Skip to main content

As a Unitarian Universalist I believe that marriage is an inherent right, no matter what the sexual orientation, or gender(s) of the people in couple are.  As the law stands now, the ban on gay marriage, violates my right to practice my religion.  

Some of the ministers of my faith refuse to proform any marriage until they can marry everyone in their congregation equally, some have even been arrested for preforming gay marriage ceremonies, as they are obligated to do according to our religion. If the state chooses not to recognize the marriage that's diffrent than arresting ministers for preforming the ceremony, as they have done.

If the Republicans want to make this about Religious freedom, let's go there.  This is America; your intolerance doesn't give your religion any more standing under the law than mine has.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I hear it said regularly that marriage shouldn't be a religious issue, but it is, so let's respect everyones religion when it comes to marriage.  No religious institution should be force to preform gay marrage, but no religious institution should be prohibited from it either.

Religions don't have the right to violate an individuals rights by forcing them to marry a person they don't love, nor does any religion have the right to force someone into a marriage they aren't capable or willing to concent to, but that is altogether diffrent than preforming a marriage between two consenting adults, no matter what their gender is.

Note: I'm appalled and offend by the people comparing polygamy to gay marriage in my diary, they two completely diffrent things; with two diffrent rationals for prohibiting them.  Polygamy has been historically associated with the abuse of women, and horribly misogynistic societies; it also leads to imbalance between straight women and men, as well as complicating divorce and inheritance law.  Not to mention it's a right wing talking point.

Originally posted to thenyouwin1202009 on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 03:04 PM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tips for religious freedom (22+ / 0-)

    "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." ~Mahatma Gandhi

    by thenyouwin1202009 on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 03:07:00 PM PST

  •  I agree that religious freedom is an (0+ / 0-)

    excellent argument against some religions enforcing their theology by putting it into state constitutions.

    I have found it to be the single most likely argument to change the mind of religious voters.

    That said, I doubt that any ministers have been arrested for marrying gay couples, and if you can't substantiate that claim you should drop it from your argument - it distracts from an otherwise good argument.

    We are powerless to act in cases of oral-genital intimacy unless it obstructs interstate commerce. - J. Edgar Hoover

    by tiponeill on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 03:13:46 PM PST

    •  I just added the link for that n/t (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tiponeill, Killer of Sacred Cows

      The computer deleted the link I thought I had there before.

      "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." ~Mahatma Gandhi

      by thenyouwin1202009 on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 03:26:39 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Apologies and thank you for that (3+ / 0-)

        Who would have imagined ?

        We are powerless to act in cases of oral-genital intimacy unless it obstructs interstate commerce. - J. Edgar Hoover

        by tiponeill on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 03:31:51 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's not quite so simple (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          tiponeill

          I followed the link and the crux of the matter is not that the clergy in question performed a church marriage but that they invoked the power invested in them by the state to make the marriage official. This was back in 2004 when the mayor of New Paltz, NY, following on Mayor Newsom's lead, began allowing the city to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. While things were still in a state of flux in New York in 2004, the state's highest court ruled later on that New York state law did not provide for a right to same-sex marriage, even though it was also ruled later on that marriages legally performed elsewhere had to be recognized in New York.

          I certainly agree with the UU principles. Additionally, I agree with you that allowing one  religion's doctrine about marriage to have precedence over another's is a clear violation of the First Amendment. However, in this case the clergy in question were acting not as clergy but as deputies of the state of New York. So as much as I support the spirit of the action, it's clear to me why they were arrested.

          If I could think of one thing that might help in this situation it would be to PROHIBIT anyone other than a secular official from solemnizing a marriage for legal purposes. In that case, churches could "marry" couples or not, but the only thing that would count would be what happened at city hall, not what happened at the altar, as is the case in France and Germany, but not in the US. Many people seem to misunderstand this very important fact, even here at dKos. I would even go so far as to suggest that this muddying of the waters has made the situation far more contentious than it needs to be, though in fact the idea that a member of the clergy can make a marriage legal is such a common practice in the US that I'm not sure there's a way to change it, despite the evident contradiction with the First Amendment.

