So When Did YOU Come Around on Same-Sex Marriage?

[aristocatz]

Okay flamers, come and get me.
I honestly don't understand why we could not offer the same benefits of marriage to same gender couples, but for the sake of compromise, call it a civil union rather than marriage.

Not here to flame, but I just have a really hard time understanding why there needs to be a compromise. Who are they compromising with-churches? If that is the case, would Jews & other non-Christians be exempt from this? I'm not trying to be snarky at all, I just don't get it. Why do they have to compromise at all? Who benefits from the compromise?

I do understand churches being nervous about being forced into performing same gender marriages, if that is not what they believe.....though I don't think there is anything to worry about.

I guess one of the main things that I took from this ruling (aside from the obvious), is the whole notion of separating church and state. Those opposed-it's all for religious reasons, right? I've read other rationales, like same gendered couples can't pro-create, therefore its unnatural, but that would mean that all infertile couples shouldn't get married either, according to that idea. Marriages have always been legal unions....or at least have been so long before the gay marriage issue came about.

I guess what baffles me the most is: those opposed feel their religious beliefs should control this legal issue......but now that same group of people are now upset & concerned that this legal ruling will control their religious beliefs........why was it acceptable for religion to have any say in government, but its not ok for government to have any say in religion??

Again, I don't believe churches should be forced into anything & I definitely do not mean to flame or insult.....I just don't understand.

 

[Goofy'slady]

I've never been against it however, that doesn't mean I still don't have my views on the matter. I will say this - it's none of my business who someone marries and now that our government has given their stamp of approval on the matter who am I to stand in the way of two ppl's happiness. I've been married and now I'm divorced so who am I to say this person has no legal right to marry who they choose? NONE!

 

[bcla]

That is a PUBLIC business. If you are going to do business with the public, then you do business with ALL the public. That's different from a denominational based religious organization.

You don't see Christian churches being sued because they wouldn't preform a Muslim ceremony. No church is going to be MADE to perform a ceremony outside their beliefs.

Now a courthouse is non denominational and a government office, they absolutely have no right to deny a license or refuse to perform a ceremony based on the law.

Frankly these states saying that clerks and JOP's should have the right of refusal on contentious observer beliefs are full of BS. Get another job, if you work for the government then you do what's legal. Your religious preference has no business there.

The problem is that it opens up a huge slippery slope when someone can claim that their religious beliefs prevent them from providing a pretty ordinary service depending on who the client is. It could be the race of the client. It could even be the religion of the client. One could claim one thing in their religious beliefs that a member of the same church might not think is prohibited.

Granted - I got a degree from a catholic university, and found out that any current student or graduate can get married in the main church on campus. It can be of pretty much any religious denomination (although if one participant is catholic they require the ceremony to be catholic) , but they have a requirement that it be a religious ceremony of some sort. I'm curious as to their stand on same-sex ceremonies (just looked it up and there's nothing specific).

Granted, I noted that there was one case in Northern Ireland where a bakery was fined for not decorating a cake to a customer's specifications, which was "Marriage Equality for All". That may be the point where free speech rights are higher. That wasn't like the Colorado case where the owner simply wouldn't provide an undecorated cake when he found out what the intention was (a SSM reception).

 

[pryncess527]

Some of you may also find comfort in the wording of the decision. Justice Kennedy absolutely upheld your religous rights to oppose same-sex marriage.

from page 27 of the decision:

Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine pre-cepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons. In turn, those who believe allowing same-sex marriage is proper or indeed essential, whether as a matter of religious conviction or secular belief, may engage those who disagree with their view in an open and searching debate. The Constitution, however, does not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex.

EVERYONE'S rights were upheld on Friday. That is why it was such a joyous day. The religious rights of those who SUPPORT same sex marriage were protected, because they are now allowed to marry their congregants in accordance with their interpretation of scripture. The religious rights of those who oppose same sex marriage are protected, they will not be compelled to perform or endorse them. And equality for EVERYONE under the eyes of the law was protected because the government is no longer favoring one religion, or even just one interpretation of one religion, over others.

 

[ZephyrHawk]

I don't think I was ever against it. There was probably a time in my life where I had never considered the idea before, but once someone suggested it to me as a possibility, my response would have been, "Sure, why not?"

