Skip to main content

For the past year, I, like most people, have been focused primarily on the Presidential election (as well as the Senate one here in NC).  It came as a bit of a surprise to me that Arizona, Florida, and California had ballot measures to amend their state constitutions to define marriage as between one man and one woman.  It came as a bigger surprise that these measures passed in all three states.  

There are several things about the arguments that get bandied about by those who support these amendments that as a thinking logical individual fill me with complete outrage.

  1. The conflation of ‘religious marriage’ and ‘legal marriage’.

Taking a look at heterosexual marriage, there are two typical scenarios that occur around the "ceremony".  Either you get married by a religious official, or you get married by the "justice of the peace".  In either scenario, in order to be legally recognized as a marriage, a marriage license was signed and witnessed.  You can go to the courthouse and sign in front of the justice, and it has no religious significance whatsoever – and you are legally married.  You can have a religious ceremony and not sign the license – and you’re not officially married by the law.  In the case of religious with no license, you have legal precedence behind you for saying you’re married, but "officially" – no dice.  

When a straight couple signs that marriage license, that contract is officially recognized around the world.  There are laws, rights, and privileges that automatically proceed from that sheer act alone – 1049 of them, according to an analysis by the General Accounting Office in 1997.  Think back about how many documents or forms you’ve filled out that refer to your ‘spouse’, ‘wife’, ‘husband’, etc.  All of these definitions are due to that legal contract of ‘marriage’.

The basis of most modern legal systems can be traced back to religious laws and edicts.  However, legal systems evolve.  They change over time, and have evolved to be inclusive and non-discriminatory.  Given the number of religions that exist underneath the same legal structure, having laws based on one over another doesn’t give the equality that is necessary.

If a church doesn’t want to allow gay couples to have a ceremony, that’s entirely up to them.  I have no qualms with that whatsoever.  There are churches today that will perform those ceremonies, and churches that won’t.  What gay couples want are those rights that are provided under legal recognition of their union.  

So why not civil unions?  A couple of reasons, actually.  First- in most instances, states have to create a category of ‘civil union’ and add to it all the rights that exist for marriages.  This creates a class whereby rights can be added or removed at legislative whim, which leads to the second point – ‘separate but equal’.  We’ve been there before, and it’s been ruled unconstitutional.  There already exists a perfectly fine legal category for the union/contract that gay couples are seeking.  It’s called marriage.

Fundamentally, the argument against gay marriage boils down into the religious beliefs of those who are against it, and their belief that it is ‘wrong’.  That it somehow negates the concept of ‘traditional marriage’.  If that’s the case, then let’s make a complete separate so that it’s clearly defined – marriage by the church can remain ‘marriage’ and marriage by the state can be ‘civil unions’ for everyone.

"Traditional" marriage is a sham to begin with.  Man’s concept of marriage has changed significantly over the course of time, and undoubtedly will continue to change.  We typically don’t accept arranged marriages any more, or marriages to combine land/money/ruling power.  Yet take a look at Vegas – wedding chapels all over the place, and you can be married and divorced in the same week.  The majority of gay couples that are seeking to get married are those that are in loving relationships that seek to take the next step and solidify their union legally.

  1. The religious intolerance to homosexuality in general

I find that most religious folks that are prejudiced against gays use the excuse that ‘the Bible says it’s wrong’.  This argument has galled me from the moment I’ve heard it, because it’s complete and utter bullshit.  Most of these folks it would seem have never actually read the Bible, or if they have, they completely misinterpret it.

To start with, I was raised a Methodist.  Overall, they’re a fairly accepting group.  One of the big things I remember being taught as a child was that with the coming of Jesus, the teachings of the New Testament modified those of the Old Testament.  There was less of a focus on Judaic law, and more of a focus on doing good deeds, being good towards people, and in general loving and accepting everyone – including your enemies.  It bothers me to no end that in order to justify homosexuality as a sin, everyone turns to the example of Sodom and Gomorrah from the Old Testament, Genesis 19:1-13.  

In newer revisions of the bible, it’s now been translated to actually include ‘homosexual acts’ or other phrases just as incendiary.  In the older versions though, the appropriate line was "Bring them out so that we may know them".  In the Vulgate bible, it was:  "Educ illos huc, ut cognoscamus eos."  In the Greek, the appropriate word is:  συγγενώμεθα, or ‘suggenometha’  I challenge anyone with a background in word roots & etymology to find something sexual in ‘know’, ‘cognoscamus’, and ‘suggenometha’.  The Hebrew word is ‘ya’da’.  It’s used 943 times in the Old Testament.  In only about a dozen of these is the chosen translation sexual related, and in those cases it was usually fairly obvious:  Someone "knew" someone else and had a kid.  In the case of a mob trying to learn about strangers in their town, it’s a stretch in the least.

If we were to take the Old Testament as the basis for what’s right or wrong, we can’t pick and choose the pieces we’d like to follow.  Using it as a basis for argument that homosexuality is wrong, you’d have to then follow that the other things it prohibits are wrong, and the things it promotes are right.  Therefore multiple wives, arranged marriages, etc. were all perfectly fine – and yet we can all generally agree that’s not the case.

If the Bible is to be used as the basis for argument against gay marriages, then we should really look at what it’s saying about gay marriages:  what it says about monogamous, loving, committed relationships between two members of the same sex.  When that criteria is used, there are exactly ZERO instances in the bible.  If you look at the categorizations of other instances, you could find:  prohibitions against rape, against sex in temples, prostitution, orgies, pedophilia, and bestiality.  But on the basis of monogamous committed relationships?  Nothing.

So what does all of this mean?  How are heterosexual marriages at risk?

I’m angry.  I have had it with other people thinking that they have the right to interfere in my life and defining who I should be allowed to marry based off their own fears and prejudices.  Let’s call it exactly what it is:  bigotry.  I’m a human being, I go to work, I pay taxes, I buy my groceries, etc.  There’s no reason that I shouldn’t be allowed to marry whomever I choose to fall in love with and have it legally recognized.  I refuse to be treated as a second class individual.  My grandparents were married for almost 70 years before my grandmother died, and I intend to get wed to the man I love and live together for as long as I’m alive too.  So North Carolina better look out, because I’ve had it.  I will find a way to get married and have it recognized in my home state, and I refuse to take ‘no’ for an answer.

Originally posted to davecarden on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 12:14 PM PST.

Tags

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  do you support plural marriage as well? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      asius

      It is, after all, endorsed by many of the world's religions, and there seems no obvious reason that an institution unconcerned with the gender of the partners should be concerned with the number of partners.  I see a distinction between "who" and "how many" as a civil rights issue . . . why should it be codified in law that you can love (and commit to) only one person?

  •  Civil Unions for everyone! (15+ / 0-)

    ...and marriage on top of that, if you're so inclined to make it religious.