  •  What God has joined together, let no man... (4+ / 0-)

    ...(person) put asunder.  Anything less is...well, less.

    And I'm an atheist.

    "NO! I will NOT yield!" Ted Stevens (R) Alaska

    by 4kedtongue on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 03:13:59 PM PST

  •  there's the little problem (5+ / 1-)

    of plural marriage . . .

    There is simply no justification, once one gets past the "between a man and a woman" thing, for "marriage" to be limited to only two participants (regardles of gender).

    There are already religions (including Islam and the original Mormon creed) which permit plural marriage . . . clearly a "religious freedom" argument would have to include them, and their practices and beliefs.

  •  I DISAGREE (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dennisl

    A civil union is in keeping with the state's authority to issue a "license to marry".  Marriage is a civil contract; privilege issued by the state and negotiated by the courts in case of dissolution. Religion is a guideline to achieving a level of adoration of one's God and the path to happiness as proscribed by their rules and regulations. A church has the right to sanction a marriage according to its practices. Marriage according to a "religion" is a choice and a privilege not covered in the constitution of the US.
    The state does not give "blessings".

  •  Arrested? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dennisl, thenyouwin1202009

    Where and how have UU ministers been arrested for performing gay marriages.

    The government shouldn't be in the marriage business at all. The state should recognize civil unions and leave it up to people to choose whatever manner they wish to sanctify it.

  •  This is not a good legal argument.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    the law of ducks

    ....and frankly pretty limited as a moral/political argument, given that there are religious groups that perform polyamorous marriages as well.  

    Religious groups may perform marriages that are not recognized by the state to their heart's content.  State law does not, and could not, deny them this freedom.

    "We're half awake in a fake empire."

    by Alec82 on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 03:26:12 PM PST

    •  It is a good argument for changing the opinions (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      thenyouwin1202009

      of religious voters

      We are powerless to act in cases of oral-genital intimacy unless it obstructs interstate commerce. - J. Edgar Hoover

      by tiponeill on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 03:27:43 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Is it? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        thenyouwin1202009

        I think that the best argument for religious voters concerned that their churches will be forced to marry gay couples is this: The First Amendment (trashed so often by religious conservatives) prohibits the state from forcing you to perform same-sex marriages.  

        I don't know how moved they would be by this argument.

        "We're half awake in a fake empire."

        by Alec82 on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 03:32:12 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I have had personal experience with it (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          thenyouwin1202009

          actually changing the opinions of religious folk who were immune to appeals to the First Amendment.

          When they realize they are forcing other religions to violate their theologies, they can see the injustice.

          We are powerless to act in cases of oral-genital intimacy unless it obstructs interstate commerce. - J. Edgar Hoover

          by tiponeill on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 03:36:53 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  allow the freedom, deny the tax benefits (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Alec82

      I can pretend that I'm married to every person in my zip code, but that doesn't mean I can claim them all as dependents on my tax return.

      The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. 388 US 1,12 (1967)

      by the law of ducks on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 03:31:26 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Please tell me ... (0+ / 0-)

    ... why this wouldn't work:

    1. Marriage as a civil and legal contract:  You go to the courtrhouse or the proper governmental authority to get married.  (And then ... optionally)
    1.  Marriage as a sacrement blessed by a religious institution.Some couples may skip this step and still be married.  Some churches may not bless some perfectly legal marriages, but the couples would still be married.

    That way you're not forcing anyone to change their religious beliefs, but you're still allowing gay couples to be legal married.
    I think marriage in several European countries works on this basis.

    I hope to die laughing.

    by altoid on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 03:44:36 PM PST

    •  I don't have a problem with combining the 2 (0+ / 0-)

      Not all churchs are bigoted, plenty will legally marry gay couples.

      "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." ~Mahatma Gandhi

      by thenyouwin1202009 on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 04:03:10 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Combinint the two is half the problem (0+ / 0-)

        if not more. We are prone to think of marriage as something sacred in the US, which makes it much easier for the more conservately religious to object to same-sex marriage because even where a marriage is entirely civil, those folks will never view it that way. The confusion is part of our national habit. And allowing clergy to act in the role of civil authority when it comes to marriage perpetuates that confusion.