 

[DopeyDame]

I'm going to encourage you to think about this from a different direction.

Christianity does not have a monopoly on the word marriage. Marriage has traditionally been a civil institution designed to formally recognize lifelong relationships and families. Across the globe, this has, for centuries, been used to describe a wide variety of relationships -- sororal & non-soral polygyny; fraternal and non-fraternal polyandry, monogamy, group marriage, etc. The concept of marriage has existed in many different cultures, religions, and legal frameworks.

Perhaps it would be a decent compromise, if those who wish to keep their religious institution separate from the legal concept of marriage that is not bound by religious law, if a different name were given to those religious ceremonies and unions. Maybe those should be called "religious unions," and they can have the same rights and privileges, just call it something other than marriage.

Great point - and actually it sort of already is that way. Catholics celebrate the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony. A priest (sometimes the Bishop, depending on the particulars) gets to decide who and how the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony is performed. I would be aghast if the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony were dictated by the Supreme Court or any legislature. But a marriage license - that's issued by the county (or state or district) and should be equal for all people.

 

[Jaime4004]

I don't ever remember being against same sex marriage. Like many other PPs, I probably never thought much about it until college. It wasn't a hugely discussed topic in high school and i'm sure that's generational. I haven't had any gay close friends or family members (that I can think of) that made me think about the topic more. It was gradual, first thinking that who other people love or marry is not related to me and not my business. It evolved to outrage that anyone could legally discriminate against others.

I also grew up Catholic and went to catholic school until 11th grade (maybe I should say I was born into a Catholic family, I never believed in any of it or considered myself catholic.) No indoctrination, I can't remember any preaching against gay people or abortion, etc. I think I attended a pretty liberal catholic church in MA.

 

[tasha99]

I've been for it since I was a teenager. I left a church in the mid-90's because members were passing around a petition for what became a measure designed to limit rights and protections for gay people. That's when I found my agnosticism, decided I didn't like the people at that church all that much, and never went back to organized religion. Most of my friends in high school were gay, and frankly, some of my friends in the military (though they weren't allowed to "tell.")

Okay flamers, come and get me.
I honestly don't understand why we could not offer the same benefits of marriage to same gender couples, but for the sake of compromise, call it a civil union rather than marriage.

Because the words matter. If they didn't matter, groups opposing gay marriage wouldn't even suggest this. Gay people want what other people want, and to make it something different is just a subtle way of saying they are "other."

I went to Catholic high school. I don't remember ever being against it or even being told that I should be against it by the church, but it wasn't common around me at all, so I never gave it much thought. I always remember hearing that being gay was genetic and not a choice, and that 10% of the population was born that way. DH was actually in the military around the time of the whole "don't ask don't tell" and the passing of DOMA. That's the first time I met any gay people (that I knew of- although several classmates have since come out) actually- and some of them would get married to opposite *** gay people just so they could live outside of the barracks. I am so glad now that none of that shenanigans has to go on just for someone to live their lives as who they are. Anyway, I've never been against it, but it's probably only in the last 15 years or so that I've really opened my eyes and been actively FOR it.

DS17 went to Catholic school for grades K-7. The kids there were very conservative in their values, and in 7th grade he just came home one day and announced he was going to public school. The first thing he did there was join the gay-straight alliance, so I think he was feeling as he got to middle school age that those conservative values felt more oppressive to him than they did when he was younger.

I was in the military during don't ask, don't tell, too. What's weird is that at the time, that seemed like a friendly policy, at least compared to what preceded it. Lots of gay people in the military protecting our freedoms who didn't get the same rights themselves. Kind of sickening to me.

 

[Missy1961]

Man, I hope that doesn't come true, but I'm afraid it will. I don't care what side of the coin you fall on - politics have no role in religion, and vice versa.

I was attending a church in FL on a very regular basis and the preacher there refused to marry my wife and I because she was divorced. This was his religious beliefs, which I respected. We found a place that would marry us and never went back to the first church. It wasn't my "right" to get married where ever I wanted and I had choices. Simply put, I didn't agree with him, but I respected the preachers religious convictions.