    I'm sick of mixing church and state..let's split them up entirely.

    •  I think the diarist has (8+ / 0-)

      outlined the problems with civil unions and at this point in time you're just not going to convince straight folks to give up their marriage license for a civil union license. Also civil unions are not typically recognized elsewhere in the world.

      I would also emphasize that those leading the opposition to gay marriage are adamantly opposed to civil unions too - see the Florida amendment which bans civil unions as well. The homohaters would rather gay people did not exist. It's really that simple. And since most are unwilling to take the drastic step of exterminating us, they will settle for making us as invisible as possible and as reviled as they can get away with.

      •  Oh, boo freaking hoo (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ChurchofBruce, asius, Katie71

        So they don't want to give up their marriage licenses? Really? Good. Maybe they'll finally understand how thousands of same-sex couples in California are feeling now about having to give up there.

        It's really simple. If heterosexual couples expect to derive CIVIL benefits from their status as a couple, then they should be expected to execute a CIVIL UNION. Nothing else can - or should be - legally binding or acceptable.

        Let them keep their silly "marriage" word. It will be meaningless from a legal perspective.

        "I can't come to bed yet! Someone is WRONG on the Internet!" - XKCD

        by SingularExistence on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 12:34:53 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Heteros have done such a great job with marriage (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          page394

          What is the divorce rate?  50%?

          We heteros have gotten married on reality shows, in drive-thru Vegas churches, and think nothing of ditching our partners after a year when things don't quite work out because our spouse doesn't make us deliriously happy every day.

          Only have to follow the lives of most celebrities to see how marriage is so revered and respected by heteros.

          Thinking that heteros don't have the right to stand on high like pious, righteous preachers as they enter the voting booth - and take the right to marry from homosexuals.

          We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them. - Albert Einstein

          by FearlessAreFree on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 01:15:53 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  The problem is you're going to have to get (0+ / 0-)

          straights to support civil unions for themselves and they're not going to do it once they realize how inferior they really are - federal rights are an example of what would not be covered. Now the SC of California might just take that route to solve the Prop 8 problem but the consequences of doing that could be explosive and unpredictable. Time for the popcorn I guess.

          •  No (0+ / 0-)

            The idea is that all the rights and privileges now associated with "marriage" are transferred to the civil union status, and institution of marriage becomes purely religious/symbolic.

            "I can't come to bed yet! Someone is WRONG on the Internet!" - XKCD

            by SingularExistence on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 09:35:20 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  very important point (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Ian S, Cassandra Waites

        I would also emphasize that those leading the opposition to gay marriage are adamantly opposed to civil unions too

        i won't pimp or link, but i offered up pretty much the same observation/contention in the cricket field that is my personal blog.

        i strongly suspect that those who would / did vote against extension of marriage rights to same sex couples and who at the same time genuinely support civil unions for us is a very, very small subset of that voting bloc.

        I'll give you this here wedding ring when you take it from my cold, dead hand.

        by homo neurotic on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 12:35:44 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  There are provisions for this (0+ / 0-)

        In most legal scenarios you have the option for changing historical laws, or grandfathering them in.  If you look at NC's General Statutes Chapter 51, which deals with marriage, you'll see that there are various clauses about marriages being 'validated' - interracial, etc.  There's no problem at all with letting people who've already been issued 'marriage licenses' to have the same equivalency with 'civil unions' issued from some date forward.

        My actual argument is simple.  Equality for both gays and straights to marry.  Either allow marriage for both, or make it be civil unions for both.  The first is the simplest of the two to implement.

      •  so don't ask them to give up their (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MariaWr, Meggie

        marriage license.  If the term marriage is going to be given over to the religious communities, let them keep their marriages..they'll just get an additional civil union.

        I agree with most of the people here that that won't really make the religious right happy.  However that's not my intent.  My intent is to begin boxing the issue in to the point where it becomes more and more a civil rights issue.  At some point the question has got to be asked very plainly if it's appropriate for the government to deny benefits to citizens based on religious dogma.  I think the only way to do that is to get the government and religious terminology separate.

    •  Take control of the terminology. (5+ / 0-)

      There are three important concepts to understand.

      Marriage: the legal state of being married.  You must have a license, issued by the state, in order to be "married".

      Solemnization:  This is the statement of intent to be married, observed by witnesses and performed by one authorized by the State to solemnize a marriage.  This person may be clergy, judge, county clerk, whatever.

      Wedding:  Another name for solemnization, typically characterized by the presence of more than the legally required number of witnesses and, on occasion, floral adornments....

      Churches don't do marriages.  In order to be married, you must have a license, issued by the State. Only the State can make you married.

      Churches (through their clergy) may solemnize marriages, but there is no requirement that they do so for all comers.  A Catholic church may refuse to perform a solemnization for two Jews, for example. On the other hand, two atheists can have their marriage solemnized by a civil authority, such as a judge or county clerk, without any religious test being imposed.

      In summary, all weddings are marriages, but not all marriages are weddings.  All marriages must be solemnized, but not all solemnizations must be weddings.

      The historical requirement of solemnization in the presence of witnesses dates back to a time before writing and reading were common.  By taking vows in the presence of witnesses, inheritance of lands by the rightful (i.e., legitimate) heirs could occur with less chance of controversy. (This is also the basis of the tradition of having children participate in weddings.  Younger participants helped insure that someone who remembered the solemnization would be around for at least a generation or so.  On occasion, said children were adminstered a beating, to fix the event firmly in their memories.)

      If the religious nuts who oppose gay marriage were sincere about "protecting families" and "a child needs a mother and a father", they would put their money into constitutional amendments banning divorce. At the very least, they would be able to explain why the infertile, or those past childbearing years should be allowed to marry. (My wife and I have exactly the same chance of producing a child as do any gay couple...exactly zero.)

      As it stands, their core appeal is to homophobes, and as has happened for millennia, they clothe their hatred in the language of religion and invoke the fear of hellfire to motivate their legions of drones to do their bidding. I apologize in advance to those who are offended, but if you support a church that opposes gay marriage, you are financing oppression based on religious bigotry.  You really need to rethink your support of such an institution.

      "Obama's gonna be president, and there's not a goddamn thing you can do about it. How's that feel?" - Fishgrease

      by roxtar on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 12:54:57 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Thank you. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        roxtar

        I'm continually surprised at how many people actually think a church has legal power to marry.  
        It doesn't.  
        A religious ritual (wedding ceremony) is not a legal event -- it is merely a faith-based spectacle with no significance in the eyes of the law.  

        •  that actually depends on the state :*0 (0+ / 0-)

          in some states an ordained minister does in fact have the power to sign the license, etc.

          "By the power vested in me by the State of Texas, I now pronounce you husband and wife."

          Those words were used in both my weddings (the first, by a county judge, involved the single biggest mistake of my life; the second, by a minister, was the single best thing I've ever done).

