The Washington State Supreme Court will begin deliberations next Tuesday, March 8 on whether to allow same-sex marriage in our state. Activist judges in lower courts assert the state's Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), approved by the legislature, is unconstitutional. Opponents of gay marriage will rally in Olympia Tuesday.
In today's Olympian, a member of the paper's "diversity" panel, Allen Hurtado, is allowed to articulate the case against gay marriage. Nice to see that "diversity" for once includes conservative views.
My sense is that most people who oppose same-sex marriage aren't keen to intrude upon the freedoms or sexual relationships of others. But we do respond to activism that seeks to refashion our culture according to an opposing worldview. Many Americans are frustrated as they watch an honored and cherished institution redefined and co-opted by a vocal minority.For many, it's sufficient that God's word disapproves of same-sex intimate relationships -- as do many non-Christian faith communities. From a purely scientific standpoint, even to those who doubt the existence or authority of an intelligent creator, it's plain that the incompatible physiology runs counter to nature.
......The cultural shift required for same-sex marriage to become the "new normal" would be huge, necessarily imposing profound changes across our whole society and bringing with it unforeseen and irrevocable consequences.
.....Could broad legal sanction of same-sex marriage create a compelling precedent for other "oppressed" groups to demand acceptance of other permutations of relationships, marriage and family structures? Would passage of a constitutional marriage amendment cause real harm to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people?
Hurtado closes with an appropriate warning against angry, extremist rhetoric on both sides.
I suspect there's a strong chance the predominantly liberal, Democratic Washington supremes will uphold the two lower court rulings at issue, in favor of gay marriage. What would happen next would be interesting. A statewide backlash (excepting places like Seattle, Bellingham and Port Townsend) would develop, but perhaps not to the extent that a state constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage would ever pass here.
That would require a two-thirds majority vote in both state legislative chambers, and a public vote. All the same, if the court rules for gay marriage, the Democratic Party will pay a price, statewide, and nationally.
UPDATE: As the current issue of Willamettee Week notes, 16 states have amended their constitutions to ban same-sex marriage.
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at March 04, 2005 09:46 AM | Email ThisMarriage is a private contract between two people, the meaning of which is defined by those two people according to their beliefs.
Unfortunately, with the state involved in marriage, it becomes a political animal with all sorts of negative implications. Everyone seems to want to stick there hands into something that should be, and in its natural state is, simple and natural.
But, since the state is involved, and it would seem always will be, my problem with this debate is it is yet another example of "progressives" insisting that the law of physics do not apply. Marriage between a man and a man is NOT the same thing as marriage between a man and woman. It's just not, so why force it to be the same.
If gays want to "marry," why not just classify it as something other than "marriage." I just don't get what the big freaking deal is.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on March 4, 2005 09:56 AMI think it's just that they have this need for their chosen lifestyle to be "validated". They want the United States of America to officially say that living that way is normal, when it clearly isn't. You don't have to believe in the Bible to notice that the physiological and reproductive aspects of that lifestyle are not natural.
It continually bugs me that they make this a "civil rights" issue, and the MSM goes along with it (though that's expected I guess). EVERYONE in the United States can already get married, including gays! There are just certain restrictions in place about WHO you can marry, and for good reason (you can't marry close relatives, juveniles, animals, members of the same sex, etc). No one is denying them any rights, give me a break.
Posted by: Scott on March 4, 2005 10:17 AMWe were apparently writing our comments at the same time, but let me reply to you now.
Marriage is and should be a public declaration of love and COMMITMENT to each other. Especially so that other people can hold you accountable. Private, special little contracts are easier to break.
People freely choose to enter into lifestyles leading to "social pariahism" as you call it, all the time. For instance, I'm a fundamentalist, evangelical Christian living near Seattle. You should see the stares we get as my family prays before eating out at a restaurant, for example.
But ok, let's give you the benefit of the doubt. Let's say that being gay IS genetic somehow (highly doubtful - and we're HUMANS, not ducks, and hopefully have better thought processes and self-control), and these people have a "natural drive" for others of the same sex.
Well, I've got news for you. I have a natural, built-in drive to sleep with lots of different women. Most men do tend to have this drive. Yet, guess what? I'm happily married, and monogamous. A dying breed, I know.
