Gays against gay marriage????????

[Thizz]

I don't mean to stir up a debate about gay marriage, but I've come across some disturbing evidence of gays against gay marriage. There is a group in and around my neigborhood of openly gay man and women who protest the gay community to stop pushing for gay marriage. they, apparently, believe in that whole sanctity of marriage schtik that politicians like to put out.

So, the question is, any people here against gay marriage.

[DVC~OKW~96]

I've had similar discussions. Some folks who are in same gendered partnerships don't want anything to do with a ceremony (or legal bonding) that has anything at all to do with heterosexual values.

I'm not certain that you are talking about the same type of objections, but I just wanted to let you know that I've run across some couples (and singles) who do not support gay marriage.

As a faintly related off topic comment, I was driving today (have to travel locally for my work quite often) channel surfing and kept hitting this same christian radio station. Every time my search feature picked it up there was a reporter talking about what a threat homosexual marriage was and how everyone had to rally to be certain it was not allowed. Every time. I was on the road today for over three hours. I just found that a little extreme. :sad2:

OK. Back to topic. Sorry. :guilty:

[mickeysaver]

I really want the legal protections that are automatically set in place when you are legally "married". I could care less about the religious ceremony aspect of being "married". I do wish that someone would get a clue and realize that the religious joining and the legal ceremony are two distinctly different things. If we could remove the religious side of the issue and focus on the legal side, there would be a much healthier and rational discussion of the issue. Maggie

[OrlandoMike]

Damn it! I want the wedding! I've put up with enough crap for the past 10 years from him! :rotfl2: I love him to death, but it aint official till it happens in Vegas, by an Elvis impersonator, and an open bar tab!

I WANT EQUAL RIGHTS!

[wallyb]

Damn it! I want the wedding! I've put up with enough crap for the past 10 years from him! :rotfl2: I love him to death, but it aint official till it happens in Vegas, by an Elvis impersonator, and an open bar tab!

I WANT EQUAL RIGHTS!

Wow! :banana: I want to come to this one. Will Charo be there?

[mickeyfan2]

I know heteros who live together but NEVER want to get married. They see it as a piece of paper only.

As it is now the paper gives you many rights that those without it are denied. I feel that all couples should be afforded that right. I too believe that the religious marriage and goverment paper are two very different things. The second is more important for our life here and to some the first is important in the their next life.

[OrlandoMike]

Wow! :banana: I want to come to this one. Will Charo be there?


Ah Dah! Ya! Maid of honor!

[RickinNYC]

I've no doubt that there are some gay folks who don't think we should have the right to marry. And I think they are as guilty as any straight person of absolute idiocy for wanting to deny anyone basic, equal, HUMAN rights for consenting adults. And you can throw in a HUGE amount of intense self hatred into the mix.

[wallyb]

And they are called:
Log Cabin Republicans.

Sorry - devil made me.

[TuckandStuiesMom]

you are bad. (but adorable) :rotfl:

[DVC~OKW~96]

Can't agree more with the need for separation of religion and civil in the context of marriage.

In Mexico, there is both; the religious ceremony, then the civil one. The religious one is not recognized without the civil one!

Here we endow the religious with the legal/civil powers.

It would be wonderful to have two complete factions; with or without. Then the many differing religious entities could marry (or refuse to marry) whom they please, while the civil ceremony remained open to all!

An Elvis impersonator? That's soooo yesterday! ;)

[majortom]

And they are called:
Log Cabin Republicans.

Sorry - devil made me.

Sorry, you are wrong, and it this attitude that makes it much harder to push equal rights forward. In this (http://online.logcabin.org/news_views/reading-room-back-up/an-open-letter-to-president.html) letter, the Log Cabin Republicans support Gay marriage and oppose a constitutional marriage amendment. William Jefferson Clinton, favorite of many gay Americans did more to harm gays then most presidents before or since. He took an Executive Order banning gays from serving in our military and turned it into a law (much harder to change) that has resulted in more gay servicemen being discharged than before. Not only did he not veto the Defense of Marriage Act, or let it become law without his signature (as happens with most laws), he signed it and then advertised on Christian radio stations that he had done so.

