Today is a sad day

[Zecryphon]

Believe it or not, when this was first raised on a widescale basis I felt working toward same gender marriage was a waste of resources. So did the established LGBT civil rights groups. It was from the grassroots the push toward marriage came. It's what the more apolitical, hard-working less affluent LGBTs want. Their reasoing is "our marriages are every bit as holy and sacred as heterosexuals' marriages are" and they are right about that.

And your scriptural support for the marraige of two people of the same sex as holy and sacred is found where?

 

[Zecryphon]

I think a lot of people dream about getting married and now those dreams can come true in California.
tulc(I know I like being married)

Don't you mean a lot of gay people dream about getting married and can now do so? Well wait that's not true. Graham Norton once said that half the fun of being gay was never having to get married.

 

[Zecryphon]

Religious groups do work to enact legislation, and they have that right. The problem comes when religious groups succeed in enacting laws that reflect a point of purely religious doctrine, with no secular purpose.

So you're ticked off when religious groups who disagree with you get their way and you don't? That's understandable.

 

[Ohioprof]

So you're ticked off when religious groups who disagree with you get their way and you don't? That's understandable.

That's not what I said. The issue here is not whether I or anyone am "ticked off." The issue is when and whether a law, imposed on everyone, reflects a religious doctrine only, without a secular purpose, and thus violates the separation of church and state. This can be a tricky question, as Supreme Court rulings have demonstrated. It's tricky because many laws, perhaps most, are both consistent with people's religious doctrines and expressive of a secular purpose, or a broad social need or social good. When that is the case, there's no problem, and the Supreme Court has recognized this with its Lemon test. Overlap between religious doctrine and a secular purpose, or broad interest in the common good, is fine. The problem arises when there is no overlap, when a law is enacted purely to impose a religious doctrine on everyone in the society.

Your argument earlier suggested that majority rule would tend to reduce the likelihood of this occurring, and that may tend to be true, but it isn't always or necessarily true. You have also noted that a majority of Americans are religious, and this is true depending on how one regards "religious." Many Americans are nominally religious but not actively so, and there are people of minority faiths and people of no faith. For the majority, who may embrace certain religious doctrines held by Christians, to impose those doctrines on those of minority faiths or of no faith, is to impose a particular religious morality or viewpoint on people who don't subscribe to that religion or to that morality.

Same-sex marriage is a clear example of this. The majority may oppose same-sex marriage based on their religious beliefs, but a significant minority holds different beliefs and supports same-sex marriage. Civil marriage, as the Supreme Court has ruled, is a fundamental right, and it's an institution that protects and benefits families and children. Families and children are disadvantaged by couples not being granted the equal right to a civil marriage. I don't care that many Christians oppose same-sex marriage. They are free not to recognize it in their churches and not to perform same-sex marriages. I do care that I am not permitted under the law to protect my child through legal marriage because of the religious beliefs of many Christians. I have no problem with people holding whatever beliefs they want and practicing their faith, but when they impose their religious beliefs on me by denying me equal treatment under the law, then their expression of their religion has gone too far.... intruding into the state in the form of laws that govern everyone, including people who do not hold their religious beliefs.

A similar situation used to exist with inter-racial marriage, which was banned by state laws for most of American history. The Supreme Court struck down the laws banning inter-racial marriage, not on the basis of the establishment clause, but on the basis of the 14th amendment. However, I would argue that state laws banning inter-racial marriage also violated the establishment clause, because they were rooted in religious beliefs solely, and they were the imposition of some people's religious beliefs on everyone else. But the plaintiffs, the Lovings, did not base their lawsuit on the establishment clause, and the Supreme Court did not rule on that basis.

You may ask, but if a majority supports the laws, isn't that enough to justify them? I would answer no, majority opinion alone does not determine what is constitutional. That's why we have a bill of rights and the 14th amendment, which requires that states grant equal protection of the laws to all. The U.S. constitution provides protections for the rights of minorities, including people of minority religious beliefs. As I said earlier, we secure our rights most effectively by winning over public opinion. But sometimes to win over public opinion, you have to win first in the courts, and public opinion follows. This was certainly true with the African American civil rights movement, where the Supreme Court issued the rulings, and the movement worked nonviolently to get the rulings enforced and to change public opinion. In the case of the women's suffrage movement, the activists did not win initially in court; the Supreme Court ruled in the 1870s that although women were citizens, the right to vote was not guaranteed by the 14th amendment or by the U.S. constitution at all, and it was up to each state to determine whether women could vote. Activists had to win over public opinion state by state and eventually to win a constitutional amendment to enable women to vote nationwide. It took them more than half a century to achieve.