          One America does the work, another America reaps the reward. One pays the taxes, another gets the tax breaks." John Edwards

          by BlackSheep1 on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 01:51:18 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  The license is from the state. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            marsanges

            Not a church, synagogue, temple, shaman, witchdoctor, etc.    

            A ship's captain can also sign a marriage license.  That doesn't mean that marriage is a maritime issue.  It's a civil status managed by the state.  

        •  Legal power (0+ / 0-)

          While the church ceremony doesn't inherently confer any legal rights, it is a fairly well defined legal precedent that's been used to declare a couple as married.  Granted, they've had to go afterwards and get the documentation drawn up, but it's still been used.

          •  That splits another legal hair. (0+ / 0-)

            A marriage performed (i.e., solemnized) without a license, in which the parties believe in good faith that they have been "married", falls into the category of "voidable" marriages.  (Some "marriages" are void: between brother and sister, for example. A void marriage is in no way a marriage, and requires no divorce to dissolve it.  Others are voidable: e.g., if both parties are too drunk to appreciate the significance of the marriage.)

            A voidable marriage can be annulled at the request of either party, upon a showing that the marriage is one that is voidable.  On the other hand, it can be ratified.  I think that's the situation Dave is describing. Such a marriage can only be ratified by the State issuing a license, at which point it becomes a "valid" marriage.

            And as I've pointed out before, the government can take your property, your children, your freedom, and your life, but it CANNOT dissolve a valid marriage without consent of one of the parties.  IMHO, that makes marriage the most fundamental right we enjoy, and it cannot be denied on the basis of race, creed, national origin, OR sexual preference.

            "Obama's gonna be president, and there's not a goddamn thing you can do about it. How's that feel?" - Fishgrease

            by roxtar on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 04:39:24 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  No. Marriage is already a civil issue. (0+ / 0-)

      Only the state has the power to marry, as evidenced by the necessity of a marriage license.  Without a state license, there is no marriage.  

      Religions can do nothing more than perform legally-meaningless rituals.  They are powerless in the eyes of the law and they should forever remain that way.  America has a secular government -- no religion has the authority to confer legal status or benefits.  

      Do NOT cede marriage to the religionists.  

      •  Not entirely (0+ / 0-)

        Thanks to the blurring of lines.  Take NC's laws:

        51‑1.  Requisites of marriage; solemnization.

        A valid and sufficient marriage is created by the consent of a male and female person who may lawfully marry, presently to take each other as husband and wife, freely, seriously and plainly expressed by each in the presence of the other, either:

        (1)      a.         In the presence of an ordained minister of any religious denomination, a minister authorized by a church, or a magistrate; and

        b.         With the consequent declaration by the minister or magistrate that the persons are husband and wife; or

        (2)       In accordance with any mode of solemnization recognized by any religious denomination, or federally or State recognized Indian Nation or Tribe.

        The minister becomes the arbiter of the state in that case.

        •  Actually, yes, entirely (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          marsanges

          Because unless the people that say their vows in the presence of that ordained minister, magistrate, or whatever other official don't also have a valid marriage license from the state of North Carolina, all the praying and religious ceremonial (or whatever) doesn't mean bupkes. But you did hit the exact problem on the head--it's the deputization of religious figures to act on the state's behalf in witnessing these contracts that we need to end. Just as they have in Europe: everybody gets married in front of a civil official (town mayor, judge, registry office official, whatever). Those who wish may (but are not required to) have a subsequent religious ceremony to bless their union. But it has to come after the legal marriage, and the religious ceremony has no legal effect whatsoever.

  •  I've thought for a while now that the government (7+ / 0-)

    should issue a "Civil Union License" for ALL situations - gay or straight.  Let religion have "marriage" and issue whatever piece of paper they want.
    The federal bill covering this could be something to that effect and then state that retroactive all laws, legal contracts, etc where the word "marriage" or "married" is used, is now legally considered "civil union"
    Problem solved.
    Religious people have the word "marriage" and we all have our legal, civil unions.
    I don't mind.  I've been "married" for almost 30 years and our first disagreement was justice of the peace or priest.  My husband won that, but I'm still indifferent to what it's called or who performs the ceremony.  It's our relationship over the past 30 years that matters to me.
    And allowing "civil unions" or "marriages" doesn't change that one bit.

    •  the problem with that (3+ / 0-)

      is that "marriage" is an iconic word in our language.  We will have to work very hard to change that.

      Blue House Diaries...because there's more to life than politics.

      by lapolitichick on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 12:32:19 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  And we should (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lapolitichick

        The whole concept of awarding a host of rights and privileges and tax breaks on people by virtue of whom they are sleeping with is problematic to begin with.

        "I can't come to bed yet! Someone is WRONG on the Internet!" - XKCD

        by SingularExistence on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 12:36:10 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You don't get tax breaks based on (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          lapolitichick

          marriage, but on kids.

          •  Not entirely true (5+ / 0-)

            If it changes your tax bracket to a better one..

            •  The so-called "marriage penalty" (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              lapolitichick, asius

              can actually be a "marriage bonanza," depending on your income and tax bracket.

              It affects capital gains taxes as well. If I sell my condo for $500,000, I get to exclude $250,000 of that as a capital gain. If the couple living next door to me in an identical unit sells theirs for the same $400,000, they get to exclude ALL of it. Same unit. Same sales price. Double the exclusion.

              Not only that, in many states, married people pay lower insurance rates. They get "couples" discounts on everything from health clubs to dry cleaning.

              I don't want to get too hung up on all this, because I favor same-sex marriage for a variety of reasons, including basic fairness. But it's worth thinking about why society seems to believe that married people are so much more worthy than their single counterparts.

              "I can't come to bed yet! Someone is WRONG on the Internet!" - XKCD

              by SingularExistence on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 12:55:57 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  Not at all true! (3+ / 0-)

            Medical benefits to marriage partners are NOT taxable under Federal provisions. For identical medical benefits to domestic partners, the portion contributed by the employer is taxed as imputed income on the employee. Given the ever-increasing cost of medical benefits, that constitutes a very significant tax break for married couples.

        •  In my sociology class (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          lapolitichick

          we're doing a group "create a society from scratch" project. I proposed that in our new society marriage mean absolutely nothing legally. No benefits, no legal recognition, no nothing. Next of kin and who gets to visit you in the hospital would be handled by simple legal documents, and we're going to have a progressive tax with no deductions anyway, so that doesn't apply. Marriage would be completely personal, and the only marriage that would be illegal would involve age limitations and incest.

          Everyone in our group, mostly far younger than I am, 19ish...they all agreed with me.

          What do you call a parent that believes in abstinence only sex ed? A Grandparent.

          by ChurchofBruce on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 01:30:10 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Not just the only iconic word. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lapolitichick, asius, Nebraskablue

        There's a whole bunch of other iconic words and phrases associated with marriages and the legal relationships created by them.