What made this possible? His knowledge that the largest majority of gay voters would vote for him and his party no matter what he did. Why do some Republicans push for this amendment? They have no doubt that no matter what they do, they will only win a tiny percentage of gay American voters and so they appeal to other voters.

Until their is a contest for our votes, both parties will continue to ignore our issues (or work against our rights).

/carmi

[wallyb]

Uncle!
Happy.

[mickeyfan2]

Can't agree more with the need for separation of religion and civil in the context of marriage.

In Mexico, there is both; the religious ceremony, then the civil one. The religious one is not recognized without the civil one!

Here we endow the religious with the legal/civil powers.
This is not true. Just being married in a Church does not make you married in the eyes of the state. When we got married we had to go to the state and get a marriage license. The Priest who performed the ceremony was registered with the state to officiate over state recognized marriages. If we got married without that paper and three signature (officiator - Priest and two witnesses - MOH and BM) the state would not have recognized the marriage.

[skoi]

Hi there! I'm not gay- but I happened to see the post title highlighted as I was scrolling down the board and would like to offer a thought on this. When I was in grad school- a department with a fairly large minority of gay and lesbian students almost every one was opposed to gay marriage as it "replicated the injustices of the patriarchal system". They believed we had to get past these strictures and create a new society, etc. Perhaps this is part of it?

My view- I can see the legal worry on the part of churches that feel that it would be against their teachings to marry gay people. I've heard this expressed by religious people, who are afraid gay marriage will be used as a test to attack specific churches for political purposes. I'm not agreeing or not, but can understand this concern. HOWEVER, as a very observant yet non-aligned Christian, I see no problem with legal marriage for any two consenting adults. In fact, this is one of the issues over which we left our church. I didn't want our kids hearing anything we would judge as homophobic, because honestly, I don't want to have to then explain how our gay friends aren't "bad" when they come to our house for dinner. And our middle one would ask- "why are Mr X and Mr Y living a sinful life?" :scared1: And my answer, "well honey because the state won't let them get married," wouldn't play well when he reported it back to his Sunday school teacher.

Sorry to get OT, but just want to get it out there that not all conservatives and Christians oppose gay marriage and are raging homophobes. Oh, and Major Tom- agree with you on the Clinton administration don't ask, don't tell.I knew a Marine sergeant in for 18 years who got booted out as a result. He lost all chance at retirement because he "left" before twenty.

Thanks for reading. Sorry for the intrusion, and I'm going off to where I was headed originally.
Julie

[njchris]

My view- I can see the legal worry on the part of churches that feel that it would be against their teachings to marry gay people. I've heard this expressed by religious people, who are afraid gay marriage will be used as a test to attack specific churches for political purposes. I'm not agreeing or not, but can understand this concern.

I wonder why this would even BE a concern? I have not heard it said ANYWHERE that churches would have to marry gay people. Would it not be the same as a Catholic Priest that will not marry Jewish people in their own faith (or the other way around). If the concern is that we would force churches to marry us, why would it not be a concern that Jewish people will start storming Catholic or other christian churches as well?

There are plenty of religious organizations that do not believe the same things, and that anyone not following their religion will go to hell.

Anyway.. that wasn't an attack on you, Julie.. just wanted to throw some more food for thought your way.

Don't some other countries have Gay marraige? Have they fallen apart? Has Massachusets imploded?

[DVC~OKW~96]

Hi Mickeyfan. I didn't make it very clear, but that is what I am talking about. Religious (priests, ministers, pastors...) are endowed by the state to allow them to perform legally binding marriages, so yes, the state is involved in some respect.

It is a good argument to let the state continue to be the final authority and if someone wants religious overlay, they can choose to do so.