There is often a dance that activists must do, tacking back and forth between working through the courts and working at the grassroots to win over voters. This back and forth process has been pretty effective in certain states in gradually winning marriage rights or civil unions for gay people who form same-sex couples. We have seen a mixture of court victories and legislative victories, and in many states, so far, we have seen mostly defeats at the hands of voters. But we aren't giving up.

 

[Archivist]

Don't you mean a lot of gay people dream about getting married and can now do so? Well wait that's not true. Graham Norton once said that half the fun of being gay was never having to get married.

Graham is entitled to his views, but he certainly does not speak for all homosexuals.

BTW, I saw that George Takei, who played Sulu in Star Trek, has wed his long-term partner.

 

[tulc]

Don't you mean a lot of gay people dream about getting married and can now do so?

No, I meant a lot of people dream about getting married.

Well wait that's not true. Graham Norton once said that half the fun of being gay was never having to get married.

uhmmm that would be one guy, one guy isn't actually "a lot of people".
tulc(sort of thought it would be obvious "a lot of people" isn't "everybody")

 

[Archer93]

Graham Norton makes his career out of being outrageous and facetious.
He is not a spokesman for the whole LGBT community.

Out of interest- were you being facetious when you refered to his comment?

 

[MercyBurst]

Don't you mean a lot of gay people dream about getting married and can now do so? Well wait that's not true. Graham Norton once said that half the fun of being gay was never having to get married.

The gay-advocates keep telling us there is no difference between a gay relationship and a straight relationship so they can "look straight" to us. It's their homophobic repression acting up.

 

[Ohioprof]

The gay-advocates keep telling us there is no difference between a gay relationship and a straight relationship so they can "look straight" to us. It's their homophobic repression acting up.

Huh? Can you explain what you mean here?

 

[BreadAlone]

Your argument earlier suggested that majority rule would tend to reduce the likelihood of this occurring, and that may tend to be true, but it isn't always or necessarily true. You have also noted that a majority of Americans are religious, and this is true depending on how one regards "religious." Many Americans are nominally religious but not actively so, and there are people of minority faiths and people of no faith. For the majority, who may embrace certain religious doctrines held by Christians, to impose those doctrines on those of minority faiths or of no faith, is to impose a particular religious morality or viewpoint on people who don't subscribe to that religion or to that morality.

I see. So the viewpoints of the small minority, in this case regarding homosexuality, should be forced on the majority of people who disapprove of homosexuality? I don't think so.

 

[Ohioprof]

I see. So the viewpoints of the small minority, in this case regarding homosexuality, should be forced on the majority of people who disapprove of homosexuality? I don't think so.

No. You are and always will be free to disapprove of "homosexuality." That's your choice. Equal marriage rights under the law reflect only that: the equal protection of the laws for all, regardless of people's religious beliefs. The equal protection of the laws for all means that the laws are neutral when it comes to people's beliefs about "homosexuality." The laws simply provide equal protection, equal treatment. It's up to individuals to decide what they believe about this or any other issue. You are free to disapprove of my being gay. You are not free, however, to deny me the right to marry my spouse under civil law because you disapprove of my being gay. Likewise, I am free to think that your religious beliefs are wrong. I am not free to deny you the right to marry your spouse under civil law because I disapprove of your religion. Remember that I'm talking civil law here, and civil marriage, not religious marriage. Of course you and people of your faith can refuse to perform religious marriages of same-sex couples in your church. That's religious freedom.

In granting the equal protection of the laws to all, the state in effect is being neutral on the issue of "homosexuality." But when the state denies the equal right to marry to any group of people because of the religious beliefs of the majority in the state, then the state ceases to be neutral and becomes an advocate for a religious doctrine, and that violates the establishment clause of the first amendment, in my view.