        Spouse, wife, husband... One of my gay friends has a British-style legal partnership agreement with his partner, and the introduction of "this is _'s partner" applied the same before and after the legal relationship was created.

        Wedding bands/rings... My gay friend and his partner wear rings on their left ring fingers. The rings match. So what the hell am I supposed to call those things, since they function as wedding bands but it was a partnership ceremony rather than a wedding?

        We've had centuries to generate words associated with weddings, and the entire argument against calling things marriages is saying "Yeah, there's this thing LIKE this relationship we've recognized for a long time, but since this one little thing about it is different, the only terms appropriate to it are stilted legalese and awkward constructions instead of the emotionally connotative words we've been using for a long time for that other thing."

        Incomplete list of McNames in profile. Personal favorites include McSogynist, McNopoly, and McThuselah, and McCambrian.

        by Cassandra Waites on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 01:12:52 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  thank you (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Cassandra Waites

          you said it so much better than I did.

          Blue House Diaries...because there's more to life than politics.

          by lapolitichick on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 01:15:02 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  You can call the rings anything you want, and (0+ / 0-)

          those who continue on to a church ceremony can call their rings anything they want, too.  
          I guess that I think same-sex partners should have the same legal rights as male/female partners, and just as I didn't get the big deal of the separate church thing 30 years ago, I don't get the big deal of all this now once you get past the legal equality thing.  
          I think everyone should sign the legal paperwork at the county clerk's office (or whereever it's done in your state) and then after that you can leave that office already civilly unionized and arrange whatever kind of church thing you want.   Catholic church doesn't recognize legal divorces, either.  You have to go for a separate annulment.  

    •  This is how it's done in Mexico (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      asius

      I posted this comment in a previous diary

      My daughter got married in Mexico - twice.  The "official" marriage took place in a judge's office which is the legally binding contract between the 2 parties.  (Lots of paperwork involved.)  The church wedding was the next day with all the bells and whistles of a wedding as we are all familiar with, the difference being that the Pastor had no authority to join a couple legally.  It was all for show/joined under God.

      By the way, why do Priests/Pastors/et al have the authority here to marry couples anyway? Sure, you have to have a license to get married but I see this as kind of a blurred line between church and state.

      The point is, there is certainly a legal aspect that should have nothing to do with being gay or straight... it's a contract.  Whatever is done as far as a celebration or religious union is of no consequence to anyone outside of the people involved.

      "the promise of a democracy where we can find the strength and grace to bridge divides and unite in common effort." ~ Barack Obama 8.28.08

      by Bobbysmom on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 12:57:37 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  But please don't let others miss the point (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        KathleenM1, Bobbysmom

        She was married in the judge's office. If she never had the ceremony in a church, she was still married.

        •  Exactly (0+ / 0-)

          By their laws it is also true that a marriage in a church has no legal bearing on its own.  It is a true separation of church and state.

          I wish there was an uncomplicated answer to the whole situation where everyone has the equal right to a legal union.... call it what you will.

          "the promise of a democracy where we can find the strength and grace to bridge divides and unite in common effort." ~ Barack Obama 8.28.08

          by Bobbysmom on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 02:17:56 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  I agree. At the time, I thought it was awfully (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Bobbysmom

        odd (and a complete waste of time) to take paperwork from a government office to a church for a signature. I would have been just as happy to do the paperwork and go home, but my husband wanted the show. I still think the church was the unimportant part of it all.

        The catholic church made its ceremony a bunch of BS when it jumped through hoops to "annul" every "legal divorce" that came along to try to keep itself relevant.  My older sister was threatened with excommunication when she refused to sign annulment papers that would have made her children illegitimate in the eyes of the church.   Didn't a Kennedy write a book about her experiences with this?  And it has nothing to do with their "oath" to follow the church's sacraments, it all has to do with the second wife wanting the church wedding with the dress and bells and whistles.  

        •  Catholic church (0+ / 0-)

          makes things even more complicated.  My husband was raised Catholic and wants nothing to do with them.  Luckily that was true even when we were married so we didn't have to be concerned with "the rituals".

          "the promise of a democracy where we can find the strength and grace to bridge divides and unite in common effort." ~ Barack Obama 8.28.08

          by Bobbysmom on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 02:25:02 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  My partner and I hope for a civil union (8+ / 0-)

    Being the cynical marketing guy that I am, I know a fundamental (pun intended) problem is with the feeling of ownership of the word marriage some people hold.  

    To so-called defenders of heterosexual marriage, I say:  Want to keep the word?  Fine. Let "marriage" be a religious or spiritual term.  Just give my partner and me the same rights everyone else has.  Call it civil union.  Call it "spatula" for all I care.  Just don't write discrimination into a state or federal constitution based on your narrow minded view of the world.

    I think that we need to move the focus off the word "marriage" if w can.  And we need to tap the best available resources in terms of political strategy, straight or gay, to attack this with a vengeance.

    dissent not only welcome... but encouraged

    by newfie53523 on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 12:23:27 PM PST

  •  We have (12+ / 0-)

    marriage for gays in the Netherlands, and it's quite simple here. In the Netherlands you always have to marry for the state (justice of the peace I guess), and if you want to be wed with religion, then you can do that as well. Do it like that, and there are no problems what so ever.

    So, religious people will have to do two ceremonies, one for state, and one for church/synagogue/temple/whatever, and those who don't want to, they don't, but are still married.

  •  Exactly right (3+ / 0-)

    about the New Testament modifying the Old. Jesus came to Change the World (sound familiar?) and what did Jesus have to say about man-on-man love?

    That's right. NOTHING. Was it political correctness that prevented Jesus from speaking out? Hardly. This is a man who cleared tax collectors from the Temple.

    Jesus, whose teachings Christians supposedly follow, had nothing to say about homosexuality. So any conclusions they come to regarding the Bible saying it's wrong, is exactly as the diarist calls it -- bullshit.

    •  Besides, I am not a Christian any more so why (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      asius

      should what the Bible says or doesn't say about homosexuality have anything to do with whether I can get married?

      Although, the fact that Jesus didn't say anything about it is not very persuasive to fundies...they claim to believe in every word of the Bible literally, so as long as it's somewhere in there, it doesn't matter whether Jesus spoke about it.

      Of course, Jesus did say that divorce was wrong, but somehow, right wing christians manage to make an exception for that, along with about 50,000 other things!

  •  Conservatism, my ass... (5+ / 0-)

    It's worth pointing out to conservatives that their opposition to gay marriage runs counter to their own political philosophy.  The bedrock principle of conservatism is the notion of keeping big government out of our personal lives.  Thus, government should have no interest whatsoever in who chooses to marry whom.

    Regulate banks, not bedrooms.