You see, not everything "natural" is good for you, or others around you. Rattlesnakes, poison ivy, arsenic, and viruses like bubonic plague are all natural as well, but I wouldn't recommend coming into contact with these things.
It would be easy enough to sleep with other women. Married men do it all the time. But with self-control and God's help, I maintain my monogamous relationship with my wife, fending off that "natural drive" to be with more than one woman. This is also good for my family in many respects - not potentially giving STDs to my wife, leaving our child with one full-time parent due to divorce, etc.
And lastly about your question of who it's hurting, let me ask you this: How does me printing up some counterfeit $20 bills decrease the value of YOUR money? It's the same thing.
And with all the detrimental effects on the family that the last 35-40 years has brought us (all the criminals from fatherless homes, etc), you want to bring about changes that further weaken the family?
Posted by: Scott on March 4, 2005 10:38 AM
Too bad you have to drag everyone else along on your dumb trip!
Hey me too, why would God do that?
Posted by: CandrewB on March 4, 2005 10:49 AMMarriage has two parts. One is a civil contract and the other is a religious commitment. The civil contract is about the money and control. Being married my wife and I have joint ownership with right of survivorship on everything. That simple thing is not available to gay couples. Frankly it should be.
If my wife is seriously injured I can authorise treatment. If the same thing happens to a gay couple they have to track down another relative.
These items alone make the marriage laws discriminatory. The government has no business discriminating against anyone.
I personally think marriage and civil union should be two seperate things. A marriage is a religious ceremony and a civil union is a contract.
Posted by: Vince Callaway on March 4, 2005 10:56 AMMaybe He did, and maybe He didn't. The Bible clearly states (multiple times) that Lucifer (Satan) has dominion over the earth. John calls him "The Prince of this World".
The Bible also tells us that there is a struggle going on between the spirit and the flesh. The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak. We are to deny our "lusts of the flesh", for example, which certainly includes wanting to sleep with multiple women. So it's quite possible that this "natural" drive isn't from God at all.
Further, Satan doesn't have any raw materials. God created everything. Satan just twists that around, and deceives people into misuse or abuse of things that were intended for good. People abuse and misuse sex, which was intended for good. Everything, pretty much. Food, drink, sex, plants (marijuana, the coca plant, etc), on and on. Once you start misusing or abusing something...using it for reasons other than its intended purpose, that's going against God. And it hurts you, too, it's not just a silly set of rules with no purpose.
Posted by: Scott on March 4, 2005 10:58 AMI see this more as an issue with giving two committed people the dignity to live as equals among "traditional" couples.
And no I'm not hung up on the word marriage either. If it were called a civil union, or anything else it wouldn't matter to me. The biggest issue for me is that they be entitled to the same legal protections and benefits as traditional married couples.
Marriage, as sanctioned by the state, is a legal contract. It has nothing to do with religion. True, many weddings are religious ceremonies, but as is often the case, the legal paper work is already done behind the scenes. I'm not asking that Gays be allowed to marry in full traditional church ceremonies, that is something that absolutely should be left to the church to decide. But the state shouldn't care if the couple is man/woman, or man/man, or woman/woman. The state is simply empowering a legal contract between two people. I'm just saying that Gay couples should be entitled to the same protections and benefits of that contract as straight couples already are.
Posted by: Jason on March 4, 2005 11:14 AMThere is (or at least was) a very good reason for the perks of marriage, and for the creation of a prefered class of people, and that's because committed couples, who raise children, contribute to the stability, growth, and success of a society. While I have some concerns about Gay couples raising children (purely from the point of view of balance, and having access to male and female role models) I do think that Gay couples can also contribute to stability in our society.
Posted by: Jason on March 4, 2005 11:20 AMGod didn't do it. It's part of my willingness to be disobedient to the best that He has for me. Is it a good thing to want to "have" any woman other than my wife? It's certainly wouldn't be good for my wife or children. For awhile it would be "fun" for me, but eventually, there would be emotional, physical, and financial costs to such behavior. It took me quite a long time to understand that this natural built-in drive (the word lust describes it best) is something that became twisted because of a state known as SIN. I pray that you have the moral courage and the intellectual curiosity to find out what this SIN thing really is. When you do, you may not be so quick to blame God for the shortcomings of personal character we humans constantly struggle with. As it relates to gays, this may sound strange, but there is a part of me that has pity and compassion for their wanting to be "validated", as someone here put it. You can also call it acceptance, or affirmation too. It's something inherent in every human being to want those things. It's not good for people of faith to put down homosexuals for being homosexuals. It's really hard to love them for themselves, and hate the sin their involved in, and tolerate what some of "them" wish to impose upon society through government and law. They are not in their right mind. Who do you think really is in their right mind? Are you?