How is that different than a church/preacher who doesn't believe in same *** marriage refusing to marry two dudes? If the church is forced to marry same *** couples regardless of their beliefs then the gay community hasn't stopped at wanting the same rights as "straight couples" - they have more demands and want more rights, which is wrong, IMO.

And for the record, I have never really cared one way or the other if same *** couples had the right to marry.

And that is exactly what people have been pointing out; thank you for this well thought out post.

 

[Missy1961]

I started to edit my last post but I lost it. In thinking about this, I just wanted to add this. My thinking about gay marriage rights was influenced by what I saw as a hospital nurse before MA enacted the Health Care Proxy law in 1990. Homosexual partners were not afforded the same rights and priveleges as heterosexual partners, or families. I remember one case in particular, of a gay man dying of AIDS and unable to speak for himself - his estranged family's wishes had to be legally honored over his long term partner's, and, without going into a lot of detail, it was a tragic situation. Also seeing long term partners not being able to get health care coverage or enjoy other "rights" that heterosexual married couples had - there were sometimes very difficult consequences that many of us wouldn't even notice if we weren't paying close attention.

I think it was hearing about many of those situations that made me realize a marriage should be between 2 consenting adults who love each other.

 

[Missy1961]

Some of you may also find comfort in the wording of the decision. Justice Kennedy absolutely upheld your religous rights to oppose same-*** marriage.

from page 27 of the decision:



EVERYONE'S rights were upheld on Friday. That is why it was such a joyous day. The religious rights of those who SUPPORT same *** marriage were protected, because they are now allowed to marry their congregants in accordance with their interpretation of scripture. The religious rights of those who oppose same *** marriage are protected, they will not be compelled to perform or endorse them. And equality for EVERYONE under the eyes of the law was protected because the government is no longer favoring one religion, or even just one interpretation of one religion, over others.

Great post; thanks for pointing that out.

 

[Tiggeroo]

I can't believe nobody on these boards was ever opposed or uncomfortable with the idea of gay marriage. I will admit to being so. When I was younger (20's early 30's) I was in a fairly conservative evangelical church. They had a typical evangelical stance although they tried to keep pretty quiet about it. I spoke the party line. But I was always pretty uncomfortable with it. When I was in college two of my roommates were gay and they were close friends. I couldn't get on board with God condemning somebody who he made a certain way. Later I left the church and gradually shifted more and more in the opposite direction. For the past several years or more I have been very pro-gay marriage. That is a bit difficult because I still have friends from the time when I was in that church, not all who have changed their minds. (many have) Although I was uncomfortable with my stance, there was a time that if you had asked I probably would have said I was against gay marriage.
What is interesting is the shift within the evangelical church. Many of my friends who are still involved are quietly pro-gay marriage now. Some not so quiet about it. I liken it to Catholics who belonged to a church against birth control but who quietly used it themselves.

 

[moon]

You see it from the perspective of someone who thinks it is completely acceptable. Put yourself in the shoes of those who do not believe in it for religious religions (of which I am not). The best way to make something acceptable is to convince everyone to go along. It is called, I say again, compromise. Separate but equal can work, if the conditions are the same. You cannot convince me otherwise.

I haven't read all the replies, so I don't know if this has been said, but I don't see the need to compromise with bigots.

 

[bookgirl]

I can't believe nobody on these boards was ever opposed or uncomfortable with the idea of gay marriage. I will admit to being so. When I was younger (20's early 30's) I was in a fairly conservative evangelical church. They had a typical evangelical stance although they tried to keep pretty quiet about it. I spoke the party line. But I was always pretty uncomfortable with it. When I was in college two of my roommates were gay and they were close friends. I couldn't get on board with God condemning somebody who he made a certain way. Later I left the church and gradually shifted more and more in the opposite direction. For the past several years or more I have been very pro-gay marriage. That is a bit difficult because I still have friends from the time when I was in that church, not all who have changed their minds. (many have) Although I was uncomfortable with my stance, there was a time that if you had asked I probably would have said I was against gay marriage.
What is interesting is the shift within the evangelical church. Many of my friends who are still involved are quietly pro-gay marriage now. Some not so quiet about it. I liken it to Catholics who belonged to a church against birth control but who quietly used it themselves.

