By: ken

ken — Thu, 22 May 2008 02:57:55 +0000

There seems to be a bit of confusion about marriage. The issue is about Civil marriages not religious ones. Civil marriages are state recognized marriages that confer a variety of rights, privileges, and responsibilities on the participants. Further, there seems to be some assumption that civil marriages are a by-product of religious marriages and that the concept of marriage is a religious one. This is incorrect, if anything it is historically more likely that religious marriages came from the concept of civil marriages.
So far in all of the complaints about this court ruling are about irrelevant issues (“is it a redefinition”) or foolish arguments (“gay men can marry women so the law is fair”). No on has provided any evidence of any substantive harm that allowing gays to marry would cause. The gays have shown numerous ways that denying them the rights have marriage have hurt them.
So for those of you so upset about this ruling, consider this:
You fight so vehemently to deny an entire class of people the right of marriage, uncaring how it may hurt them, yet giving them that right would have no significant effect on you (let alone hurt you), what do you think that says about the type of person you are?

By: Byron

Byron — Wed, 21 May 2008 01:31:30 +0000

Yes, Timothy, thanks. And the lunch offer stands… 🙂

By: Mary

Mary — Tue, 20 May 2008 01:56:38 +0000

Byron and Timothy,
I enjoyed your exchange and how both of you concluded. Thank you.

By: queerunity

queerunity — Tue, 20 May 2008 00:43:51 +0000

This is a momentous day for civil rights now that gay marriage is legal in california http://www.queersunited.blogspot.com

By: Timothy Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid — Tue, 20 May 2008 00:13:59 +0000

Byron,
I believe that you believe that you are not motivated by prejudice or animus. I believe that you believe that your objections are based purely in your understanding of scripture.
But I also think that perhaps you have never seriously questioned whether this is true. I think that perhaps there was a little indignation over the homosexuals redifining your precious institution (just another evil thing those homosexuals have done).
Maybe in some future musings you might ask yourself if your objections to others’ sins includes the necessity to restrict sinners’ rights under law. Perhaps it might… but I think that you may find otherwise. I believe that a seed has been planted and that in time you will find that your views are not as clear as perhaps you think them to be at this time (I am an optimist).
I completely disagree with the theological underpinnings of your direction on sexual orientation. I think that this has been one of the most understood and misinterpreted areas of scripture and that it is an evidence of the moving of the Holy Spirit that so many people are now beginning to question these small handful of ambiguos passages and finding that the traditional understanding doesn’t hold up when we look at the full message of the Gospel. (hint, hint, your New Testament objections rely on a man who was more in favor of celibacy than of “husband of one wife”. He grudgingly allowed marriage for those who burned with lust but thought that it distracted from the immediate return of Christ.)
But that’s MY belief and while I wish you shared it, I have no more right to impose my faith on you than you do on me. So you are certainly entitled to your understanding and ultimately we don’t answer to each other.
I respect that you recognize that social coupling of gay persons is better for society than single gay persons. Some folks are so “hatin’ teh gay” that they would be opposed to gay ice cream if they thought such a thing existed. Heck, we’ll take all the support we can get on issues of equality… even if it’s going to take a while longer to get you to champion full equality under the law 😉
(Just one caution for future discussions with gays… we don’t find support of “Don’t Ask – Don’t Tell” to be admirable. We think it’s based on deceipt and lying. Further, ask most servicemen and they’ll tell you that they’ve served with gay people and had no problems. And if you want to know how obsolete and silly this policy is, try and find ANYONE of influence who will defend it on its terms.)
I’m willing to agree to disagree to whether allowing same-sex couples changes an integral definition of marriage. But I hope that you walk away from our discussion no longer believing that gay people were granted “the special right to redefine the institution of marriage according to their desires”. Even if the definition has in some way changed, it’s not that gay people been granted power to change it but the conclusion of a rather conservative court comprised of Republicans (6 of the 7) is that the state cannot grant recognition to heterosexuals and straight couples that they do not grant to homosexuals and gay couples.
Perhaps the idea of separating church marriage and civil recognition is not a bad one. We suffer from using the same word for two separate concepts enough as it is. We all know divorced and remarried Catholics who live with a state that recognizes their divorce and remarriage and a church that recognizes either.
But unless and until they are severed, we will continue to have problems in areas where gay couples are denied civil protections and equality. Most decent people, yourself included, find it inconsistent with their ideas of right and wrong to deny gay people the tools they need to function in their lives and relationships. Yet many also balk at allowing gays to marry. Friction is going to exist.
Ironically, if states granted unions and churches granted marriage, there would be legal gay marriages in every state of the union. There are probably dozens of churches within 15 miles of where I sit right now that perform gay marriages and at least one or two within 15 miles of you.
In any case, I agree that we’ve each gotten our opinions out there. And while we’ve probably not swayed each other much, I hope that we can see each other more clearly as brothers and neighbors instead of “them”. And that’s always worth a little debate.
God bless.

Comments on: California Supreme Court recognizes same-sex marriage right

By: ken

By: Byron

By: Mary

By: queerunity

By: Timothy Kincaid