  •  I find it obscene (13+ / 0-)

    that straight serial adulters are calling marriage a "sacred institution" that would be "tainted" if gay people are allowed to participate. John McCain, Ronald Reagan, and Newt Gingrich all woke up one day and walked out on somebody they swore up and down in a church that they would love forever.

    Newt dumped a wife for being sick with cancer and a burden on his lifestyle. There is nothing a gay man or woman has ever done to disrespect the institution of marriage on a par with that.

    I think Gay Marriage is a threat because it destroys a myth that the Right desperately needs to cling to: that gay people are dangerously promiscuous in an age where sleeping with the wrong person can kill you.

    Gay monogamy and commitment is terrifying, because its one of the biggest myths the far Right uses to demonize gays and lesbians. It's right up there with "choosing" to be gay.

    I say that anything Britney Spears can do, and have annulled, in 48 hours is not a sacred institution. If the Right truly believed it was a sacred instituion they would advocate giving teeth to antiquated anti-adultery laws and bar divorce. Maybe even criminalize it.

    And that will never happen because it would mean a lot of conservatives claiming that Gay people would "destroy" the instituion would be in the maximum security morality prison.

     

    You know its going badly for wingnuts when they denounce the Politico as liberally biased.

    by LeftHandedMan on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 12:32:41 PM PST

    •  holy shit, did you just nail that to the wall! (6+ / 0-)

      I think Gay Marriage is a threat because it destroys a myth that the Right desperately needs to cling to: that gay people are dangerously promiscuous in an age where sleeping with the wrong person can kill you.

      Gay monogamy and commitment is terrifying, because its one of the biggest myths the far Right uses to demonize gays and lesbians. It's right up there with "choosing" to be gay.

      and a cheer rises from the banks of lake merritt in oakland, california.

      boy howdy, do you ever have the fundie right's number right there in those two paragraphs.

      I'll give you this here wedding ring when you take it from my cold, dead hand.

      by homo neurotic on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 12:39:46 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I agree (5+ / 0-)

      I wrote something a while ago that basically posited that one reason conservatives are so threatened by same-sex marriage is that, in many cases, it displays a much more profound level of commitment than does heterosexual marriage.

      In our society, heterosexuals are expected to marry. We are pushed to do so. Many of us have to consistently justify and explain our decision to NOT marry, and we are frequently looked on as abnormal freaks if we do not. In other words, getting married is pretty damn easy for straight people (staying married is another story, but that's a post for another day).

      Gay people, on the other hand, don't get that kind of pressure (it's not like Great Aunt Ethel is hovering over her unmarried lesbian niece demanding she "find a nice gal and settle down in Northhampton already!") In many cases, they have arrived at their relationships in spite of - not because of - extreme societal pressure and disapproval, and prevailed in those relationships. That demands an extraordinarily high degree of love and commitment - one that is far superior to Newt & McCain's disgraceful treatment of their wives or Britney's blink-and-you'll-miss-'em Las Vegas nuptials.

      So if you're a heterosexual homophobe looking around at all these happy, well-adjusted gay couples who went the extra mile (or ten miles, or a thousand miles) to be together, you might be more than a tad bit jealous of the love and commitment that took on their part. Maybe you wonder whether you yourself would have had that kind of emotional fortitude. Maybe you wonder whether your spouse would have. And maybe, just maybe, you get a little bitter. A little angry. A little vindictive. And you don't like feeling that way. So you decide to push back - not by making your own life or marriage better, but by making it impossible for those terrible, evil, happy gay people to show you up. Better that, you think, than face the truth about the shallowness of your own hateful life.

      "I can't come to bed yet! Someone is WRONG on the Internet!" - XKCD

      by SingularExistence on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 12:48:19 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Perhaps the answer is to change state laws (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Katie71, Bobbysmom, Meggie

    changing the word marriage to civil unions.  

    So marriage becomes a religious word not a legal definition.   I'm married and wouldn't disagree we have a civil union.  We were married by a minister, but do I really care what we call it?  I'm with her and she is with me.  Forever.

    I think that is the answer.  None of us are married in a legal sense, we all have a civil union.  And if we are married in a religious sense, so be it.  Over time, the two concepts will merge as they should, once the homophobics get used to civilly unioned couples who happen to be gay.

    It can't be the end of the world, Macy's would have had an End-Of-The-World Sale.

    by garth the wimp on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 12:41:43 PM PST

    •  I agree with you, as a straight person (0+ / 0-)

      the term doesn't actually matter to me. I am not married to the word married, for the most part. LOL.

      But, there's a problem taking this approach.

      If you tell people that they can't get married either and it's all civil unions for everyone*, then people who were either supportive or at best neutral will have a dog in the fight and it can potentially make an already uphill climb for gay marriage nearly impossible in some quarters.

      Hatred, which could destroy so much, never failed to destroy the man who hated, and this was an immutable law. James Baldwin

      by evilene689 on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 12:50:04 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  ONLY if you do what several European (0+ / 0-)

      countries do and require EVERYONE to have a civil ceremony--thuis denyign religions the right to preside over legal marriages. Persoanlly I think that is the way to go a sa transition to fullm arriage equality. EVERYONE must have a civl union/legal mrriage presided over by  represenative of the state (not of a religion).  THey can then go on to be married in church if they want to--but that marriage isn't legal without the civil one.

      The last time we mixed religion and politics people got burned at the stake.

      by irishwitch on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 02:44:32 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Excuse me but... (0+ / 0-)

    North Carolina better look out, because I’ve had it.  I will find a way to get married and have it recognized in my home state, and I refuse to take ‘no’ for an answer.

    That seems like a pretty argumentative tone for someone who, by their own admission, has paid no attention to what was going on here at all. (I find it a little unsettling that you mention the Senate race, but not Jim Neal.)

    We could have achieved a majority of women on our State Supreme Court this year if we had elected Suzanne Reynolds, who was hugely popular among NC progressives. But she lost by less than 2% of the vote to a male candidate endorsed by the Republican Party.  What the outcome might have been
    had she had even 1% of the on-the-ground support that was dedicated to Obama, I can't say. But it certainly couldn't have hurt, especially since non-partisan candidates can't solicit donations, so they are far more dependent on supporters on the ground than other candidates.

    Beyond that, many gays in North Carolina have been paying very close attention, have been working hard at the state level for a long time, and have made great progress here. They certainly put shoulder to the wheel to support Reynolds, and they could have used your help.

    I wouldn't recommend showing up belatedly and acting all feisty about how NC just better watch out. Gay activists here are very proud of everything they have accomplished already, and proud of the widespread support they have received from the good citizens of North Carolina. This attitude is a slap in the face to them and to all those countless good citizens who have supported them.

    •  I think you misunderstood the anger (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      irishwitch, Free Spirit, Eddie L

      First, I've been paying attention in NC.  I voted for Neal in the primary, and was quite upset that he didn't get the nomination.  I voted for both Reynolds and Walczyk in the judges races.

