or traditional marriage advocate or both. You are, in effect, guilty of the very accusation you make----your identity supercedes LGBT and tramples my, and my community's, access to very real civil equalities."
Erik, If you could provide a reason why society would promote homosexuality, we could have something to talk about. As it is, marriage is a healthier institution without SSM than with it. Children do better with a mom and a dad than without. Nature made it that way for a reason. If you can't give a reason why society should promote homosexuality, some inherent benefit, then you are in effect asking society, and the government, to promote your ideas on same-sex religious faith at the expense of others.
Everyone benefits from a healthy marriage institution, whether you participate in it or not. Only a small portion of the population benefits from SSM, and there is a lot of extemporaneous baggage that goes along with that cart that is actually harmful and detrimental to society and the freedoms of others.
This discussion is not about how to value same sex relationships, if it were, you would hear me talk about the Salt Lake City plan, just implemented in Colorado as well. There are solutions out there that leave the sanctity of marriage intact. If you want benefits, there are solutions out there that recognize the benefit to society of people loving and caring for one another outside of marriage. Grandmothers, granddaughters, dedicated roommates etc. are beneficial to society. They have some value, and I have no problem rewarding or encouraging people taking care of each other. I do have a problem with setting up pseudo-marriages or anything that takes away from the special status marriage holds, because to do so would have a detrimental effect on children and families.
In many states however, the honest reality is that benefits are not enough. In California for instance, ground zero for gay activist indignation, the state has already granted every benefit it has to offer to same sex couples and it is not enough. Connecticut is the same way. Not good enough.
You claim to be interested in benefits, and not recognition, if that is true, then you are in full support of proposition 8?
TC, so your religious views should trample the marriage equality views of Episcopal, Unitarian, Reformed Jew, Quaker?
TC Which religious view should the government favor in civil marriage law? What does the government use to know who is blessed with special access to marriage truth?
Jeri, no matter who owns or identifies with similar views, public policy must be made in accordance with what is best for the public. I have asked several times and no one has been able to answer why homosexuality ought to be promoted by society. What public benefit does it provide?
TC, how does legalizing same-sex marriage "promote" homosexuality? That's like saying that drivers' licenses "promote" being 16 years old. Some people are gay; some people are not -- same-sex marriage merely acknowledges that fact of nature. It does not "promote" anything. Same sex marriage will not "turn" anyone gay.
Then you are against the promotion of homosexuality Rob? You are against teaching public school children that homosexual behavior is moral and good? If you are going to say that SSM is the exact same as marriage, then you are condoning the behavior as good and right and moral, the same as any other behavior condoned and encouraged in state or federal law.
What TC said above in #63 regarding benefits is an example of a good solution which is both nondiscriminatory and preserves religious liberty.
jeri #64-
Why do you think this issue only concerns religious people? There are many agnostics,such as myself, and even some non believers, who support the idea that natural marriage is the ideal.
TC: So now homosexuality is a religion? So should all gays and lesbians be tax exempt? Typical of the anti-gay crusaders like yourself. You can't stick to the same argument because they keep getting invalidated by facts and logic so you continually try to come up with some new approach to the issue. Each new argument is more ridiculous than the last. This one takes the cake.
If homosexual activists want to formally organize as a religion, I say go for it, tax benefits and all. At least then we'd all be clear about what this socio-political identity really was.
Erik said:
"The fact is that we ALL play "identity politics" of all sorts all the time. Without "identity politics" we would have little barometer to assess who and what we are in comparison to the world around us."
The gaycentric version of identity politics is far more radical than any of that.
I've already said:
"Of course, milder forms of identity politics has its place but no form of it ought to be innoculated against dissent and opposition, the way that gay identity politics has pressed its asserted supremacy into the conflict over marriage law."
* * *
Erik said:
"A minority (vocal or otherwise) of same-sex-attracted &/or gay-identified individuals who, themselves oppose SSM, do not inherently disqualify the merits or value of SSM for all people who share that identity, behavior or attraction."
I did not say that. You are flogging a strawman argument of your own making.
I pointed out that the assertion of supremacy of gay identity politics has its opponents within the adult homosexual population. The first target of identity politics are those who are presumed to be members and thus beholden to the groupthink. Dissent with the SSM dogma among the homosexual segment of the population is muted -- and not because of impaired vocal chords.
The point is that, like white supremacists, the hardcore gay activists put the group above the individual and the identity group above society. Your remarks reinforced what I observed.
Erik,
Religious freedom is explicitly protected in the Constitution. Each person is born with a birthright of freedom of conscience. You've not be excluded from that.
The pluralism of our society is one of its greatest strengths. Freedom of consicence is the basis of all of our liberties -- and of our framework of government.
Gay identity politics? Not so much.
So, no, the marriage defenders are not trumping your freedom but we are insisting that the assertion of supremacy, via your peculair form of sectarianism, is a threat to religous liberty and freedom of conscience.
I think that if "the gay community" were to recalibrate and stop this attack on marriage, then, there is wide consensus on protection equality. And that goes for all of the nonmarriage category of different types of relationships and types of arrangements -- especially those with children or other vulnerable dependants. And that category is not defined by gayness, no matter how much you value your socio-political identity group. There are just and fair alternatives that do not depend on showing special treatment of an identity group.