Posted by: Norm on March 4, 2005 11:22 AMAnd in respect to biblical references made here I wanna point to several instances in this almost 2000 years old partly fictional literature, that demand all kind of bizarre things, which would make life hell for most of us. According to the bible todays male population should be decimated by lethal punishment of adulterers. Blog traffic would be reduced by up to 25% consequentially. No good prospect.
My point: reading the bible literally is a dangerous thing with unforeseen consequences.
You always have to interprete such documents in historical context. What did the bible say about space exploration again?
The word gay didnt even exist then. Almost all references in the bible concerning same sex love refer to extreme and excessive behavior. Same sex relationships as are common today didnt make it into the bible and therefore couldnt be denounced. People who say that the bible prohibits gay relationships are interpreting the bible in a way that is in no way less activist and ideological than many court rulings on that matter.
My guess is: God and Jesus would rather punish greedy Enron executives than a whore or a gay couple. But thats another discussion...
You can send them an e-mail and let them know how strongly you feel about this issue.
Gerry Alexander
Tom Chambers
Susan Owens
You can send them an e-mail and let them know how strongly you feel about this issue."
-And let them know you feel strongly that judicial decisions should be influenced by vocal opinion and your interpretation of the bible.
In fact the state should not be in the marriage business at all. There are already laws about the welfare of children, whether or not they are from a marriage, and the partners can make a pre-nup if they so desire.
This debate has attracted sundry busybodies from both sides who declare either the collapse of Western civilization is at hand or that the treatment of homosexuals will retrogress to the Dark Ages if their ideal of marriage is not enacted.
Enough already!
Posted by: Bill K. on March 4, 2005 12:57 PMI doubt that. Textual evidence?
Posted by: Bleeding heart conservative on March 4, 2005 01:36 PMI bring conservative values to the ballot box. Lots of gay people do. Suspect there would be many more Log Cabin Republicans if the tolerance you folks have expressed was reflected in the Party's message to gay voters. Think of this. The Democrat's margin of victory is now so slim they are reduced to pitching for the felon and illegal alien vote. Losing their near monopoly on the gay vote would cost them dearly.
Posted by: Patrick on March 4, 2005 01:43 PMI've read your posts aplenty, and will not attempt to get into a battle of wits with you (I might lose). But you're wrong on this one.
Posted by: dkpcowboy on March 4, 2005 02:41 PMAre you the Mark Griswold who ran for State Rep?
Posted by: Steven on March 4, 2005 02:47 PMGay marriage is most definitely NOT benign. As this debate (though interesting and respectful for the most part) is interesting, it is growing a bit tedious...
Anyway, about your statement that the Bible doesn't explicitly say that "monogamous homosexuality" is wrong...hoo boy...where to start...
First off, no, I suppose it doesn't specifically say "monogamous homosexuality" anywhere, but it doesn't need to. It already says many, many
times that adultery is wrong. And many, many times that homosexuality is wrong. Here's a list I just whipped up:
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
Leviticus 18:22
Leviticus 20:13
Deuteronomy 23:17
Romans 1:24-27
1 Timothy 1:10
Jude 7
Genesis 2:24 - (marriage = 1 man + 1 woman)
Anyway, all your talk about Catholicism, the Vatican, and Bishops leads me to believe you're a Catholic, correct? I never said outright that you're not a christian, I just said that I had doubts that you were both "a devout christian" and "pro-choice".
But if you're Catholic, that explains a lot. I belong to a Pentecostal, non-denominational Christian church, and I think that Christians and Catholics have really become two different animals.
Posted by: Scott on March 4, 2005 03:10 PMI just want to toss out some factoids to consider:
--Many companies offer domestic partnership benefits to their employess. But did you know that those benefits are taxed as income by the IRS, unlike benefits given to spouses?