[skoi]

I haven't said any societies would fall apart or implode. I don't think that.

But it is a concern among some denominations. No one said they would have to, but many churches have become litigation shy. I've read Tammy Bruce (and I know a lot of people disagree with her, and she's been called a "traitor", etc) among other commentators discuss this possibility- because people with a political axe to grind have done similar things before. Don't know if it would happen, just saying it's a concern I've heard expressed among people in more conservative churches including the Catholic church. Maybe it's a slippery slope argument, but I think it's a genuine worry people have, that their churches will be legally attacked if they defend their doctrines.

To answer your example directly, the Catholic church isn't pressed to marry Jewish couples, because Jewish couples don't ask to be married in the church. They have no reason to. If a gay couple did, and they were refused, you don't think there are advocacy groups who would undertake a lawsuit or campaign against the Catholic church? Just asking- because this is the fear people have based on past political actions. No matter if you agree with it, there are Christians and Catholics who truly believe their faith is under attack, and people are looking for any and all ways to get them. Again- I'm not saying this, but this is their belief based on personal experience and the sort of litigation they see coming into courts recently.

Thanks for the food for thought. I'll pass it on in my discussions with church people. As I said, I'm in favor of gay marriage. Marriage is ultimately a legal contract, and we really should sever it from the religious dimension. If you want words said over your union by a religious authority, fine, but a judge or other government official should have to sign that license. On the other hand, I've had Libertarians tell me that the state should have nothing to do with marriage because the state has no abiding interest in it.

Sorry for the wordy reply (can you tell I used to be an historian in my pre-mother life?). I just wanted to be give a thorough answer so as not to be misunderstood, being a guest and all.

Julie

[njchris]

I haven't said any societies would fall apart or implode. I don't think that. I didnt mean that you did.. just an extra comment.

Just saying it's a concern I've heard expressed among people in more conservative churches including the Catholic church. Maybe it's a slippery slope argument, but I think it's a genuine worry people have, that their churches will be legally attacked if they defend their doctrines. A genuine worry or an excuse to continue to spout hateful comments behind a shield of God? I have not heard from ANY of the gay people I know (nor do I think it) that we want churches to change. It's unfounded.

To answer your example directly, the Catholic church isn't pressed to marry Jewish couples, because Jewish couples don't ask to be married in the church. They have no reason to. If a gay couple did, and they were refused, you don't think there are advocacy groups who would undertake a lawsuit or campaign against the Catholic church? Ok, let me just say this.. Gay people do not have a single hive mind. They are people with different thoughts and wants and desires.. just like everyone else. I do not think that this situation would have any backing from the majority of homosexuals. This is not about changing what the churches do. It's really totally OUTSIDE of that. Just asking- because this is the fear people have based on past political actions. what past actions exactly?

No matter if you agree with it, there are Christians and Catholics who truly believe their faith is under attack, and people are looking for any and all ways to get them. Again- I'm not saying this, but this is their belief based on personal experience and the sort of litigation they see coming into courts recently. Oh, I understand that's what they say. It's unfounded. How is someone's faith under attack? It's theirs.. nobody can change them unless they want to change their faith. Faith is not a tangible thing that anyone can dictate. I don't think what I believe or have, could possibly affect someone else's faith and beliefs.


Thanks for the food for thought. I'll pass it on in my discussions with church people. As I said, I'm in favor of gay marriage. Marriage is ultimately a legal contract, and we really should sever it from the religious dimension. that would solve a lot of problems ... but I don't see that happening.

Sorry for the wordy reply (can you tell I used to be an historian in my pre-mother life?). I just wanted to be give a thorough answer so as not to be misunderstood, being a guest and all. at least you are open to talk about it.