      What I missed were all the initiatives (aside from California) that were on other state's ballots.

      What I'm angry and riled up to arms about is hearing time and time again of another state voting to ban gay marriage and writing it into their constitution.  Of looking at our laws and how clear cut and full of prejudice they are.  Of looking at the times that NC has had bills introduced to constitutionalize bigotry, and having to shove it off to die in committee, or having it narrowly voted down.

      I've had it.  I've held out hope for years that people couldn't possibly be prejudiced enough to continue these beliefs.  That by now we would have recognized the damage it causes.

      If anything, you ought to have read it as cause to celebrate, that there's another person out there that's ready to fight.

      •  OK, then. Welcome aboard! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        irishwitch

        But be prepared to accept the fact that people are unlikely to change on your time schedule just because you are fed up with them not changing faster.  We elected our first gay legislature in 2004, and this year, we managed to re-elect her, in spite of a very challenging set of circumstances. Change comes slowly to NC, like anywhere else. I appreciate your frustration with the pace, but there it is.

  •  A right recognized by states (5+ / 0-)

    Marriage is a right made legal by its being recognized by states, who charge fees for a license (much like a drivers icense). Gays cannot be deprived of this right without violating equal protection under the law.

    "This election is not about me, it's about you, the American people." Sen.Barack Obama

    by ARCADIA on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 12:49:10 PM PST

  •  What about the passage in Romans, in which (0+ / 0-)

    Paul condemns "unnatural acts," viz being gay?

    You should be ashamed! Stop blogging. Stop blogging right now! - Ivy Frye, assistant to Gov. Palin

    by burrow owl on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 12:51:43 PM PST

    •  Romans 1? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      irishwitch

      You're probably referring to the bit in Romans 1 around verses 26 or so.  He's in the midst of talking about a group of Christians who had fallen away from the faith and reverted to paganism, and the fertility acts that often associated those.  As a conservative christian, he would obviously associate anything Pagan as bad or unnatural.

      •  I don't know why this (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Cassandra Waites

        isn't pointed out as being about reverting to paganism and not on it's face about homosexual relationships more often.

        Don't people know that you can argue points of law and civil rights all day, but if people are wrestling with sorting out what scripture says, that you have to use scripture to do that? That is where the high ground in bringing people around is going to be won or lost. /two cents

        Hatred, which could destroy so much, never failed to destroy the man who hated, and this was an immutable law. James Baldwin

        by evilene689 on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 01:19:47 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Cherrypicking (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          irishwitch, Cassandra Waites

          It's all about picking the one line or phrase that substantiates your point, and not looking at the context around it.  It drives me absolutely bonkers.

          My background is in mathematics.  Logic has been drilled into my head since I was a little child.  It blows my mind how people try to take 1 + 1 and have it equal Pi.

          •  I'm sure it is in some cases, but (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Cassandra Waites

            that's a pretty broad stroke of the brush at the same time.

            You can't assume that people are just willfully choosing to interpret something a certain way to suit their needs at the laymen level of most churches. They pick up what is taught from generation to generation. Sometimes the lightbulb goes off individually about an issue, but most of the time it doesn't.

            Anyway, my point is that people who are GLBT themselves or allies that can have this exchange and encourage dialog with churches can be useful for people who really aren't full hate, but haven't gotten any questions to their real religious concerns.

            Poo-pooing it as silly superstition isn't going to change anyone's vote, btw.

            Hatred, which could destroy so much, never failed to destroy the man who hated, and this was an immutable law. James Baldwin

            by evilene689 on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 01:31:39 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  correction (0+ / 0-)

              but haven't gotten any questions to their real religious concerns.

              should read: but haven't gotten any answers

              Hatred, which could destroy so much, never failed to destroy the man who hated, and this was an immutable law. James Baldwin

              by evilene689 on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 01:32:57 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Cherry-picking at the pastor level or higher, (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              irishwitch

              not the individual.

              Given the social pressure to do "Read the Bible in a year" as a source of bragging rights as the main 'read everything' pressure in some groups, I'd say the speed of reading means that most of those who have read the Bible cover to cover probably still only really know their church or denomination's 500 or so favorite verses well, and only in the context that group chooses to cite them in most often.

              Incomplete list of McNames in profile. Personal favorites include McSogynist, McNopoly, and McThuselah, and McCambrian.

              by Cassandra Waites on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 01:39:11 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I agree, but this isn't (0+ / 0-)

                answering the question of why (as far as I can see) the GLBT community isn't discussing how to make headway with AA churches (besides screaming IT'S OUR RIGHT! at them) because it's pretty clear that there was a lack of communication with them and just a lot of assuming people would vote against 8.

                Hatred, which could destroy so much, never failed to destroy the man who hated, and this was an immutable law. James Baldwin

                by evilene689 on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 01:45:50 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I'll agree there (0+ / 0-)

                  That's been my frustration to date.  The distinction has been blurred so far as to legal vs religious rights, that the two have been merged in the minds of the opponents.  On the other hand, the argument that's portrayed from religious groups is that 'marriage laws are based on religion and therefore sacred'.  

                  It's hard to have an argument with groups that have already defined you as wrong and going to hell that you deserve to have any rights.

                  I'll admit, I don't know the ins and outs of what went on in California around Prop 8, since I live on the opposite coast, but I would hope that those churches that are supportive of gays would have been out and urging members to vote No.

                  The other caveat that I'd offer is that most churches that support gay rights would also be more inclined to worry about their tax status and wouldn't be as obviously involved as those who are trying to promote bigotry and aren't really concerned about their rights.

            •  To me, it's critical thinking (0+ / 0-)

              Or rather, a lack thereof.  My big break with organized religion came when I was about 12 years old.  At that point, I realized that all I had been taught was that faith was an intensly personal belief.  That it was my relationship with God.  And that everyone had to have their own unique combination for their beliefs.  That was the point where I asked the question - if it's my belief structure, why does that make what the pastor believes any more valid or right than what I believe?  Why should anyone for that matter tell/inform me what to believe?

              I think a lot of the religious aspect comes from not thinking logically about it.  From automatically accepting what's been told as the correct interpretation, and not questioning any of the circumstances around it.  Fundamentally, when you boil down a lot of religious basis, it's on good vs evil.  Right vs Wrong.  If your church tells you that homosexuality is bad and you're going to go to hell for it, and they're the religious leaders, why would you question it?

              Never mind that it doesn't square with a lot of the other teachings of Christianity.  I know of few people who've sat down and had those discussions with pastors, friends, etc, to try and reconcile the differences.  I do know of people who say 'yes, I love everyone like Christ said' but still think homosexuality is a sin and that are praying for me to 'overcome' it.

              •  That's fine. (0+ / 0-)

                It's still not going to fix the issue where the votes of the religious make a difference.