Marriage does not organize society by identity groups. That's the meaning of the repudiation of the anti-miscegenation system that was based on racialist identity politics.
TC suggested taking a look at Salt Lake City. Well, you can also take a look at the widely available provisions for designated beneficiaries that have long existed are well utilized. These fit the SSM campaign's emphasis on civil contract -- provisions are based on a simple affidavit. If affordability or accessiblity is a big problem, that can be addressed without making a big deal about gayness. It has been done.
This fight over the SSM idea is really just symbolic and at the same time is an empty vehicle for driving the assertion of supremacy over our laws and constitution.
More and more people are waking up to the real disagreement. So resistance will stiffen because our hearts are strong and our love of liberty leaves us little option but to stand on firm ground.
We do not feel enticed to join you in the quicksand of gaycentric identity politics.
There is a debate to be had about same-sex marriage. Really, there is. I refuse to believe that the best we can do is to just agree to disagree. A big part of that debate is the question of how state-sanctioned same-sex marriage might affect religious institutions. That is a real and valid concern of many churches and religious people, and I'm happy to discuss the issue with anyone. Because, again, there is a debate to be had.
But there's no way to have that debate with someone who is, as the first commenter said, not just misleading, but outright lying. If you have a blog post whose title is "Church forced by DC Government..." and whose actual text is "The church faced two options with the approval of the new law ..." then I'm not optimistic about the odds of being able to have a good-faith honest debate with you.
I understand that you probably don't necessarily want this blog to be a debating site. The comments section of a post is hardly the best medium for that discussion. But it still seems like you could have picked a title that doesn't directly contradict the article you're quoting from. I'd say the Washington Post's headline writer did a fairly good job of expressing the idea that the charity *had* a choice, just not a choice they liked very much: "Same-sex marriage leads Catholic Charities to adjust benefits"
TC, you wrote:
"If you are going to say that SSM is the exact same as marriage, then you are condoning the behavior as good and right and moral, the same as any other behavior condoned and encouraged in state or federal law."
That's interesting. You see no difference between saying something is not wrong and promoting it? They're one and the same to you? Everything that is not declared illegal is being promoted?
I'm genuinely trying to understand your phrasing, "promoting homosexuality." And I'm not clear on your definition of either word. First, let me ask this: by "homosexuality," do you mean "homosexual orientation" or "homosexual sex acts" or both?
Rob, do you disagree with the various pro-SSM court opinions in which it is acknowledged that marital status is a special status?
Do you really imagine it to be a neutral status with no preferential treatment? Really?
The SSM campaign and its argumenation (and your own comments) have emphasized homosexual orientation. The CA Supreme Court's pro-SSM opinion spent more text on that than on marriage.
Is that emphasis on sexual attraction, sexual behavior, or group identity? The marriage law's opposite-sexed basis, and the CA marriage amendment, for obvious examples, do not include a homosexual criterion for ineligiblity nor for eligiblity, yet somehow SSMers keep reading that into the law. It does not exist anyplace where SSM has been imposed.
So is your emphasis on homosexual this and that just a ploy for something else? Or can you put your finger on the real disagreement?
Chairm, I'm trying to get a clear definition of what TC means by "promoting" and what he means by "homosexuality." There's an enormous difference in my mind between "legalizing same-sex marriage" and "promoting homosexuality." To legalize is not to promote. Nor are homosexuality and same-sex marriage the same thing, because the former is possible without the latter.
So at this point, I'm trying to understand TC's statement because it simply isn't clear.
I'm not entirely sure why I'm bothering with this because I know that no one is going to actually understand what I'm saying, as has been evident in this thread thus far but here we go anyway.
I would like to start by saying that I'm finding an incredible irony in TC calling the "homosexual agenda" a religion. You see, with saying that, you make it directly possible to take anything that you say applies to this supposed religion (which by the way is completely ludicrous) to your own religion and what you are trying to put against everything that is happening. What makes your religious morals any more worthy of being used in these cases than any others, including the "homosexual religion" should you choose to say it exists as such? Exactly because federal things and religious things are not supposed to mix, your morals should not have a bearing on the federal decisions which are made to progress society as a whole and to make life better for people.
It comes down to the fact that I pay taxes. I do the civil duties of any other citizen. Why should I be denied the things that, if I were to marry a man I would be fully entitled to, if I decide that I prefer to marry a woman? Why are heterosexual couples more worthy of the social benefits, the tax benefits, the legal benefits that come from being married? And as far as providing all of the benefits under a different name, to that I ask, why not simply just call it the same thing at that point? Or if religion is your base, have religious marriage called such and all federal unions called something else. Also, if reproduction, or potential reproduction is your main criterion for what makes heterosexual couples more valid, you are thus invalidating infertile heterosexual couples.
And on the topic of children: what is to say that children are any better off being raised by heterosexual couples? It is true that there are many studies to say that children of two parents do better than those of single parents (which is often attributed to financial security and available time spent with the child both of which are increased in two parent situations.) However, there is no evidence that these two parent situations are any better with parents of opposite genders than they are with parents of the same gender. In fact, of the few studies done so far on the topic, the consensus is that homosexual parental units are just as effective as heterosexual and the children are just as happy. I can name dozens of heterosexual married couples, many including children, who do not really love each other, who do it for deceptive reasons, and I know many kids raised in heterosexual households who are not happy at all, not for silly pubescent reasons, but for deep, hurtful, miserable reasons. There is nothing that says that a heterosexual marriage offers anything good automatically. To the DC church group who is somehow involved in foster care and adoption: how on Earth can anyone have a problem with children of the system going into loving households?