        •  I'm arguing that it's not, if they want to (0+ / 0-)

          combine the two, that's fine by me, because my religion supports and endorses gay marriage. If they make that argument, answer it with this one "you're religion is not the only religion in Untied States, and other religions have an opposite perceptive on this issue.  What gives you the right to set the law for them?"

          "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." ~Mahatma Gandhi

          by thenyouwin1202009 on Tue Nov 11, 2008 at 07:10:43 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Ummm...that's pretty much how it works (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pucknomad

      right now in California (and most U.S. states I would assume) - pre- and post- Prop 8.

      1. you go get your civil marriage license from the government, and then
      1. you have a ceremony done where you say some vows (this step can be religious or non-religious as the couple prefers).  Finito.

      This is exactly how it is done now.  The idea that people were going to be "forced to change their religious beliefs" is the ultimate non-existant boogeyman.

      Welcome to California: land of sunshine and bigotry.

      by TichMarie on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 05:20:08 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  It may not be a popular opinion, but I (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Deward Hastings, jj24

    think that if you believe that same-sex marriage is a civil right that you also have to believe that polygamy is a civil right as well.

    The same arguments apply here.  Who is hurt by polygamy?  How does 3 or 4 others getting marry effect me?  How would it harm my same-sex marriage?

    It seems to me that the polygamists would have every right to call out same-sex advocates who don't support polygamy.

    I really don't see how a compassionate, rational human being, could strongly advocate for same-sex marriage but not for polygamy?  It seems the only arguments against polygamy are the same ones that are being attempted against same-sex marriage.

    If you are against polygamy, but for same-sex marriage, I think you need to look at yourself in the mirror and ask -- "Am I a bigot?".

    •  If the polygamy is between consenting adults... (3+ / 0-)

      I don't see a problem with it. I have a problem with it if its 14 year olds being pressured or conned into marriage, but legal adults?

      No problem here.

      As to any kind of marriage being a "religious" right? That's up to the religion/denomination/church, not the government.

      The government should get out of the marriage business entirely.

    •  I wish polygamists would argue for themselves (3+ / 0-)

      I know there are some. Could you press your case for yourselves please and quit leaving it to people who love theory?

      •  What is the "theory" you speak of? (0+ / 0-)

        Are you saying that polygamy is a theory until an actual polygamist comes on here to discuss it?

        Is same-sex marriage just a theory unless it is discussed by a someone in a same-sex relationship?

        I really don't understand what point you are trying to make.

        •  I'm pretty sure (0+ / 0-)

          The poster meant theory as in speculation, rather than something that didn't currently exist.

          My Unitarian Jihad Name is: Sister Shuriken of Freedom. What's yours?

          by sandiegoblues on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 05:47:19 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I am currently in a same-sex marriage (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Futuristic Dreamer

          Are you currently in a polygamous marriage?

          I can speak from personal experience, not theory. And I am tired of having polygamy show up in same-sex marriage debates. I am not interested in arguing whether a man can have 8 wives. But I would be interested in reading the personal advocacy of a man who has 8 wives or the affirmative testimony of one of those wives.

          But please keep polygamy discussions separate from same-sex marriage discussions. One does not naturally lead to the other. One does not require the other.

    •  I think only bigots make the argument (3+ / 0-)

      that my demanding equal rights with straight people is the same as advocating for polygamy.

      I am open to examining arguments from polygamists, but from what we know about polygamous societies - of which there have been many - they are inherently incompatible with female equality.

      So I think we have a rational basis to prohibit polygamy, whereas the courts keep finding no rational basis for prohibiting gay marriage, only prejudice.

      We are powerless to act in cases of oral-genital intimacy unless it obstructs interstate commerce. - J. Edgar Hoover

      by tiponeill on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 05:04:39 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It is so easy to throw around terms like (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Olds88

        "bigot", "closed-minded" and "hateful" isn't it?

        You seem to get irritated when same-sex marriage is compared to polygamy, however, many in favor of same-sex marriage are comparing it to the struggles for interracial marriages and get upset and cannot understand when interracial couples say it isn't the same.