[Viki]

To answer your example directly, the Catholic church isn't pressed to marry Jewish couples, because Jewish couples don't ask to be married in the church. They have no reason to. If a gay couple did, and they were refused, you don't think there are advocacy groups who would undertake a lawsuit or campaign against the Catholic church? Just asking- because this is the fear people have based on past political actions. No matter if you agree with it, there are Christians and Catholics who truly believe their faith is under attack, and people are looking for any and all ways to get them. Again- I'm not saying this, but this is their belief based on personal experience and the sort of litigation they see coming into courts recently.




Interesting question, Julie, but let me point out that I turn down requests to preside at the wedding of folk for all sorts of reasons and the RCC does so even more frequently.

[skoi]

NJchris:

When I said their faith- I don't mean it in a spiritual sense, but in an institutional sense- faith= religious institution. I should have used the more accurate term. Sorry.

There are people in established conservative churches who are really worried they'll be sued on violation of civil rights grounds if they refuse to marry a gay couple because they're gay. They reach this conclusion because of actions by groups who have done things like come into Catholic churches and demand communion, and based on the media portrayal of the most militant activists. They look at things like kids not being able to give out Christmas pencils or wear religious T-shirts in school as an infringement on their rights, and think "if this can go to court, what's going to happen to us if we refuse to marry a gay couple". Might be faulty logic, but that's what some are thinking. And they really believe it. If one can't credit the other side with genuinely believing what they're saying, then there's no point in talking about anything anymore.

The fact that the initial legalization in Massachusettes came through the courts and not the legislative arm gives a hint to why the conservatives think their churches will be sued and punished via the court system. They see groups with an agenda contrary to theirs using the courts to get their way, so what would stop a group such as the one which demands the Eucharist knowing full well they can't get it, from suing a church when their petition for marriage is refused?

Just wanted to answer your points. If anyone really wants to discuss further, feel free to pm me. It's on duty weekend for dh- so I'm witht he kids solo and might not answer so promptly though.

Thanks for having me, and now back to the regularly scheduled topic...

[ksoehrlein]

I know this is a serious question, but IMO the best answer to the question of why are some gays opposed to gay marriage came out of the mouth of a (straight) radio morning show personality.

You know the stereotypical straight-guy-in-a-long-term-relationship-who-looks-for-excuses-not-to-get-married? The DJ's take on gays opposed to gay marriage was that some of them feel the same way as that sterotypical straight guy: "You know I'd love to marry you, baby, but that darn law..."

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Honestly I don't know how anyone for any reason can demand any sacrament in any religious institution.

For as long as forever--a religious institution could refuse to peform the nuptials of any couple. You cannot sue to make a pastor marry you to your partner as marrying in a religious institution is not a legal requirement for marriage. Nothing prevents you from going to the courts and having it done yourself.

(current legal restrictions on homosexual unions aside--merely talking about things as they are present and they should not be changed if and when homosexual unions become legalized. If religion cannot be forced on the government, the government cannot force themselves on religion. Religion is a choice and if a particular one doesn't match your lifestyle, you have three choices: accept it and change (obviously not possible for many), not accept it and find a new religion that accepts you, not accept it and wait until the one day that they do.

Suing a church b/c they won't let you participate in the manner you wish to participate is nonsense. We'd have lots of rediculous lawsuits if they allow even one to litigate successfully.

Not to mention, I know many of the religions are worldwide. I just cannot see how the United States could pratically force a religion to do anything against its beliefs without threatening the religions status abroad. (for those religions with a hierachy outside the United States that they must adhere to).

It creates a 1st amendment nightmare.

[Viki]

For as long as forever--a religious institution could refuse to peform the nuptials of any couple. You cannot sue to make a pastor marry you to your partner as marrying in a religious institution is not a legal requirement for marriage. Nothing prevents you from going to the courts and having it done yourself.



Yes, in fact, let me say again that as an orained minister I have denied weddings and I have denied the eucharist. I have denied weddings to people who should not be marrying and I have denied communion to people who, kneeling at the altar, were too filled with rage to ever be filled by Christ.

I am certainly not denying how some people feel, anxiety and all. In fact, by answering their fears with my experience I am taking them seriously.