--Unmarried couples can purchases houses together and be listed on the title with the right to "joint survivorship." But did you know that if one partner dies, the other's claim to that 50% is immediately taxable at current rates, unlike spouses who inherit the 50% tax-free and maintain the same rate as when purchased?
--Folks living together in a dependent relationship (same-sex couples, ailing senior parent and child, spinster sisters, etc.) can draw up legal documents approximating many of the benfits of married couples. But did you know that these documents can sometimes cost thousands of dollars, can be challenged in courts by the legal next-of-kin, or can simply be ignored?
Posted by: Michael on March 4, 2005 03:14 PMLet's be perfectly clear here. The Old Testament says NOTHING about gays and lesbians and nothing about homosexuality.
Leviticus is pretty clear about prohibiting men from sleeping with other men, but it also adds a clarifying phrase "as with a woman." Now, I have no idea exactly what that means, and plenty of scholars much wiser than I have debated it. But they're all in agreement that if the prohibition was simply that men should not have sex with men then that's all the Scripture would say.
And the Deuteronomy passage is about a religious cult and religious practices.
And don't anyone even bring up the story of Sodom, which has NOTHING to do with sexuality and everything to do with hospitality, as Jesus himself states in the New Testament.
Posted by: Michael on March 4, 2005 03:20 PMMicheal
I would support something like Tim Nashif's (a politician in Oregon) "reciprocal partnerships law". It allows any two people to hold property together.
Of course, a gay marriage advocate derisively called it the "you can marry your grandmother" plan. So much for compromise.
And your right married people have alot of benefits. But this is as it should be.
"Leviticus is pretty clear about prohibiting men from sleeping with other men, but it also adds a clarifying phrase 'as with a woman.' Now, I have no idea exactly what that means, and plenty of scholars much wiser than I have debated it. But they're all in agreement that if the prohibition was simply that men should not have sex with men then that's all the Scripture would say."
Sweet land of Goshen. You mean to say you think that Levitical law forbids a man to lay with a man, but doesn't forbid sodomy? Reject the Law if you want, but don't try to make it say other than it does. Oy.
Posted by: Bleeding heart conservative on March 4, 2005 03:48 PMIf the state legalizes same sex marriages, that doesn't mean the Catholic church will be forced to perform them. It just means that those couples will have the same legal benefits as my wife and I.
I wasn't married in a church, I was married in a court house in Oregon City by a local judge. Does my civil, non-religious marriage ceremony somehow detract from my marriage, or in any way lessen the meaning and importance of anyone else's religious marriage? No it doesn't, because legally they are the same. My marriage offers me the same legal benefits and protections as those married in a church in a full religious ceremony.
I don't see why it should be any different for a same sex couple.
I think bringing religion into the discussion really muddies the water and distracts from the core issue, which is about equal status under the law. The state doesn't perform religious ceremonies, so why is that even an issue in this discussion?
Posted by: Jason on March 4, 2005 04:37 PMOh how I wish the Republican Party would adopt this rational view. Of most import - and please remember this - state recognition of gay marriage will not force any church to perform marriages that go against its doctrine, but it will extend to committed, productive, sometimes conservative couples the same privileges my wife and I enjoy in a loving marriage that also was performed by a judge.
Someone posted here that state recognition of gay marriage devalues heterosexual marriage just the same as a counterfeit $20 bill devalues legitimate currency. What an asinine comment; just on its face its wrong - counterfeit money doesn't devalue currency, its devalued when the government prints more legitimate money than the amount of money which simply wears out, thus expanding the money supply.
But more importantly, the analogy compares the value of currency to the value of marriage, but you can't buy anything with your marriage, and the value it has is completely up to the people who are married. They make it monogomous, they make it supportive, they, together, make a better economic unit than either of them alone, etc, etc. Nobody can devalue their marriage except them, by their own behavior.
Even if you think homosexuality is a sin, I believe Jesus said "hate the sin, but love the sinner." These "sinners" can't hurt anybody but themselves, and believe me; from the association I have had with committed gay couples, a few of which are my friends, their relationship is just as loving and legitimate and valuable as any other heterosexual couple I know, married or not.
Please think about the rational and truly conservative position (in terms of limiting government involvement in our personal lives) so eloquently stated by Jason. It will result in the growth of the Republican party, and we will then have a better chance of prevailing over socia1ist democrats who actually cause us harm economically.