        Funny, the same societal argument you try to promote against polygamy is similar to ones used against same-sex marriage.  Arguing that it is not good for woman is lame -- who is to say a polygamist marriage couldn't be between three men.

        •  Just my perception (4+ / 0-)

          because that is the first argument raised bigots who oppose equal rights for gays - they say if it allowed polygamy will be next, and then marrying goats.

          It isn't the same argument, however, because we have real life examples of polygamous societies and what they do to the status of women.

          As I said, if there are polygamists who want to argue their case, thats fine with me - I'm just pointing out that there ARE reasons besides simple prejudice for western society to have decided polygamy is a problem

          We are powerless to act in cases of oral-genital intimacy unless it obstructs interstate commerce. - J. Edgar Hoover

          by tiponeill on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 05:21:28 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  well I'd argue (0+ / 0-)

            that if polygamous marriage is permitted then gay marriage follows kind of naturally from that.  If it's OK for three women to marry it's kind of hard to say it's not OK for two women to marry.

            Don't know about goats . . . I'm not sure how they would demonstrate consent.

            Why do you object to three women being married?

  •  religious right? no. (0+ / 0-)

    Obama 44! So why are we moving to the right again?

    by jj24 on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 04:12:10 PM PST

  •  I was married by a UU minister (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    thenyouwin1202009

    My mother grew up in an evangelical household and broke with her parents because her father molested her.

    She took her kids to a Unitarian Church.

    Though I haven't attended a Unitarian service since I grew up I continue to have good feelings for Unitarians and we chose a UU minister to officiate at our wedding. We got married the weekend before the election and have our official state marriage certificate. Our minister was justifiably proud of the role of his church in the battle for justice.

  •  Suppose there was a religion (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sfbob

    that REQUIRED homosexual marriage?

    That might be interesting!

    •  There is, Unitarian Universalism (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      plf515

      At least we are required to treat all marriages equally, regardless of the gender or sexual orientation of the people in the couple. That's the point of this diary.

      "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." ~Mahatma Gandhi

      by thenyouwin1202009 on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 04:32:28 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  are you "required" (0+ / 0-)

        to treat triads equally, or just couples?  What happens if three women come to a UU church and say they want to be married?

        •  Just couples. (0+ / 0-)

          If three women came they would be respected, but not ordained by the church as a marriage like two women could be.

          "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." ~Mahatma Gandhi

          by thenyouwin1202009 on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 04:39:08 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  why? (0+ / 0-)

            What makes two OK but three not?  Is there some sort of moral objection to three women loving each other?

            •  The bond between 2 people is sacred, (0+ / 0-)

              when the love between 2 people is split 3 ways it becomes something else.

              "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." ~Mahatma Gandhi

              by thenyouwin1202009 on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 05:34:50 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  you realize, I suppose (0+ / 0-)

                The bond between 2 people is sacred,

                when the love between 2 people is split 3 ways it becomes something else.

                how much that sound like

                The bond between a man and a woman is sacred,

                when the love is between two men or two women in becomes something else.

                •  Are you for or against same-sex marriage? (0+ / 0-)

                  Yes or No.

                  "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." ~Mahatma Gandhi

                  by thenyouwin1202009 on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 05:56:04 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Polygamists arent denied the benefits of marriage (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  thenyouwin1202009

                  like gays are, because they are perfectly capable of having a loving relationship with one and only one partner, while LGBT people can't have their relationship with one person they love recognized by the state.

                  Polygamy is a choice, being gay is not.
                   Or do you believe being gay is a choice too?

                  Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction.

                  by Futuristic Dreamer on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 06:06:58 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  being married is a choice (0+ / 0-)

                    which should be available to any group of people who wish it, regardless their genders.

                    If three women wish to marry they should be able to.  And if they wish to bring a man (or two, or three) into the marriage, well, why should they not all have the same rights as a couple?

                    The discussion has nothing to do with whether being gay is a "choice" or not (and I know people who chose to go both ways).  It is about whether consenting adults of any gender or number should be entitled to the civil rights included in the institution of marriage (instead of the current system, which limits those rights only to hetrosexual couples).