                Calling them all bigots won't win votes.

                Expecting them to see it as a civil rights only issue won't get votes.

                Mocking their beliefs won't get fucking votes!

                Discussion and answering questions and sweeping away the lies contained in Prop 8 propaganda is the solution.

                I hope somebody figures that out sooner, rather than later if they thing shit is going to get done before 2010.

                Hatred, which could destroy so much, never failed to destroy the man who hated, and this was an immutable law. James Baldwin

                by evilene689 on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 01:49:00 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  Not even just ignoring context. (0+ / 0-)

            Ignoring the culture around that context, as well. And often not going to to any source from anyone who actually looked at the original language, much less looking at that original form prior to the game of Translation Telephone.

            If you're citing one Bible translation, and every source you look at for additional support cites that same Biblical translation, and no one includes any mention of the original language beyond the Greek word agape or a few other simple words, something may be wrong with your logic before you even start.

            Incomplete list of McNames in profile. Personal favorites include McSogynist, McNopoly, and McThuselah, and McCambrian.

            by Cassandra Waites on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 01:35:25 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Exactly. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              irishwitch

              A lot of the newer translations have gone back and looked to the farthest back sources they can find in an effort to get more and more accurate, but as is the case of all translations - they're influenced by the culture of the translator.  If your culture says 'homosexuality is bad', you're going to view passages around that in a different perspective.

              That's why I went to the trouble of digging out my older Bible copies when I wrote this to get the actual words in the Greek, Latin, and Hebrew.  I know of no one who's ever studied Latin that'd suggest that 'cognoscere' means anything to do with sex.  It's about knowledge.

    •  The context kills that interpretation (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      irishwitch, Cassandra Waites

      First off, neither Paul nor anybody in his intended audience would have understood what we mean when we now say "being gay." The concept of homosexuality as an abiding orientation was only first attested in the late 19th century--long after the letter to the Romans was written.

      Second, if you read the full passage, and not just the proof-texting bit about men lusting after men and women after women (the only time, by the by, that lesbian sex is dissed in the Scriptures), you'll note that Paul says specifically that God "turned" these people "away from the natural usage" for their sins. In other words, having gay sex was a punishment for bad behavior. The passage is loaded with language that makes it very clear the people Paul is talking about are doing something they would not normally do.

      That totally doesn't fit with our current understanding of gay people and how they're made up. It's perfectly normal for me to be interested in sexual congress with another male--it would be with a female that I'd be struggling against my usual nature.

    •  So don'tmarry anyone in your (0+ / 0-)

      church.  NO ONE can force any faith to recognize or perform gay marriage.   That same unnatural act clause also applies to oral and anal sex for STRAIGHTS, too.

      The last time we mixed religion and politics people got burned at the stake.

      by irishwitch on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 02:40:37 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  In the case of Lot in Sodom, (0+ / 0-)

    why would he then offer to send out his daughters instead?

    The fundamentalists want a divided America. This is a test of the future system.

    by Amayi on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 12:58:23 PM PST

    •  It's important to realize (0+ / 0-)

      that in the time and place that the story was set in, young (virgin) women were valuable property. Lot wasn't offering his daughters for sex with the crowd, he was offering them something they could later sell. There really isn't any inherent sexual connotation to the whole story.

      I do like conducting hearings in an actual hearing room -- John Conyers

      by ebohlman on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 05:18:14 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  As communal property? I'm not convinced. :) (0+ / 0-)

        I don't see the point of making excuses for the Bible, at any rate. But that's another issue.

        The fundamentalists want a divided America. This is a test of the future system.

        by Amayi on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 09:10:59 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's not right vs wrong (0+ / 0-)

          It's not whether it's necessarily a morally right or wrong thing to do - it's that culturally at that time it was considered an appropriate answer.  That's why for the most part, we today consider a lot of things in the Old Testament as wrong (raping your victims after conquest, sharing your wives, etc).  When you're reading a work that was written thousands of years ago, that perspective needs to be in place.  One shouldn't judge to begin with, but particularly not with morals that are thousands of years different.

  •  Re: The Bible (5+ / 0-)

    Remember this "Letter to Dr. Laura?"

    Dear Dr. Laura, Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.
    a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
    b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
    c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
    d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
    e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
    f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
    g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
    h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?
    i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
    j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
    I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging. Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.

    Real or not, pretty much sums up the BS argument against gay marriage.

    Electing conservatives is like hiring a carpenter who thinks hammers are evil.

    by MA Liberal on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 01:03:46 PM PST

  •  I am the partner. (4+ / 0-)

    And I endorse these comments completely.

    David and I love each other.  We want to marry, somehow, someday, somewhere.  I would like for it to be while my mother is still alive to see it.

    Dave has some minor but annoying medical problems.  I am the man by his side on his doctor visits, and waiting at the pharmacy, and protecting his injured arm, and nagging him to take his pills, and helping him heal.  I don't want to have to sign dozens of pages of documents to guarantee my right to be by his side.  I don't want to have to sign those documents and then still wonder if someone could challenge my right to be by his side.

    I want to sign one document - my marriage license.  If I do that, no one can question my right to be by Dave's side, through thick and thin, anywhere we go in this country.  No one can tell me, in case of an emergency, that I am not a "relative" and that I cannot see him.  No one can go to court and try to take our children away from us.  No one can tax me on my domestic partnership health benefits from Dave's employer.

    If my government is truly and idealistically secular, then it can only recognize one societal benefit in our parents' marriages that is missing from our future marriage - the ability to procreate.  Perhaps at one ancient time in our species' history, certain tribes or groups were in danger of extinction.  I do not think that is the case any longer.  Promoting the survival of the species is a woefully thin argument upon which to base the changing of fundamental governing documents, upon which to second-class hundreds of thousands of Americans, upon which to take away rights.

  •  Newt Gingrich unique (0+ / 0-)

    Newt dumped a wife for being sick with cancer and a burden on his lifestyle. There is nothing a gay man or woman has ever done to disrespect the institution of marriage on a par with that.

    How do you know, did you take a survey?
    It's unsubstantiated pronouncements like yours that really burn me up. You pretend that every single one of you is so goody goody perfect because you're gay and you're a victim.
    Nobody's perfect, not even God.

  •  The Bible (1+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    USexpat Ukraine
    Hidden by:
    irishwitch

    If the Bible is so full of it then why do you want to be married according to its traditions?

  •  Be xtra phukkin' careful what you wish for (0+ / 0-)

    There’s no reason that I shouldn’t be allowed to marry whomever I choose to fall in love with and have it legally recognized.

     
    Fine.  Just don't call it marriage.  Call it a civil union or something.  Just not marriage.  Read on.

    I refuse to be treated as a second class individual.

    Ibid.  See above.  Second class individual?  You don't know what second class or even third, fourth or fifth class even means until you've been through the Satanic Ritual of a Divorce.  Made possible by marriage.  See below.