To your idea, TC, that anyone is promoting homosexuality: beyond the fact that the promotion of heterosexuality is rampant as the only "right way" in most places, no one is trying to promote that homosexuality is "morally good" because morality is variant based on who is asked. However, like we teach children that it is not okay to be cruel to and that they should be accepting of people of all races, religion, handicapped status, age, ect, we are simply trying to teach children how to be respectful able to effectively get along in today's diverse world without offending people and certainly without feeling that they have the right to harm them. If we are lucky, we can help them come to understanding.
And finally (though I am sure that I have missed several points), you repeatedly ask for a reason that same sex coupling would be valuable to society. Well I offer you this (though I am honestly and unfortunately sure that you will not consider it.): Let's start with marriage and the benefits that people like to repeat that it offers. Stability, trust, assurance, a more secure setting for raising children. Why is it that these should be something that only heterosexual couples are entitled to if these are the tenants which most proponents of any marriage promote? Or, as the joking retort sometimes goes, why can't homosexuals be entitled to the misery of any other married couple? Instead of denying marriage to certain people, why don't we all work on promoting it and improving it for all of those who want it, within reason? Are all people not entitled to these things that marriage supposedly offer? And from a legal standpoint, we all pay into this system, why are some of us able to take part in the benefits and some of us completely denied?
This is what I've always brought it down to. You do not have to like what someone else does, but you have no right to say that they cannot do it unless it is harming you or someone else directly.
Rob, TC can respond for hmself, however ...
You might talk about your concern for greater clarity is a good thing to bring up with SSMers who say, for example, that the Lawarence decision on private behavior amounts to public approval of that behavior -- and of "homosexuality". They say that SSM would not do what Lawrence has already done in that regard.
Likewise with SSMers who say that 3rd party procreation for one-sexed scenarios is allowed and that amounts to approval on par with marital procreation.
SSMers sure do believe that elevating, or promoting, SSM to the status of marriage is all about gay pride -- i.e. promotion of something to do with "homosexuality".
Is SSM possible without "homosexuality" in your view, Rob?
"To legalize is not to promote"
Actually it is. In California they're legalizing marijuana. How are teachers and parents going to be able to tell their kids that smoking marijuana is bad for people when the state says it's good? Will there be less marijuana use or more marijuana use once the law is passed?
Sara:
"Why are heterosexual couples more worthy of the social benefits, the tax benefits, the legal benefits that come from being married? "
Mother Nature is heterosexist. Get over it.
"there is no evidence that these two parent situations are any better with parents of opposite genders than they are with parents of the same gender. "
But since we are all the children of exactly one man and one woman, why would YOU deprive a little girl of her daddy?
Is "because I like girls (and not boys)" REALLY a good enough reason to bust up her natural family like that?
Sounds cruel and unusual to me, not to mention incredibly self-centered. Or maybe you're just angry at mother nature for making you female.
"And finally you repeatedly ask for a reason that same sex coupling would be valuable to society. Well I offer you this (though I am honestly and unfortunately sure that you will not consider it.):"
Sara, let's be fair here. Starting off with a presumption of mutual respect is much more pleasant and keeps the "you big meanie!" connotations out of the conversation where they belong.
"This is what I've always brought it down to. You do not have to like what someone else does, but you have no right to say that they cannot do it unless it is harming you or someone else directly."
Sara, Here we agree. That is the doctrine of plurality upon which freedom rests in our nation. You don't have to like what someone else does, they are free to do as they please, but they are not free to harm others.
The question then is, are homosexuals free to do as they please? Yes. No one is out rounding up everyone who has dabbled in same sex relations for execution in this nation right? That's because we believe in freedom, let people act as they choose, as long as they don't harm others.
So then the question becomes, is everyone entitled to call their chosen relationship marriage? That answer is clearly no. Even SSM advocates will admit that they are not really interested in allowing polygamous, polyamorist or bigamist marriages. Those are not good for society, family or children. That is the harm. While SSM advocates cry up and down that they are being singled out for discrimination, they turn a blind eye to every other category of people who are also disallowed from calling their relationships "marriage".
What is best for children, and only what is best for children is what ought to be promoted. Every child deserves a mom and dad. Adult sexual preference can never be allowed to supersede children's rights.
"I'm finding an incredible irony in TC calling the "homosexual agenda" a religion. You see, with saying that, you make it directly possible to take anything that you say applies to this supposed religion (which by the way is completely ludicrous)"
Sara, why? What is religion but a philosophy, a way of life? Do you disdain the word "religion" so much that you can't imagine your own philosophy of life to be on equal footing?
"Exactly because federal things and religious things are not supposed to mix, your morals should not have a bearing on the federal decisions which are made to progress society as a whole and to make life better for people."
Sara, if morality were banned from law, murderers would go free, rapists walk the streets and chaos would reign. Did you mean to say that morals you don't agree with should be banned from the law? Federal things and religious things are not necessarily polar opposites. Ideas can be held by many groups simultaneously, without either group condoning the other in entirety. The pope will probably never say that the state government is 100% correct, and the President of the nation will probably never say that the pope is 100% correct, yet they can agree that murder is wrong. As it should be.