And just to round out my refusals I have also refused baptisms because that ritual is a 3-parter (God's promises, the parents' promises and the congregation's promises) and in my opinion the parents/sponsors weren't up for their end of the bargain.

It's amazing, isn't it? A lesbian with standards.

[MrVisible]

This is a really interesting discussion, and I have to thank skoi for presenting his perspective on the religious perspective so clearly.

If a part of the resistance to gay marriage is based on the idea that churches will be forced to marry gay people, wouldn't it make sense for the Democrats to introduce legislation to prevent exactly that? "No church or religious organization that finds that homosexuality is outside the scope of acceptable activities for their parishioners will be required to perform marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples." Or some such verbiage.

It would take away some of the religious right's ammo against us, and at the same time safeguard the traditions of the churches.

It's a thought...

[HappyLawyer]

i'm against marriage period, gay, straight, black, blue, green-lol i'll never do it again, i hope not at least,

[dkostel]

If I were in a relationship :rolleyes: I'd want the LEGAL rights afforded by marriage. I don't really care if my relationship were recognized in the eyes of people who presume to speak for God. And I do have friends who belong to religions who are against them in practice (althought not in concept :confused3 ) who would prefer to marry in their church. But, they would never sue to do so.

[smartestnumber5]

I've never known any glbt people who believed, as the OP described, in the sanctity of marriage crap as a reason why same-sex marriage shouldn't be legal. But I've known many glbt people who are skeptical of marriage for anyone or who have reservations about the political strategy of fighting for same-sex marriage at this point.

I think pretty much all of these folks as well as those totally in favor of same-sex marriage realize the gravity of the legal rights denied to those who can't marry. But the two groups disagree on why that denial is wrong. One group thinks it's okay that those rights are tied to a the legal instution of marriage so long as the gender of one's partner doesn't preclude one from having access to marriage. The traditional definition of family is okay so long as the sex of the spouses/parents is opened up. The other group doesn't think it's okay that the rights are attached to the institution of marriage at all. They think the traditional definition of family isn't appropriate--that ties of parenthood and marriage aren't always the most important ties that people have, and legal institutions should reflect this. For instance, suppose there are two roommates or siblings (of whatever combination of sex) who have no romantic or sexual relationship at all, but have lived together and considered one another the most important person in their life for years now, and neither has any interest in romantic relationships. The current political strategy in terms of same-sex marriage won't change anything for such people--same-sex marriage or not, they will still be denied all of the legal rights of marriage because the kind of love they haven't isn't the "right" kind. But why should who gets one's health insurance be a matter of the kind of love those two people have? It seems that both glbt people and people in situations like those above would be benefited if all of those legal rights were simply tied to a general one-size-fits-all legal contract, and marriage were left as a non-government insititution.

Of course, as a practical matter it's much more likely that we'll get same-sex marriage before any change in legal rights being attached to marriage, so I don't see why such glbt people should be against same-sex marriage. But it makes sense that some might have political reservations about it.

[SeattleRedBear]

There are people in established conservative churches who are really worried they'll be sued on violation of civil rights grounds if they refuse to marry a gay couple because they're gay. They reach this conclusion because of actions by groups who have done things like come into Catholic churches and demand communion, and based on the media portrayal of the most militant activists. They look at things like kids not being able to give out Christmas pencils or wear religious T-shirts in school as an infringement on their rights, and think "if this can go to court, what's going to happen to us if we refuse to marry a gay couple". Might be faulty logic, but that's what some are thinking. And they really believe it. If one can't credit the other side with genuinely believing what they're saying, then there's no point in talking about anything anymore.