                    If three women love each other why shouldn't they be permitted to marry?

                    •  The only way you can equate gay marriage&polygamy (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      thenyouwin1202009

                      is if you believe being gay is a choice, because polygamy definitely is.

                      Why should Gay & Lesbian people have their right to marry one person tied to people who want to marry more than one partner?

                      I see no moral or ethical justification for denying one groups rights because you can't do whatever you want.  In fact I find it extremely offensive that you're arguing for a free-for-all or nothing. Quit whining you can't marry 3 people, and start thinking about the person who can't marry anyone of the gender they're attracted to.

                      Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction.

                      by Futuristic Dreamer on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 07:12:59 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  your lack of concern (0+ / 0-)

                        for the rights and feelings of other human beings is quite appalling.

                        You "find it extremely offensive" that three women might want to marry. Or three men.  Or two and one, either way.  You would deny Muslims, or Mormons, or anyone who follows the examples in the Old Testament, or any of a number of Pagan beliefs the right to marry under the terms of their own religion.  

                        I find that indistinguishable from the bigoted insistance that marriage can only be between a man and a woman.  It is also narrow minded bigotry to imagine that you have a right to tell people who and how many they may, or may not, love and marry.

                        If three women love each other why shouldn't they be permitted to marry?

                        •  You're a troll (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          thenyouwin1202009

                          Your trying to use liberal philosophy to equate same-sex marriage and polygamy.  When you meet someone who can only fall in love with two or more other people then you'll have a case, until then quit denying gay Americans the right to marry a person they love.

                          Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction.

                          by Futuristic Dreamer on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 10:06:17 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  let's see . . . (0+ / 0-)

                            You can't come up with any unbigoted reason why three women shouldn't be able to marry, and that makes me a troll.

                            Right.

                            Maybe, just maybe, it's you who should quit denying gay Americans (and all Americans, for that matter) the right to marry the people they love.

                          •  You're a troll coming on this blog to weaken the (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            thenyouwin1202009

                            argument for gay marriage by associating it with polygamy.  What class of people's rights are denied by not allowing polygamy?  None.

                            What class of people's rights are denied by not allowing same-sex marriage?  Gay & Lesbian people.  Give me one good reason why their rights should be tied to the rights of people who want to marry more than one other person?

                            Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction.

                            by Futuristic Dreamer on Tue Nov 11, 2008 at 07:00:52 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  "What class of people's (0+ / 1-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Hidden by:
                            Futuristic Dreamer

                            rights are denied by not allowing polygamy?"

                            The "class" of all people.

                            "Give me one good reason why their rights should be tied"

                            Because the rights of all people should be equal.  "Equal rights" means equal rights.
                            There should be no special rights just for the people you favor, who make the marriage choices you approve of.
                             
                            Why should three women who love each other not be permitted to marry?

                          •  HRed for right wing talking points & homophobia (0+ / 0-)

                            So you admit you think being gay is no different than being a polygamist?  That shit doesn't belong on Kos.

                            Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction.

                            by Futuristic Dreamer on Tue Nov 11, 2008 at 02:22:16 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  your continued rating abuse (0+ / 0-)

                            speaks volumes at to who the bigot is in this discussion.

                          •  You're not having this discussion in good faith, (0+ / 0-)

                            so the HR is justified.  You're arguing that gay marriage = pologymy and that's actually an argument against gay marriage.

                            Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction.

                            by Futuristic Dreamer on Tue Nov 11, 2008 at 07:43:32 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Oh, an by the way . . . (0+ / 0-)

                            Since I've already stated support for gay marriage (as a subset of support for all kinds of marriage among consenting adults) how on earth do you read "homophobia" into it?

                            Why should three women who love each other not be permitted to marry?

                          •  You don't understand that some people are only (0+ / 0-)

                            attracted to people of the same sex, which is the definition of being gay.  That's bigoted.

                            Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction.