Rather, as you said earlier and as I also said upthread, the public good has it's own test for any idea, that is on merit. That is why I posed the question: "What the benefit was to society of promoting the philosophy of homosexuality as normal good and right."
Evan Wolfson, a gay man and a constitutional lawyer and one of the most prominent leading lights among SSM advocates has basically conceded that the immutability argument is a red herring and that the religion comparison is the one that he likes best.
Maybe Sara disagrees with Wolfson for reasons other than Wolfson's advocacy of SSM?
I like the idea of all philosophies on equal ground. It's the only fair assumption to make in the arena of ideas. That way all can be considered equally, on the evidence.
Chairm, first off, you're talking about how SSMers are claiming that legalizing something amounts to "approval" of that behavior. Can you name these SSMers for me? So far, only TC is making the assertion that legalization equals approval, not the SSMers
Second, you say, "Is SSM possible without "homosexuality" in your view, Rob?"
Well, of course -- just as a gay man and a lesbian can wed in an opposite sex marriage without heterosexuality. Such marriages, of course, while legal, don't fit the criteria of a loving romantic commitment to building a permanent life together that -- and that's the real meaning of marriage for most married couples, straight or gay.
So what are you getting at?
Rob, you've been participating in these comment sections for some time. I'll trust you can keep your eyes open for the next time an SSMer remarks on those points.
Meantime, marital status is a special status. Do you agree? If yes, then, merging SSM with marital is promoting it to a special status. The SSM campaign's emphasis on gayness pretty much shouts that the goal is to promote that as of the utmost importance. Do you disagree?
* * *
You said: "Such marriages, of course, while legal, don't fit the criteria of a loving romantic commitment to building a permanent life together"
Loving? Romantic?
This is about the societal significance of the social institution to which a license and status is accorded. That is not about personal motivations. It is not about governmental approval of such motivations, as per your previous remarks, right?
Providing health care to a gay or lesbian partner -- a basic human right, according to Church teaching -- is an end in itself and no more legitimizes that marriage than giving communion to a divorced person legitimizes divorce, or giving food or shelter to an alcoholic legitimizes alcoholism.
"Meantime, marital status is a special status. Do you agree?"
What do you mean by "special"? This is leading us back to my questions to TC about what he means by "promote." I keep getting lost in these undefined terms.
I can boil my part down to this:
I believe that homosexuality and heterosexuality are morally equivalent.
I believe that the federal government should not treat homosexual and heterosexual unions differently.
I do not believe that granting equal status to these unions "promotes homosexuality" in the sense of causing people to become gay or urging them to engage in homosexual acts.
If these things are not what is meant by "promoting homosexuality" then I -- still -- do not know what this phrase is supposed to mean.
Chairm: Marriage is not about personal motivations? What? I can sense you're making an important point here, but I don't know what it is.
"Providing health care to a gay or lesbian partner -- a basic human right, according to Church teaching -- is an end in itself and no more legitimizes that marriage than giving communion to a divorced person legitimizes divorce"
You might have a point Rob if the benefits were being denied because of sexual orientation. That is not the case. The church gives benefits to gay employees, just as it does alcoholic employees. The fact is that the marriage status is the only reason that person would be receiving the benefit. You have to consider them married in order for them to claim the benefit. If the two people were heterosexual, in a shacked-up, unmarried relationship, they couldn't qualify for benefits either.
Marie, I believe your point was in intended for DS, not me.
"I believe that homosexuality and heterosexuality are morally equivalent.
I believe that the federal government should not treat homosexual and heterosexual unions differently.
I do not believe that granting equal status to these unions "promotes homosexuality" in the sense of causing people to become gay or urging them to engage in homosexual acts.
If these things are not what is meant by "promoting homosexuality" then I -- still -- do not know what this phrase is supposed to mean."
Nope, that pretty much covers it. Thanks for the honesty. Kevinn, another frequent poster here has said the same thing. He chuckles with glee at the idea of side by side booths at a high school human sexuality fair, one promoting homosexuality right next to the one promoting heterosexuality, complete with pamphlets, how to information guides, fisting kits, dental dams and of course the obligatory free condoms. Yeah, I'd say that pretty much covers it.
Quite a difference from the healthy respect for the creation of human life that most parents desire to pass to their children. Whether it is because homosexuality is sheer sexuality separated from procreation I'm not certain, but the common theme seen in the promotion of homosexuality is an invitation to sexual experimentation and the message that sexual capabilities are mere entertainment rather than a power to be used with respect and care.
OOp, you're right. Thanks. Rob.
TC Matthews,
Aside from completely misreading Rob's post (he said he *didn't* believe "that granting equal status to these unions 'promotes homosexuality' in the sense of causing people to become gay or urging them to engage in homosexual acts."), you blissfully spin the idea of comprehensive sex education into "promoting" homosexuality. The barrier methods you describe at this hypothetical "sex fair" (what in world?) like dental dams and condoms or "fisting kits" (yet another TC invention) could all be used in by people of any sexual orientation. I think your problem may be with sex education, but if you want your children to be woefully misinformed, have at it.
