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

[mnrose]

Yes, I hope it does continue to protect this, but from what I'm reading all over the place, it seems like the goal is otherwise. I truly wish I could join the conversation. I know where it will lead though. Even if we could discuss it honestly & with respect, it is still violating the boards' rules, as I would have to talk about my "beliefs", which include banned topics! I have enjoyed what we have been able to discuss though!

I'm not aware of any gay rights organization trying to "force" churches to perform SSM against their religious beliefs. I know of PLENTY of right wing commentary that they "fear" this. I do get the fear, but I don't think it will happen. If you know (from what you are reading) that this is a "goal" of gay advocates, I'd love to know.

BTW, it has NOT happened in any of the other countries which recognize SSM, some for as long as 15 years.

 

[NHdisneylover]

and for what it is worth Teresa, and others, like a PP; I honestly wish we could hear your views and have an open and honest and civil discussion about it. I like knowing what people think and why. I'm sorry you feel/are stifled.

 

[TeresaNJ]

I know you have no reason to have faith in me, but I really beg you to believe that, despite the fear-mongering going on, the 1st Amendment is live and well. This Supreme Court decision DID uphold that churches have the right to refuse to perform ceremonies, and that they should continue to educate their congregations in accordance with their faith. Take comfort in the knowledge that no one has EVER forced a Catholic Church to marry a divorced person.

I fought for same *** marriage, but if anyone tried to force a church to perform them, I'd fight for your rights too. A lot of other liberals would too. I do not care for religion, but I love the 1st Amendment, and I would die to protect it.

They may not be able to force them due to the 1st Amendment, but there is a lot of talk about taking their tax exempt status away, as well as that of religious schools, etc. There's a lot of the unknown out there, and there are a lot of activists who won't stop at SSM. Time will tell. Thank you pryncess.

 

[bcla]

I fought for same *** marriage, but if anyone tried to force a church to perform them, I'd fight for your rights too. A lot of other liberals would too. I do not care for religion, but I love the 1st Amendment, and I would die to protect it.

Of course they're free to perform them in accordance with their own personal beliefs. Apparently a UMC pastor married a couple (lesbians together for more than 30 years) at the Pride Parade in San Francisco last weekend, and nobody batted an eye.

 

[TeresaNJ]

Thank you, Hadley! As you can see from a poster above, it is truly impossible to have a respectful conversation with some people on a discussion board. I seriously doubt that person would say those things to my face, but whatever. Two of my very good friends are gay, one male, one female, and we can discuss anything openly & honestly. I love them, they love me, and we respect each other's beliefs. I try not to hurt them, and vice versa. We make it work.

 

[badcramps]

I am actually still on the fence about it. I will admit that when Michigan voted on same *** marriage I did vote against it. From the religious standpoint I thought it was wrong. Part of me still does, and I'm sorry if people think I'm wrong or ignorant or intolerant or whatever. We all have the right to feel the way we do about it. I have tried and tried to get past how I feel. I have nothing against gay people as individuals. I met "the Fabulous Beekman Boys" (Josh and Brent, winners of season 21 of The Amazing Race) and they are very sweet. I once worked with a guy I thought might be gay (never knew for sure) and he was a very kind and nice person but personally I really don't "know" anyone that is gay, and maybe that's why I feel the way I do about gay marriage. I think back about how many people couldn't stand black people and white people being together and then marrying. Some were strongly opposed, and some probably still are. I never understood that. Black. White. People. No difference. I had absolutely no problem with it, and still don't. Skin color is so unimportant to me. It's how a person treats others, and what's in their heart, and their character, that is what matters. So then I think I should feel the same way about gay marriage. Why should it bother me? It doesn't affect me. I'm not forced to marry a woman. Gay marriage doesn't make my marriage less valid. So I struggle with how I feel about it, but am willing to admit that I struggle. As I said, the religious part of me thinks it's wrong. I do believe in God and he created woman for man. But then the other part of me thinks "who cares, live and let live."

One other thing, so many who are for gay marriage want people who aren't to be "tolerant" and "accepting." Well, that goes both ways. People who are for it should be tolerant of those who aren't. Everyone is entitled to their viewpoint on the subject. And it does kind of bother me that a select few on a "Supreme Court" can decide what is right for the entire country. I think it should be put to a vote of the people, and let each state have a vote of their people. I do feel that I would just not vote on it if it came up on Michigan's ballot again though. I'm trying, that's all I can really say.

What do you mean by "tolerance" exactly? When lgbq people ask for tolerance it generally means legal rights to be treated equally and protection from discrimination, hate crimes, being thrown out of their houses by their parents, etc. Do people who personally oppose SSM have a reason to worry about any of this? Is there a movement to not allow such people to marry or have rights to their children or inherit property from their partners? Do employers regularly fire employees simply because they find out that their personal belief is against SSM? Is there an equivalent term as "fag" and other slurs that are routinely used against such folks? Are there obscenely large numbers of teens who oppose SSM who are homeless because their families disowned them? Have there been large numbers of suicides by those teens who oppose SSM because they don't feel that they will ever be accepted and able to live a happy life?