You should also be aware that it's not a small minority that accepts gay people as we are or that supports same-sex marriage. Polls show that a majority of people in Massachusetts now support same-sex marriage, and a near majority of people in California do also. Across the United States, roughly 30 percent of people polled say they support same-sex marriage, and the percentage is higher when the question is asked if people support civil unions for same-sex couples. It's a pretty sizeable minority, and the support for same-sex marriage and civil unions is growing. A clear majority of Americans polled by Gallup now says that they find "homosexuality" acceptable.

 

[Archivist]

I see. So the viewpoints of the small minority, in this case regarding homosexuality, should be forced on the majority of people who disapprove of homosexuality? I don't think so.

Ohioprof is correct in what he said in his excellent post.

If you have issues with homosexual marriage then you should work to have the 14th Amendment to the Constitution repealed.

BTW, I understand that a majority of Americans were opposed to desegrated schools at the time of Brown v. Board of Education. We govern based on law, not polls.

 

[Ohioprof]

Ohioprof is correct in what he said in his excellent post.

If you have issues with homosexual marriage then you should work to have the 14th Amendment to the Constitution repealed.

BTW, I understand that a majority of Americans were opposed to desegrated schools at the time of Brown v. Board of Education. We govern based on law, not polls.

FYI, I am a she.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Poor understanding, really, for what they had on their hands was a man deeply affected by a stronghold of homosexuality, a demonic presence, which he needed deliverance for.

Hah! What they had on their hands was an overeagerness on their part for poster children for the fraudulent doctrine that sexual orientation is mutable and should be changed out of faith. They (FRC & Focus) got caught with their pants down and quickly spirited the Paulks away because it served their hateful agenda well.

 

[Texas Lynn]

That question is not a misuse of Christian faith.
​

Additional litmus test? What's the first litmus test?

I would suppose it would be to proclaim oneself a Christian. Perhaps in your megachurch they do it by changing their voter registration to Republican.

 

[Texas Lynn]

And your scriptural support for the marraige of two people of the same sex as holy and sacred is found where?

I believe I have stated to you directly previously that I am not a fundamentalist. Therefore whether or not such exists is of no concern to me.

These sort of inquisitorial questions appear to border on badgering.

Please understand not all Christians are fundamentalists and move on. Thank you.

 

[Texas Lynn]

I see. So the viewpoints of the small minority, in this case regarding homosexuality, should be forced on the majority of people who disapprove of homosexuality? I don't think so.

The "force" involved is that your faction cannot count on being able to utter a homophobic slur free of criticism anymore. You are free to say and believe what you wish. You are not free to do so free of criticism, ever.

Your assertion a "majority of people disapprove of homosexuality" is true in some sense but not in others. In vague terms a poll question could be asked "do you disapprove of homosexuality?" which in the U.S. would probably net a plurality; asking "Would you refuse if asked to walk your lesbian daughter down the aisle in her same gender wedding because you disapprove of homosexuality?" I think it's be tough going for you to get 20%.

 

[BreadAlone]

Please understand not all Christians are fundamentalists and move on. Thank you.

You need to understand that the belief that God has revealed his holy will to us in the Scriptures is not one exclusively held by the fundamentalists. If a "Christian" does not even believe the Bible is the Word of God, how can they very well know just who God is and what some "christ" has to do with anything. You can't cherry pick with the Bible..well, you can, but you'll find yourself in sinking sand..

 

[HaloHope]

You need to understand that the belief that God has revealed his holy will to us in the Scriptures is not one exclusively held by the fundamentalists. If a "Christian" does not even believe the Bible is the Word of God, how can they very well know just who God is and what some "christ" has to do with anything. You can't cherry pick with the Bible..well, you can, but you'll find yourself in sinking sand..

As has been said many times before theres a distinct difference between "cherry picking" and interpretting differently. a BIG difference.

As for the Bible being the Word Of God, it is for me at least a book influenced by God, a guideline to bring people into a personal relationship with God as it were. However, it most certainly does not trump ones personal relationship with God and what a person believes as a result of prayer or God revealing something to them.

 

[MercyBurst]

Huh? Can you explain what you mean here?

As one gay advocate said, gay monogamy is homophobic because gays must repress their sexual desires by limiting themselves to one partner. This is emotionally unhealthy, where gays conform to the "straight rules" so they can look straight, sound straight, and feel straight to obey their own homophobic repression.