The real issue is this: homosexual behavior is not naturally procreative. But statistically 7-13% of the teens at your "sex fair" are LGBT. Telling them that there's nothing wrong with being gay and informing them how to be safe if and when they choose to have sex is *not* the same thing as telling them the "You should be gay! It's all about sexual experimentation!"
Oh, here's a fun fact. A prominent and oft-cited promoter of "changing orientations" (whatever that means) has suggested that, in order to keep teens from "becoming gay" (whatever that means), we should encourage them to engage in sexual experimentation with opposite sex partners.
TC
The vast majority of sexual encounters are for non-reproductive reasons. In other words, most people have sex for recreation, entertainment, making a partner happy, expressing love, etc.
Procreation is a minor reason for having sex. Given this, it’s hard to reason that heterosexuality and homosexuality are much different. There’s certainly no state interest in distinguishing between gay sex and straight sex, nor any state interest in distinguishing between straight couples and gay couples.
And yes, if sexuality is truly a choice, I think it best that school children, who are faced with “choosing” what sexuality to pick, be given the best possible information about the pros and cons of the various sexual orientations. So yes, a school sexuality fair, with information booths, pamphlets, spontaneous discussions with sexually experienced adults, makes a lot of sense. We want our children to make informed choices, don’t we?
I know plenty of little girls who would have been thankful to have been "deprived" of their daddy, Marty. Also, there are many, many examples of homosexuality in nature. Monogamy, if you'd like to go there, isn't very prevalent in mother nature.
The common theme here seems to be that most of you who are against homosexual marriage think that there is something inherently and tragically wrong with it, but what is so different about a homosexual relationship relationship from a heterosexual one other than genitalia and the related? heterosexuals, TC, are as free to do as they please as any homosexual couple, so why do they get marriage rights or why are they entitled to them and homosexuals aren't?
"To legalize is not to promote."
TC, no one is promoting marijuana use. They are simple acknowledging that there are certain situations where it can have a beneficial effect. Anyone who takes the time to sit down with their kid and explain this is not going to have a problem with it. Cough syrup is legal, are we promoting Meth production and use?
TC, i only put forth the presumption to make my feeling of futility known. I have read every response on this page and I know where I stand in this group.
Also, I personally don't really care who wants to get married as long as it isn't detrimental to others. For example, if some incestuous couple is really in love, whatever, but please make sure that they cannot reproduce. Polyamoury is something I wouldn't do but that I don't have a problem with. The world needs more love and sometimes these relationships help with fidelity. However, polygamy is often so one sided and about having the women as trophies that I cannot agree with it because it is harmful that way.
I was taught in elementary school that there are many, many types of families and all can work swimmingly. Grandparents, one parent, guardians, adoptions; if a child is loved, they will be loved regardless of what you think of the family. I know of lots of heterosexual couples who simply do not love the children.
You keep asking what homosexual marriage would bring to society, but my question to you is what is so detrimental about it? If they adopt kids, the kids get good homes. They get to be secure in their relationships the same as any other couple. How does that harm society or your marriage? I cannot see the harm.
And there is something called common sense, TC. You don't need a dogmatic code to have people know that murders should not walk free. I've never understood that concept. It's as if you're saying that the world would be in a total anarchy with chaos all over if there were not set morals. You need to give common sense more credit.
and Chairm, this discussion seems to be as much about how legitimate a homosexual relationship is in terms of love and commitment as it is about laws and statutes, so I think Rob is justified. And I still do not understand how giving homosexual couples the SAME THING offered to heterosexual couples is giving them special rights. They are getting the same things. Their taxes pay for the tax breaks and what have you. Its sort of like paying into a pool of money that they say you are going to get at age 35. You and every other person pays into this pool, but then when you turn 35, someone says that something innate about you is going to cut you ability to take part in your portion of the pool.
Now, of course it isn't all about taxes, but we are all citizens either way.
"I believe that the federal government should not treat homosexual and heterosexual unions differently."
Why not? It treats men and women differently, so why shouldn't it treat two of each differently? And differently from one of each.
Separate isn't equal, I thought we'd already learned that.
TC, I'm intrigued by this statement:
"Having the government dictate to people what they can and cannot believe, what is and is not morally acceptable, infringes on those rights and freedoms."
So what do you think about the religious freedom of churches that want to marry gays? Wouldn't your principle indicate that the government should let each church choose whether to marry gays?
TC, I'm not sure how you jumped from "homosexuality and heterosexuality are morally equivalent" to distributing fisting kits at high school fairs. There is nothing in my statements to justify that leap.
So, just for fun, let's take a survey of sexual ideals put forward by the gay activists in this thread.
Sara: Polyamory....is not something I have a problem with. Incestuous, fine. The world needs more love, but not polygamy.
Kevinn: all for explicit school fairs, with sexually experienced adults, experimentation pamphlets etc. We want our children making informed choices don't we?
and Rob who believes the government has a duty to promote homosexuality as right and good.
Boy the devil's in the details isn't it? Here I thought this was all just about "love".
Going further up the thread it only gets more interesting:
LT believes procreation is "no big deal" and that the state shouldn't make any special favors to encourage responsible procreation.
and is troubled that society does not see all deviant sexual variants as perfectly morally acceptable.
Kevin wants to make sure all sexualities are equally represented, especially in public schools: "Feel free to encourage the state to promote all variant sexual practices equally..."