No? That's what I thought.

Now don't get me wrong, I do agree that we should ensure that people are not called names and treated badly for opposing lgbtq rights. People have the right to hold hateful views, no doubt. I think it is immoral to hold such views, but no I don't it's okay to fire someone for holding that view or to deny them any other kind of equal treatment. Of course not. (And I don't believe there is any actual danger of that occurring at all.)

So sure, tolerance all around. That means equal rights across the country for all regardless of sexual orientation or views about sexuality. That would mean marriage for all. In other words the new status quo re: marriage IS the tolerant situation (at least regarding the issue of same-sex couples.) No one is stopping me from marrying and no one is stopping you from disapproving of my marriage.

On the voting issue, I wonder where you draw the line. I was a Michigan resident for a decade right after the ballot amendment banning same-sex marriage was passed. That meant that my marriage was not recognized. It meant that the state tried to prevent my wife from getting health insurance through my employer as my partner/spouse. It meant that MI refused to recognize my wife's relationship to our daughter (since I gave birth). Why exactly do you think all of this should be voted on? How is it okay for other people to affect my life in this way? Ought I get to vote on these aspects of your life? Should a popular vote be able to deny you automatic inheritance rights in your marriage or access to your spouse's social security benefits or rights to your own children because, say, I don't happen to like straight people or I disapprove of your religion or I don't like your last name? Why is it only gay people's lives that people suggest should be voted on, never their own lives?

 

[rickybobby]

Don't we have "In God we Trust" stamped on all our money? The country was started with Christianity as a centerpiece.
Part of that was the definition of marriage as a man and woman, in the dictionary.
Civil Union, same rights, just different word with same meaning except one is man-woman, and other is same gender.
Same rights, same rights, same rights.
Acceptance, Acceptance, Acceptance.

 

[bcla]

They may not be able to force them due to the 1st Amendment, but there is a lot of talk about taking their tax exempt status away, as well as that of religious schools, etc. There's a lot of the unknown out there, and there are a lot of activists who won't stop at SSM. Time will tell. Thank you pryncess.

The only case I heard of a religious-affiliated institution losing its tax exempt status was Bob Jones University over its ban on interracial dating.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Jones_University_v._United_States

However, I can't imagine a church losing its tax exempt status based on refusal to perform SSM. That a church can choose who it will perform marriages for has never been an issue with regards to tax exempt status.

 

[badcramps]

I'm not aware of any gay rights organization trying to "force" churches to perform SSM against their religious beliefs. I know of PLENTY of right wing commentary that they "fear" this. I do get the fear, but I don't think it will happen. If you know (from what you are reading) that this is a "goal" of gay advocates, I'd love to know.

BTW, it has NOT happened in any of the other countries which recognize SSM, some for as long as 15 years.

Indeed, being one of those radical lgbtq advocates and somewhat keeping up with the various organizations and even teaching about lgbtq issues at the college level and publishing on some of these issues, I'm apparently much less aware of where the movement is going next than the average anti-SSM individual.

Maybe my memo got lost? (Never got that toaster either.)

 

[TheDisneyNurse]

Don't we have "In God we Trust" stamped on all our money? The country was started with Christianity as a centerpiece.

A little unrelated, but just as a fun fact, "in god we trust" on the money and the "one nation under god" from the pledge of allegiance were both added in during the cold war era. It was to counteract the Soviet Union.

Just sharing! Carry on, everyone. And once again, I have nothing but the utmost respect for those open-minded enough to re-examin their views. I respect your honesty, as well.

 

[bcla]

Don't we have "In God we Trust" stamped on all our money? The country was started with Christianity as a centerpiece.

Not really. You're really reaching now. Most were Deists while they nominally were members of Christian churches.

Also, "In God We Trust" is considered ceremonial and not a preference for religion, and definitely not an acknowledgement of a specific religion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aronow_v._United_States

http://openjurist.org/432/f2d/242/aronow-v-united-states
It is not easy to discern any religious significance attendant the payment of a bill with coin or currency on which has been imprinted "In God We Trust" or the study of a government publication or document bearing that slogan. In fact, such secular uses of the motto was viewed as sacrilegious and irreverent by President Theodore Roosevelt. Yet, Congress has directed such uses. While "ceremonial" and "patriotic" may not be particularly apt words to describe the category of the national motto, it is excluded from First Amendment significance because the motto has no theological or ritualistic impact. As stated by the Congressional report, it has "spiritual and psychological value" and "inspirational quality."

 

[NHdisneylover]

Don't we have "In God we Trust" stamped on all our money? The country was started with Christianity as a centerpiece.
Part of that was the definition of marriage as a man and woman, in the dictionary.
Civil Union, same rights, just different word with same meaning except one is man-woman, and other is same gender.
Same rights, same rights, same rights.
Acceptance, Acceptance, Acceptance.

You do know that "in God we trust" was added to our paper currency in the 1950s and only began appearing on some coins during the civil war era and that our country was very specifically NOT founded on any religion, including Christianity, which is why it freedom of religion was one of the hastily added amendments when it was realized that had not been spelled out originally, right?

http://www.treasury.gov/about/education/Pages/in-god-we-trust.aspx

 

[bcla]

A little unrelated, but just as a fun fact, "in god we trust" on the money and the "one nation under god" from the pledge of allegiance were both added in during the cold war era. It was to counteract the Soviet Union.