The fact that the initial legalization in Massachusettes came through the courts and not the legislative arm gives a hint to why the conservatives think their churches will be sued and punished via the court system. They see groups with an agenda contrary to theirs using the courts to get their way, so what would stop a group such as the one which demands the Eucharist knowing full well they can't get it, from suing a church when their petition for marriage is refused?
Having read this, I can understand the fear based on recent court and federal government actions regarding charities that are associated with churches. Wasn't there a case in Massachusetts of a church-affiliated adoption agency that was required to consider gay/lesbian couples and instead they just stopped providing services (apologies if I got this wrong). If government can (correctly IMO) enforce equal rights laws in the case of church charities, what is to prevent them from enforcing them in the case of church practice?

As said by others, I agree completely with the view that churches have nothing to worry about in this area. But based on what's happened with charity (eg, civil) activities, I can understand the concern.

[padalyn]

Well - just to add a little more fodder to this VERY interesting thread. The "marriage" thing isn't the ONLY right that really needs to be looked at. Don't forget to consider:

Hospital visitation - if one partner (gay or straight) is admitted to intensive care - unless a blood relative or married - the other can not visit...

Survivor rights - the death of a partner does NOT automatically mean the survivor gets the jointly owned home or other possessions...

Living Will / Health Care Proxy - unless one specifically designates one's partner (or someone) as the advocate - it is deferred to the parents of the gay person - married legally means the spouse gets that lovely honor...

"gay marriage" is really a misnomer - maybe we should consider that anyone who chooses to NOT have a religious ceremony should be allowed to call it something else. Marriage is a church term if I understand this all correctly - partnership is a more correct term for the joining of two people as a couple. This is really a thing that affects the heteros that simply live together also. Some states allow common law marriage. But the couple STILL has to register the partnership.

I have been preaching this for years...no one seems to realize that living together or even taking the time to draw up the ridiculious contracts to create the legal "illusion" of marriage means NOTHING. The courts will simply rip it all to pieces. One needs the support of ones family - both sides.

<climbing back down off the really big soapbox now>

[Psychometrika]

This is a post where I could go off on my speeches about how organized religions have brought more death, despair, hopelessness, greed, corruption, rape, molestation, and hatred into the world than all the agnostics and atheists from the beginning of time. But I won't.

For those interested in this history of marriage, read (I cannot remember his name) a book by a Univ of Chicago professor on the origins of marriage. It is an enlightening read.

We need to distinguish between a state marriage contract and a religious marriage. NEVER has ANY church or church organization been required to do ANYTHING they didn't agree with in the modern United States on the order of marriage, apart from the mormons and abusive practices in some sects. Ever. Similarly NEVER has ANY church affiliate charity been forced to do this. Where these alleged lawsuits exist are in situations where public money is being used to support bigotry.

Case in point, the Boy Scouts. Why should a group who espouses hatred (I was a former boy scout) be allowed to use public school buildings who are bound by the the laws of our land. The scouts don't need to admit Jewish folk or gay folk - but my tax money should not be used to support those who would deny me my rights. They can meet and set their own rules - in their own building. Not on public property.

With the demon spawn presently in the White House the lines are blurring more than ever. What the fundamentalists don't realize it that they are only hurting themselves in the long run. To separate church and state is as much a protection for religions as for the state. Several notable clerics, with independent brains, have in fact written editorials about this issue. Unfortunately the Wal-Mart masses have little ability to comprehend larger arguments and simply listen to Rush, Fox, and their local fire-breathing preachers.

I would remind us of our nation's history. The puritans weren't a group of poor, beleaguered simple folk yearning to practice their religion. They were a group of religious zealots, direct from Cromwell, who wanted the freedom to practice THEIR own religion - but to deny it to others. The founding fathers were deists, not fundamentalist christians. Their god was not the trinity, etc. Their use of the term god, as much tradition, as spiritual. In fact, Jefferson assumed most of the nation would become Unitarian.

Alas, I've lapsed anyway. Apologies. But as a man, married to another man, I am constantly enraged by our present society. I remember the ACT UP days... whatever happened to them? Lambda and GLAD can't take on all of society alone. People power is ultimately what works.

But this is the Happiest Board on Earth...so I'll stop now and go ready for Expedition Everest.