Who knew that LGBT and Q was just the shortened nickname of the camel coming in the tent.
"Rob who believes the government has a duty to promote homosexuality as right and good."
Please quote the statement I made which leads you to that conclusion.
Human sexuality is a morally neutral concept. There is nothing right or wrong about being straight or gay. It's really past time to stop demonizing fellow citizens who are gay.
Raynd, I assume all sexualities are already present in schools, we just treat them differently sometimes. My point is, why? When talking about human sexuality, why not treat heterosexuality and homosexuality with equal respect and dignity?
Rob:
"Submitted on 2010/03/05 at 6:03pm
I can boil my part down to this:
I believe that homosexuality and heterosexuality are morally equivalent.
I believe that the federal government should not treat homosexual and heterosexual unions differently. "
Kevinn, the idea that how people act is a morally neutral concept is purely your religious philosophy. You are free to believe it, and even act on it, but why should the government promote it and teach it in public schools? We're not talking about treating people with human dignity, that is accomplished already. We were taught the golden rule when I was growing up, weren't you? Teaching lesbianism to promote kindness seems a bit round about don't you think? Why not just teach kindness?
Okay Raynd, you've quoted a statement, but you haven't quoted anything to indicate that I think "the government has a duty to promote homosexuality as right and good."
Try again?
Rob,
Would you care to clarify your statement? It seems quite straightforward to me. You believe homosexuality is right and good, and you believe that the government should treat homosexuality like it does heterosexuality. The government promotes things that are right and good, and if the law says that SSM is the same as marriage, then homosexuality is right and good, but don't take my word for it, just look at the mess in Massachusetts.
You can't say you're for one end of the stick but not the other, it's two ends of the same stick.
And again we're back to saying that making something legal is the same as promoting it. Which is unproved so far on this board, and in fact, people (including me) have offered counterexamples to show that not everything that is legal is necessarily being promoted. For instance, drinking is legal, but that does not mean the government promotes it by granting adults the special status of being allowed to drink.
Or do you believe that the government should only legalize things it wishes to promote? That's dangerously close to the Orwellian Big Brother maxim, "Everything not forbidden is compulsory."
Rob, let me adjust your analogy a bit, legalizing SSM is more like saying that drunk driving is the same as sober driving. Like Kevinn says, Alcoholism is a morally neutral concept.
"...legalizing SSM is more like saying that drunk driving is the same as sober driving."
Okay, here's my rebuttal: No it's not. And frankly that's as closely reasoned as your post was.
Speaking of which, you've still left me wondering:
Do you think that legalizing something is the same as promoting it?
And second, do you believe that the government should only legalize things it wishes to promote?
More specifically, Raynd, you're not addressing my point when you say that "legalizing SSM is more like saying that drunk driving is the same as sober driving.
My statement of "drinking is legal, but that does not mean the government promotes it by granting adults the special status of being allowed to drink" -- this was not intended as an analogy at all. It was a factual counterexample intended of how legalizing something is not the same as promoting it.
That's the issue I've been getting at this whole thread, and your analogy -- true or not -- does not address the legalization/promoting issue. It's actually a whole change of topic, and I'm not ready to leave this one yet.
Rob, Whether you personally agree with the gay activist movement on whether or not the government should promote homosexuality, the reality is that leaders of the gay movement do think so, and are already pushing policies that reflect that philosophy. See this from Chai Feldblum, and there are many more like it from Kevin Jennings on down:
"Feldblum has a high public profile. She has gone on the record many times arguing that the state has an obligation to support relationships other than heterosexual marriage. In 2006, Feldblum signed a document titled "Beyond Same Sex Marriage: A New Strategic Vision for All Our Families & Relationships." This petition offers a "new vision" for securing governmental and institutional recognition of "diverse kinds of partnerships."
By signing this petition, Feldblum also expressed her support for polygamy: Among the stated "partnerships" the petition seeks to protect are "households in which there is more than one conjugal partner."
Feldblum's advocacy of the homosexual lifestyle is quite startling, given the fact that she teaches at a Catholic law school. As a matter of fact, she is seen in this video arguing not only that the government has a duty to promote homosexuality but also proclaiming, "Gay sex is morally good." "
"...legalizing SSM is more like saying that drunk driving is the same as sober driving."
"no it's not"
Of course, because addictions to alcohol are WAAY different than sexual addictions..... and by the way, who are you to judge an alcoholic? Aren't they human too? Why do you insist on stigmatizing them?
How long was drunk driving legal before it was illegal? How long did it take for society to realize the detrimental effects of legalized drunk driving?
""drinking is legal, but that does not mean the government promotes it by granting adults the special status of being allowed to drink""
Homosexuality is legal, and as such, the government does not necessarily promote or forbid it, the same with drinking alcohol. It's not promoted or forbidden. The change comes with SSM. The government DOES promote marriage, and elevating SSM to the level of marriage means that it will also be promoted and sends the wrong message, especially to impressionable kids, just as legalizing drunk driving would send the wrong message.
You also have not addressed the very real promotions going on in Massachusetts and other states where gay activists have been pushing homosexuality in the schools as well as the public arena.
And we are back to the original question. What do you mean by "promote" and what do you mean by "homosexuality."