    My grandparents were married for almost 70 years before my grandmother died, and I intend to get wed to the man I love and live together for as long as I’m alive too.

     
    Fine, just don't call it marriage.  Why?  Check with just about any man in NC who's been through divorce court.  The "marriage contract" is a piece of shit, with or w/o religious accoutrements.  It has no weight in law as a contract: everything that's vowed is undermined by "no-fault" divorce.  

    So North Carolina better look out, because I’ve had it.  I will find a way to get married and have it recognized in my home state, and I refuse to take ‘no’ for an answer.

    Yeah, yeah, yada, yada, yada.  Bullshit.  You help get heterosexual males in NC the right to a civil union, contracted in some meaningful sense of the word 'contract'  (it's not supposed to be the mafia sense of the word, but tell that to divorce lawyers and crazy-ass women maybe going through unusually brutal PMS or some goddamned thing), and then maybe we'll help you get the 'right' to 'marriage' and all the horseshit nonsense that goes with it.

    =====
    In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.
    -- George Orwell

    by USexpat Ukraine on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 02:31:24 PM PST

    •  Why the fuck should anyone (0+ / 0-)

      cater to you loonytune notions.  ANd the term matters a lot.  Because civil unions mean second class status.

      Sounds to me like someone's wife nailed him to the wall--and probably with good reason, judging by your comments here.  Because, frankly, you sound like a mjor league asshole.

      The last time we mixed religion and politics people got burned at the stake.

      by irishwitch on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 02:38:01 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Fine. n/t (0+ / 0-)

        =====
        In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.
        -- George Orwell

        by USexpat Ukraine on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 02:45:33 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  SOrry, but that's my take. (0+ / 0-)

          Misogynist and involved in a nasty divorce.

          Lemme tellya, there are some crazy-ass men out there. My SiL's ex has put her and her family through hell for the last 7 years, claiming her child was abused by her mother and her grandmother, trying to get TROs against my husband for telling him if he continued to threaten her, my husband would call the police and testify agaisnt him in court if necessary. SHe's 50K in debt (she makes 30K a year and has a mortgage; he makes 100K and his wife--the one with whom he committed adutlery--also works at a good job) because of the bastard.  And,. yes, bTW, he also struck her at leat once and has made enough threats on her answeri8ng machine that the guardian ad litem took him seriously.

          Assho\les come in both sexes. I know plenty of men who fit the bill as vengeful and emotion ally abusive (nto to mention physically abusive). If you cannot leave your divorce angst at home,  then find saome palce else to play.

          The last time we mixed religion and politics people got burned at the stake.

          by irishwitch on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 02:51:55 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  your ad hominem attacks are beneath your (0+ / 0-)

            usual civility.  You accused me of being something I am devoutly not.  I was and am pointing to the issue of the utility and validity of marriage itself.  I happen to be from NC, as is the diarist, and am very familiar with that turf.

            I don't usually respond to ad hominem attacks.  For you, this once, I will defend myself in this particular case.

            Yes, nasty divorce.  Misogynist, no.  NOBODY who knows me personally would ever say such a thing.  Your saying it was a cheap shot.  

            Ex- went off the deep end -- according to three counselors including her own mother -- and filed no-contest divorce.  We had just finalized adoption by me for her son from a prior marriage.  I gave everything, mind, body, soul, possessions, everything, to the 'marriage.'  Property was awarded in the best interest of the child.  She threatened him, repeatedly, to 'persuade' him to say to the judge that he wanted to be with her.  He didn't.  He was ripped apart, between my and his love for each other and his bio-mom's threats to effectively divorce him, too, if he didn't do things her way.  I made no such threats, and conceded.  She got all property, with the provision that she'd have to repay the value of my share according to what she could pay.  Which was $50 a month maximum, and a cost of another five grand to seal that deal.  I costed it out and figured I'd come out better investing the same amount, which is what I did.

            Then I walked away from all of it.  I told neighbors, family, and friends that whatever happened, she and her son were not to be hurt in any way.  As a final act, I tore up our lawn down to the dirt and replanted much better grass than we'd had before.  I planted flowers, daffodils and tulips, around the perimeter so that each spring hundreds of flowers would bloom anew.  Then, I left.  

            I am very well aware that shit flies both ways in divorces.  Sometimes, as you describe, the husband behaves badly -- very badly.  I did not do that.  I made it a specific point to not do that.  I went in the complete opposite direction.  Nobody who knew us, from the local sheriff to ex-spooks to church pastors to the hundreds of clients I had in our small community, would ever in a million years have characterized me as 'looney tunes' or otherwise a bad husband, person, or business proprietor.  

            In ways too complex and too far beyond the scope of this forum to treat in depth, I moved heaven and earth and got things done for my ex's benefit that should have been impossible.  Clinton helped enormously -- POW/MIA affairs.  Whatever I asked for, I got.  Never mind why, that's the depth part.  POW/MIA families began traveling at US govt. expense [US DOD] to SE Asia in January 2005 as a result of my personal efforts.  Request for that funding is recorded for posterity in C-SPAN archives, an 'emergency session' of the US Senate Committee of Foreign Relations, dated 9 February 2004.

            In future, before you or anyone else here launch ad hominem attacks, please at least think twice and then again.  At minimum, it's an informal logical fallacy no different than non-sequiturs and false dichotomies.

            For the record, I wish the diarist the best.  I merely, though strenuously, disagree as to what 'best' means.  And I do not believe the relief he seeks in his conundrum is going to be found in any meaningful sense in 'marriage' and all that goes with it, as you and I have now both depicted.

            =====
            In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.
            -- George Orwell

            by USexpat Ukraine on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 04:20:04 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Myhusband also walked away with nothign but the (0+ / 0-)

              clothes on his back and his guitar--she kept it all. Including a house bought with HIS VA loan (she could have subbed hers but refused to do so, and he couldn't force her). She got custidy of the SCA group we all belonged to AND the friends (we actually told friends if they felt they had to choose, to support her, not us).  It was a rather unp0elsant situation.But you need to go back and read your comments that sparked my response. Because they were remarkably off-the-wall and soudned a lot iek ther ants I have seen from  men goping through bad divorces who hodl women responsible for everythign wrong in the world--instead of just their ex.

              ANd that comment originally had not a damned thing to do with Prop 8 and gay marriage.  It wa whether intedned or not a form of diary hijackjing--much as when some guy coems into a diary on abortion in SD  and the cosntitutional amendment whicha tttemopted to ban it, complainign about child support.

              Maybe YOU shoudl thi8nk twice before stickign irrelevant comments into other peoiple's diaries, hmm?

              The last time we mixed religion and politics people got burned at the stake.

              by irishwitch on Tue Nov 11, 2008 at 07:42:10 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

Click here for the mobile view of the site