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

[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 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 ) 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.