"In God We Trust" was on coins for over a 100 years before it was added to bills, but was added to paper money around the Cold War as a counter to the "Godless Commies".

Here's a 1910 penny:

 

[NHdisneylover]

"In God We Trust" was on coins for over a 100 years before it was added to bills, but was added to paper money around the Cold War as a counter to the "Godless Commies".

Here's a 1910 penny:

As shown in the department of treasury link I posted above, that was still added LONG after the founding of our nation.

 

[Goofy_Disney_Dad]

This really sucks cause I want to join in and be involved in the conversation but I know it's against the rules and would get points.

 

[TeresaNJ]

Me too. Ugh.

 

[bookgirl]

My state didn't get to vote, our LEGISLATOR decided to put into law (as early as 1975) that marriage was defined as one woman one man. Probably wouldn't have passed by a vote of the people but if you use that excuse than I guarantee you that most of the south and Okla/Texas/Kansas etc would have had slavery at least 100 years AFTER the civil war and women and minorities would still be denied the vote.

Just because people vote on something doesn't mean it's legal or right. Unless you think slavery and freedom to vote is also a state's right issue and that they should be allowed to own slaves and treat women like chattel. I'm sure there are, heck I'm probably related to some of them, but sometimes you cannot trust a 'state' to settle an issue as big as these.

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

I never came around. I was always ok with em. Several reasons.
1. My Marriage is an oath taken by me and my spouse. Only me or my spouse can break it and therefore it doesn't need protection from anything or anyone else but me and my spouse. No other marriage affects it.
2. I have found the majority of the leaders of the defend marriage from the gays crowd in the media to be hypocrites. Where was Rush Limbaugh when several of his marriages fell apart? And why does he think given all his failures to protect his marriages when it mattered most that he gets to tell me how to defend mine?

Marriage has been defined traditionally as the joining of a husband and wife, but has now been amended. I think it would have been a decent compromise for those against it based on it being called something other than marriage but with the same rights and privileges. A lot of those opposed to same gender marriage would agree to this. Some benefit for both sides. I have spoken of this to some of my gay friends (yes I have gay friends), and they agree it would have been acceptable.
Some of you close minded individuals will argue to no end against anything but total acceptance by everyone, but let's face it, people have different beliefs.

The traditional definition of marriage for much of its existence is Polygamy and one husband, one wife is itself an amendment. Now. Seeing as how you're for one husband, one wife, that means you're perfectly ok with amending said tradition in general. So now given that we have actually shown you're for amending marriage in general rather than against it, all that is left is to haggle and higgle over this latest amendment.

Moreover, calling gay marriage something else wasn't a compromise. It was a last ditch effort to keep gay marriage second class just as separate but equal was years before it. You're entitled to your different beliefs. Society shouldn't make gay marriage 2nd class and second rate because of your different beliefs, however. And it is not closed minded in the least to say so, your attempt at name calling notwithstanding.

One other thing, so many who are for gay marriage want people who aren't to be "tolerant" and "accepting." Well, that goes both ways. People who are for it should be tolerant of those who aren't. Everyone is entitled to their viewpoint on the subject. And it does kind of bother me that a select few on a "Supreme Court" can decide what is right for the entire country. I think it should be put to a vote of the people, and let each state have a vote of their people. I do feel that I would just not vote on it if it came up on Michigan's ballot again though. I'm trying, that's all I can really say.

Tolerance means we accept that there are those with different views and we accept that they are free to hold said views. Tolerance does not mean we should give those who hold said different views their way on them, nor does it mean we aren't free to say what we think of such views.

 

[ashley0139]

Yes, I hope it does continue to protect this, but from what I'm reading all over the place, it seems like the goal is otherwise. I truly wish I could join the conversation. I know where it will lead though. Even if we could discuss it honestly & with respect, it is still violating the boards' rules, as I would have to talk about my "beliefs", which include banned topics! I have enjoyed what we have been able to discuss though!

What are you reading? And your very vague "from what I'm reading all over the place" is not helpful. And that is patently not true.

 

[ashley0139]

It is a state's rights issue. The Federal Government shouldn't have a say it it. Also, it was mainly passed by judges, not the people. When the people get to vote, it is almost always voted down. Nevertheless, I'm not going to get in a debate with anyone on how SSM affects me. That wasn't the initial question. I answered the OP's question. Also, whether it affects me or not isn't the issue, is it? There are many things that don't affect me that I don't believe in. Are you saying I should give up on my beliefs because something doesn't personally affect me, or do you just want to know why I haven't "come around"?

I'm truly curious about this. Your beliefs are for you. They're your personal beliefs. If I don't share them, why should you be able to legislate them against me? If I were Muslim and tried to force you to wear hijab, would you be okay with that because they're my beliefs? Don't give up on your beliefs for you. But I can't see why you would try to or even want to force them on anyone else.