If you believe that legalizing same sex marriage will make more people gay, then you just don't understand what makes people gay.
And if that's not what you mean by "promoting homosexuality," then what is? I've been asking this question again and again and I still don't know.
Not every man who has sex with another man also experiences same sex attraction. Sexuality is a fluid thing, with people experiencing different levels of attractions for different people all through their lives. It doesn't matter what drives people to live a homosexual lifestyle, that varies from person to person and is their own business.
Honestly, if you were not so hung up on the idea that people's opposition to SSM was rooted in hate of people with same sex attraction, you would have understood this thread better. It may be cold to say that nobody cares whether you have same sex attraction or not, but as far as this conversation goes, that is true. The homosexual lifestyle is a choice, just like polygamy is a choice and polyandry is a choice. Bigamy is a choice. That is why there are so many letters in LGBTQ and so on. There are many deviant sexual behaviors that are all choices, just like monogamy is a choice.
All choices are not created equal. Some choices are better than others and I care not a bit about the carnal desires that lead men to choose whatever sexual behavior they wish to engage in. There are many less than optimal choices, but only one that is productive to society.
"Honestly, if you were not so hung up on the idea that people's opposition to SSM was rooted in hate of people with same sex attraction, you would have understood this thread better."
Who are you talking to? If you're referring to me, then I ask you where I ever said -- or even implied -- "that people's opposition to SSM was rooted in hate of people with same sex attraction."
“The government DOES promote marriage, and elevating SSM to the level of marriage means that it will also be promoted and sends the wrong message, especially to impressionable kids”
Could you explain the nature of what’s wrong with the message? I don’t understand what’s wrong with telling impressionable kids that it’s ok to marry someone of the same sex, if that’s who you fall in love with and want to spend your life with. To me, the more important message with marriage is to foster commitment, through thick and thin. Who you choose to marry seems like a minor, and very personal, issue.
Is gay marriage a small thing, a mere inclusion of people currently excluded? Or is redefining marriage a big deal that will affect everyone in lots of different ways? The more I look into it the more I see that the Sex Radicals oppose the Catholic Church, the Mormon Church, the Orthodox Jews, and the Evangelical world, precisely because these religions think that gender is real, that fathers are important, and that children ordinarily have rights to be affiliated with both their parents.
You're right. It's not a small thing at all Marianne. It's a cultural revolution packed into a cute little trojan horse with wedding bells hangin out the back.
It's true! If it weren't so serious, I would seriously laugh. You are right! It is all about changing the culture to fit their ideals. It's wrong. Wrong ideas.
Who are these "Sex Radicals"?
I love the blinking ignorance rob, but have you seriously read the thread?
"The more I look into it the more I see that the Sex Radicals oppose the Catholic Church..."
Sorry about my blinking ignorance, as you so charmingly call it. Your statement seemed to imply you were talking about a broad group of people in the marriage equality movement. I did not realize you were only talking about a handful of people posting on a particular thread.
Have you read any thread then? The stance is ubiquitous across any thread on this blog, facebook threads and youtube threads included. Sex radicals is exactly what I'd call them.
The interesting thing is that you can't bring yourself to be honest about it Rob. Look around. Even if you're not particularly enamored with the position the gay activist leadership is taking, you have to admit, they're taking the position, and running with it. It reflects poorly on everyone associated with the movement.
"The interesting thing is that you can't bring yourself to be honest about it Rob. Look around. Even if you're not particularly enamored with the position the gay activist leadership is taking, you have to admit, they're taking the position, and running with it."
Please be specific. What is "it" in your first sentence? Who are the "gay activist leadership" you're talking about, and what is the "position" that you're concerned with.
The problem is not my ability to be honest. The problem is that all I see are vague, unspecific buzz words and loaded terms.
Marianne, you've simply now defined "sex radicals" as "them" -- some undefined number of unidentified people who post unspecified comments on unnamed threads.
Here's an example of a specific comment:
Chris Matthews asked Peter Sprigg (of Focus on the Family) whether "we should outlaw gay behavior," and Sprigg answered "yes."
I trust no one here agrees with that sentiment; rather I'm offering it as an example of what I'm looking for. Instead of characterizing anonymous people as "Sex Radicals" and doing nothing more than giving us your interpretation of their views, do this:
* Name the person
* Show why this person is significant
* Tell me what the person actually said
Then we'll have something to talk about. Until then, I'm going to keep asking people to be more specific and define their terms.
I don't think Rob is up for this particular discussion. He still hasn't even acknowledged what Chai Feldblum, Kevin Jennings and many others in the gay activist movement, including the average joe posters on these boards have said--- that they are actively pushing for homosexuality promotion in the public arena and especially in the schools. As Kevin repeatedly points out, it's not just homosexuality they want pushed either. It's any sexual deviancy, regardless of the consequences to others. It's unfortunate that Rob's entire arsenal appears to consist of mock disbelief and petty ridicule, because I would really like to have someone, anyone on the other side of this debate stand up and say, no that's not what I believe, and condemn the leadership of their movement.
Rob said: "you just don't understand what makes people gay".
And you do? Please explain.
* * *
Rob, what is marital status, in your view?
Also, do you really think that personal motivations trump societal significance when it comes to eligiblity to marry? Really?