                            by Futuristic Dreamer on Tue Nov 11, 2008 at 07:44:48 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  you haven't got a clue (1+ / 1-)
                            Recommended by:
                            blueness
                            Hidden by:
                            Futuristic Dreamer

                            what I "understand".  

                            Why do you hate lesbians?

                            Why should three women who love each other not be permitted to marry?

                          •  You don't know what a lesbian is (0+ / 0-)

                            A lesbian is a woman who is attracted to other women.  Most lesbians have one life partner, just like most straight people.

                            You seem to be confused, and believe that a lesbians requires two, not one partner(s).  That's a lie and a bigoted one.

                            Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction.

                            by Futuristic Dreamer on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 08:40:01 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  not even wrong . . . (0+ / 0-)

                            A lesbian is a woman who is attracted to other women.  

                            Interesting that you use the plural "women" . . .

                             Most lesbians have one life partner, just like most straight people.

                            There is no evidence that single partner lifetime monagamy is any more common among lesbians than it is among straights (where it is not common at all).  Lesbians "hook up", just like everyone else.  Lesbians sometimes "live together" and "commit", just like everyone else.  And then they commonly "break up" (or divorce, if married), just like everyone else.  They have "affairs", just like everyone else (with or without the consent of their "partners", just like everyone else).  And sometimes they practice polyamory, sometimes including men (there's a "B" in LGBT, in case you hadn't noticed).

                            In the extended community (city) in which I live, and which I have observed for well over 40 years, I've seen it all.  The lifetime single partner is the rare exception, regardless gender.

                            You seem to be confused, and believe that a lesbians requires two, not one partner(s).  That's a lie . . .  

                            I suffer no such "confusion" and have said nothing to suggest that I do.  That lie is yours to own, not mine.

                            Noted also is your continued intellectual cowardice, and rating abuse.  But "hide" rating the question won't make it go away . . .

                            Why should three women who love each other not be permitted to marry?

                          •  The fact that 2 married people may not be (0+ / 0-)

                            together forever doesn't mean that 3 people would be.

                            Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction.

                            by Futuristic Dreamer on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 05:48:29 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  It is equal if everyone can marry 1 person of the (0+ / 0-)

                            gender they're attracted to.  It's unequal for only straight people to be able to marry someone of the gender they're attracted to.

                            Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction.

                            by Futuristic Dreamer on Tue Nov 11, 2008 at 02:48:50 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  by that "standard" (0+ / 0-)

                            it is also "equal" if everyone can marry 1 person of the opposite gender.

                            I don't agree . . . either with your version of "equality" or your inability to count past "1".

                          •  No, because not everyone is attracted to people (0+ / 0-)

                            of the opposite gender.   title=  Why can't you get that through your head?

                            That's what this is all about.  It is a civil rights issue for people who aren't attracted to people of the opposite gender.

                            Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction.

                            by Futuristic Dreamer on Tue Nov 11, 2008 at 07:39:03 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

      •  Not quite what I was asking ... (0+ / 0-)

        suppose a religion defined marriage as ONLY being between two people of the same sex?

    •  Indeed (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LuvSet, plf515, thenyouwin1202009

      And while I don't know of anything, let's consider the case of the Metropolitan Community Church. MCC was founded in 1968 by an openly gay minister. MCC membership is predominantly LGBT. So the overwhelming majority of the unions that MCC clergy perform are same-sex unions. Denying such a thing would be anathema to them and has been since the inception of the MCC.

      Why should not MCC's views on the subject hold equal weight with that of the Mormons or the Roman Catholic Church? Unless perhaps we are violating the intent of the First Amendment.

  •  This is a touchy issue, we should all realize (0+ / 0-)

    Before you think this is going to be an apologia for the banning of gay marriage, let me just say upfront that I support homosexuals having the same exact rights in this regard as heterosexuals. I don't support the government being involved in marriage at all, but there should be equal treatment.

    The mixing of religion and gay rights is a difficult one to navigate.

    I'm an Episcopalian, and my denomination, which tends to be on the liberal side of Christianity, has had an enormous division in no small part over homosexuality and its role within Christianity.