I was involved with theatre from a young age, plus again I was raised in a fundamentalist church and I didn't like the way they treated people even within our own congregation much less those they considered unworthy.

And as weird as it is to say, I started school they year they began mandatory busing (I was 5) so I was the first generation of kids in my area where I had a diverse school setting. It made me much more aware that people can be treated badly for many reasons that are not reasonable at all.

That being said it might have just been the combination of things that made me more open to others, because lord knows I have school mates that do not feel the same, but a lot of my former schoolmates are rocking the rainbow avatar this week.

 

[bcla]

I can't believe nobody on these boards was ever opposed or uncomfortable with the idea of gay marriage.

Well - I'm personally uncomfortable with the thought of many things. The thought of two gay guys getting it on makes me uncomfortable. However, that's my personal issue and nobody else's. Whether or not it makes me uncomfortable doesn't affect whether or not I believe it should be illegal or that gay marriage shouldn't be recognized. Way too often in this country's history, personal discomfort has driven civil rights issues.

I mean - my kid has gone to preschool for a couple of years, and there are a lot of two dad or two mom families. The thing that's so odd about it is how utterly normal their lives are. The one unusual thing is when someone was joking about their daughter mentioning "two dads" and they chimed in "No - that's three dads" because they apparently adopted, but the biological parents still have some involvement.

 

[bcla]

I was involved with theatre from a young age, plus again I was raised in a fundamentalist church and I didn't like the way they treated people even within our own congregation much less those they considered unworthy.

I guess one of the weirdest things I recall going down was the artistic director at a musical theater group in the Sacramento area. You'd think that he would certainly have a certain empathy for gay couples given their well-known demographics, but this guy was straight and Mormon. He donated to the campaign for California's 2008 Proposition 8 that would reverse the California Supreme Court's ruling making gay marriage legal and recognized. Large donations to any campaign in California are public, so his name got out there. He eventually ended up resigning because of calls to boycott his group's productions or to not grant the rights to certain works should he stay on.

http://www.kcra.com/Artistic-Director-Resigns-Amid-Prop-8-Boycott/12694468

Apparently he's now teaching at BYU and putting on productions:

https://cfac.byu.edu/tma/faculty-and-staff-profiles/2510/eckern-scott/

 

[Kitty 34]

Two of my best (guy) friends in college were gay. The three of us went out all the time. Sometimes I wonder looking back to those days in the mid 70's if I was some kind of decoy. Never bothered me a bit, tho. Loved them dearly. Years later after losing track of them (no FB back in the day) I did find out that the two were living together in Los Angeles. Well I sure hope they are now happily married.

 

[bcla]

Two of my best (guy) friends in college were gay. The three of us went out all the time. Sometimes I wonder looking back to those days in the mid 70's if I was some kind of decoy. Never bothered me a bit, tho. Loved them dearly. Years later after losing track of them (no FB back in the day) I did find out that the two were living together in Los Angeles. Well I sure hope they are now happily married.

So you think you might have been the "beard".....

 

[ashley0139]

Well - I'm personally uncomfortable with the thought of many things. The thought of two gay guys getting it on makes me uncomfortable. However, that's my personal issue and nobody else's. Whether or not it makes me uncomfortable doesn't affect whether or not I believe it should be illegal or that gay marriage shouldn't be recognized. Way too often in this country's history, personal discomfort has driven civil rights issues.

I mean - my kid has gone to preschool for a couple of years, and there are a lot of two dad or two mom families. The thing that's so odd about it is how utterly normal their lives are. The one unusual thing is when someone was joking about their daughter mentioning "two dads" and they chimed in "No - that's three dads" because they apparently adopted, but the biological parents still have some involvement.

Why is it odd? That's exactly what we've been saying the whole time. It's the opposite of odd.

 

[bcla]

Why is it odd? That's exactly what we've been saying the whole time. It's the opposite of odd.

There's the stereotypical image of the gay man as flamboyant. Strangely enough, the whole "gay lisp" thing is pretty accurate where I live, although straight males often have a similar speech affectation. I remember meeting someone once with his wife, and if I didn't know they were married it would have totally set off most people's "gaydar".