Marriage statutes show otherwise. Maybe you think that is mistaken and personal motivations ought to trump societal significance when it comes to a public license and public status.
Let's change gears for a moment from sexuality to the application of laws.
I believe that this thread is about a Catholic church based organization being required to implement changes to its policy for granting benefits to spouses of its employees based on a new law. If I understand it correctly, the church was required to either extend benefits to all spouses who meet the legal definition of a spouse of its future employees or extend them to none. In other words, the church was required to not discriminate based on gender in its policy governing the extension of benefits to legal spouses of future employees.
I also understand that the doctrine of the Catholic church opposes SSM. If the church was a non- tax exempt private entity, then it could discriminate against its employees. However the church is not a solely private funded entity and therefore it is subject to same the rules for any public money subsidized entity. This is especially applicable because some tax payers do not agree with the doctrine of the church. The 3rd option for the church would have been for it to relinquish its tax exempt status. That didn't happen because economics was critical to the church's operation. This is not a capricious attack on Christianity or any other faith for that matter. When public moneys are accepted certain rules apply. The bottom line is that the church elected to take the route that enabled it to be in compliance with the new law, adhere to its doctrine and keep the funds rolling in.
For those who do not think that this is fair, I ask 2 questions. It is also against church doctrine to divorce, eat shellfish and work on Sunday, yet secular laws allow all these activities. However, I have never heard of the church refusing to extend benefits to its employees' spouses who have previously divorced, eat crab and lobster and whose jobs require that they work on Sunday. The questions are:
1. Do you see the irony here?
2. Who chooses which doctrine to adhere to and which to ignore?
Rob says:
"Who are you talking to? If you're referring to me, then I ask you where I ever said -- or even implied -- "that people's opposition to SSM was rooted in hate of people with same sex attraction."
Did you intend your blog link to be private?
TC,
You never responded to this comment by Rob: "So what do you think about the religious freedom of churches that want to marry gays? Wouldn't your principle indicate that the government should let each church choose whether to marry gays?"
I feel that the question merits a response.
I assume you are a parent, as you state, "Quite a difference from the healthy respect for the creation of human life that most parents desire to pass to their children."
Actually, that is your own perspective. Most parents want their children to respect other people; but as you very well know, many parents have greater respect for women's reproductive rights than for the "creation" of human life, which even birth control pills prevent. Are you against birth control? If you aren't, then you certainly cannot claim to be "respecting the creation of human life."
As a parent, how would you reaction if your son or daughter came out as gay?
"TC, You never responded to this comment by Rob: "So what do you think about the religious freedom of churches that want to marry gays? Wouldn't your principle indicate that the government should let each church choose whether to marry gays?"
Onlooker, if you read the thread, we actually covered this quite extensively. The government is not there to enforce one religion's ideas over another. Consider the promoters of homosexuality to be part of a religion. They have ideas about the way things ought to be and philosophies they live by just like everyone else does, so let's call it what it is, a religion, a philosophy, a way of life. How does the government choose societal policy? Government may choose to promote something that a particular religion also promotes, but it has to do so because it is good for society, not because it is some faith based tenet of religion, otherwise it would be the equivalent of promoting state religion. That's why the question was asked, what good is homosexuality to society? Why should society, and government by extension choose to promote it at the expense of others?
The rest of your comment is an exercise in irrelevance. Respect for personal choice, people with same sex attraction, reproductive rights or human life are not points at odds with each other.
TC,
The government doesn't have to promote homosexuality or heterosexuality, these are things that happen with or without the endorsement of the government. Since when has anyone seeking a marriage license had to prove that their union and/or sexuality would some how provide a benefit to those not part of the union? I can think of several marriages that not only did not benefit others outside the marriage but left the partners broke. If someone applies for and obtains a marriage license, the government is not promoting their sexuality. A couple can engage in asexual activity and still get a marriage license. Are the applicants' sexualities requested on the marriage license application? Let's not pretend that everyone's marriage revolves around their sexuality or that sexuality is a requisite for marriage. The government is simply providing a vehicle for a legal contract between 2 people with certain rights and responsibilities with. If the majority of people are not required to prove why their particular marriage and sexuality should be promoted and some are, then it's unjustifiable discrimination.
Marriage law is about marriage and the societal significance of the social institution.
SSM is presented here as about personal motivations only. However, the SSM campaign promotes gay identity politics as a big ole trump card over everything else. That's the societal significance of the SSM idea.
And the SSM idea is at odds with the marriage idea. Merger does not make the two things compatable; rather, it guts the marriage idea of its core and promotes the SSM idea's central purpose regarding identity politics pressed onto all of society.
I realize that this comment thread is old, but I am hoping that someone will check in and see this. There is something about this DC story that I just don't understand and I was hoping someone at NOM could explain it.
DC has had a domestic partnership law in place for some years, which gives registered gay couples all the rights and benefits of marriage. It was unlawful to discriminate against DP couples.
This law was and is opposed by the Catholic Church. So how is it that the Catholic Church was able to continue to provide services under the DP scheme, without withdrawing partner benefits, but when the name of the DP arrangement is changed to "marriage", it suddenly provokes a crisis? It seems to me that there is no rhyme or reason to their actions. If they can provide benefits to DP couples, which they find morally objectionable, there is no logic in their being unable to provide benefits to the very same couples who now call their arrangement marriage.