    Most of the division in our denomination comes from outside the U.S. I would say about 85% of Episcopalians in the US have no problem with Gene Robinson, an openly gay bishop, who's confirmation helped create the schism in the worldwide Anglican communion.

    No, most of the division comes from outside the U.S. primarily Africa. And I won't try to soft-pedal that a lot of that is cultural prejudice. But some of it has to do with Africa's experiences with AIDS which, mistakingly in the minds of many there, is still connected with homosexuality.

    But there is a lot for Christians, even open-minded ones, to consider. The Bible doesn't speak kindly of homosexuality. So, I can understand why a lot of Christians really struggle with this. Unless you are willing to simply call Paul a homophobe and dismiss everything he says, its hard getting around what he says about homosexuals.

    My attitude is that while Paul is a revered figure within Christianity, he is not Jesus and not God. Paul, to paraphrase Bishop John Shelby Spong, had "some issues" concerning sex and sexuality, to say the least.

    But, I think, in time, this will turn away from prejudice and towards acceptance. Jesus said to love one another...he didn't mention exceptions to the rule.

    That love to me overrides anything that Paul or other church figures might have said, or continue to say. We're all susceptible to prejudice, myself included, and I'm not going to look down my nose at other people's failings.

    But I will continue to speak out for gay rights and equal treatment whenever I can and hope and pray that, one day, homosexuals who still quietly have to sit in church, or serve their country, or work in board rooms, can just be themselves without having to worry about being mistreated for who they are.

    •  As a religious person (4+ / 0-)

      are you even slightly capable of telling the difference between a legal marriage conducted by a justice of the peace and a sacrament conducted in your church ?

      Because THAT is the topic under discussion with Prop 8 - as a gay person I really don't give a damn if your church wants to perform services for gays or even allow them in the building.

      But I care very much about my rights as a citizen of the US.

      And I am interminably frustrated by religious people who refuse to recognize that there is a difference and want their priests to determine my rights.

      We are powerless to act in cases of oral-genital intimacy unless it obstructs interstate commerce. - J. Edgar Hoover

      by tiponeill on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 05:14:34 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes... (0+ / 0-)

        actually, I think government should be completely out of the marriage business for everyone, with civil contracts between people for whatever reason they want.

        If you can point out where I said what you seem to think I said, be my guest.

        Attacking allies...that's a good approach..

        •  The problem with some allies is that (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Futuristic Dreamer

          they make the situation worse, not better, by continually confusing civil marriage with religion.

          The government HAS to be in the marriage business because marriage is a legal state - if we kept religion out the legal marriage business it would make more sense.

          In some countries to be legally married you have to see a government offical, and then those people who wish to can go have a religious ceremony  seperately.

          Saying the government should be out of the marriage business just confuses things, which isn't very helpful in a ally

          We are powerless to act in cases of oral-genital intimacy unless it obstructs interstate commerce. - J. Edgar Hoover

          by tiponeill on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 05:45:54 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Fine... (0+ / 0-)

            go find everyone who thinks just like you do, drive out all the "heretics" from the temple, and....

            you'll be just like the Republican Party is about to be, with a bunch of close-minded social conservatives talking into their own echo chamber.

            Good luck...

            •  How is it closed minded (0+ / 0-)

              to state the fact that civil marriage is a legal entity ?

              I am just trying to prevent rampant confusion which only serves the purposes of the religious right.

              We are powerless to act in cases of oral-genital intimacy unless it obstructs interstate commerce. - J. Edgar Hoover

              by tiponeill on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 05:58:12 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  Nope. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          tiponeill

          Marriage already belongs to the state.  
          No reason to give state property to any priest, preacher, rabbi, minister, shaman, witchdoctor, etc.  

          Let the religious folk keep their sacraments, rituals, rites, ceremonies, and spectacles but don't allow them to touch anybody's civil rights.  

    •  Why on earth... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tiponeill, thenyouwin1202009

      .... would a secular government give a fig about what a Christian holybook or religious figure (or a Jewish prophet, or a Hindu god, or a Santeria witchdoctor, or a Harry Potter character, etc.) thinks?  It's meaningless to the American legal system.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site