Posted by: srogers on March 4, 2005 05:36 PMI find it quite disrespectful to them that while they are out risking their necks to defend our freedoms, we here at home discuss denying them the right to live their lives as they see fit.
Posted by: Scott on March 4, 2005 05:37 PMThey can live their lives as they see fit. Just don't ask me to call it marriage.
Posted by: dkpcowboy on March 4, 2005 06:10 PMOh, my. I find myself in agreement with DeadManVoting (aka Iguana). Government has no reason to be involved with marriage. It is either a civil contract or a religious sacrament.
As a civil contract, I do not know of any other situation where the government restricts what sex you must be to enter into a contract. Essentially, where does the government get the right to restrict access to contractual obligations based on the sex of the parties involved?
As a religious sacrament, where does the government get the right to tell a church who may and may not participate in a religious rite?
We may debate whether homosexuality is normal, moral or even what its effect is on acne. But I see nothing in either the state or federal Constitutions that allows restriction of contractual obligations based on sex or sexual preference.
The only real solution I see is for the government to simply get out of the marriage business entirely. If we, as a society, want to recognize certain civil contract as a "civil union," and grant certain benefits and obligations based on that, fine. Just don't call it "marriage." Many modern "marriages" have little to do with what most churches recognize as a marriage anyway.
Let marriage go back to being a religious sacrament, run by churches, for those that follow the doctrines and beliefs of their church.
Require government to get out of the bedroom snooping business when consenting adults are involved.
As a culture, we seem very hung up on who is doing what to whom. I don't really see that sex has anything to do with a civil contract anyway. If a pair of widowed sisters decide to live together and function as a family unit under the law, why should the fact that they aren't having sex have any effect on their legal status?
dkpcowboy wrote:
They can live their lives as they see fit. Just don't ask me to call it marriage.
Exactly the point. You, your beliefs and your church should be deciding what you consider to be a valid marriage. Not the government.
When a man and a woman have a civil "marriage" down at the courthouse, without any intent to be mutually faithful or to remain together for life, is it a marriage? Should we restrict the legal and contractual obligations of a couple if they are not monogamous? Or, should we simply define a standard for "civil union" contracts and let churches, mosques and synagogues define marriage.
Have you noticed how the liberal Dems seem to be in hyper-drive lately? Cramming all of their less than popular agenda down the throats of the people of this state? They are doing this in an effort on 2 fronts.
The first is to try to get as much passed before the Rossi contest proceeds -( as they may lose their Governor...)
The second is to try to sway public opinion - with an *in-your-face* tactic that makes people believe that the Dems must be confident to do what they are doing....in spite of the contest...
Gay marriage is just nasty and unnatural! It's something I could go my whole life without worrying about! Come to think of it....I could go my entire life without the stress of ANY of the hot-button issues the liberals force feed me nightly on the news!
Posted by: Deborah on March 4, 2005 07:38 PMJohn, nice to hear from you again. As soon as the people and their representatives enact laws defining marriage as between a man/woman and anything that floats your boat, then I'll shut up.
Last I checked, the people have spoken, in at least 16 states.
Deborah called it what it is.
Posted by: dkpcowboy on March 4, 2005 08:30 PM" It seems only logical that if homosexuals can be legally married, polygamists, fathers and daughters, brothers and sisters, old men and young boys, etc. should be allowed to get married too..."
"Should the government put it's stamp of approval on all of these relationships and call them marriages, too?"
Good question. The short answer is "no".
The reasoning behind the answer is that the government should not put its "stamp of approval" on any marriage.
Marriage, as we seem to be defining it here (and I agree with this definition) is a religious sacrament. A holy bonding, sanctified by God and the church. "What God hath brought together..."
Nothing there about health insurance, shared property rights, special tax status, inheritance law, definition as "next-of-kin", rights to financial support in case of divorce, etc...
Where does a government that seems to have a problem with the phrase "merry Christmas" get the right to define and regulate a religious sacrament? Should we get some kind of government approval for who may and may not be baptized? How about for taking Communion?
Governments can define laws, including contract laws. They can define (and hopefully protect) the rights and benefits of individuals in the case of contracts. Child abuse ("old men and young boys") can still be illegal. We have legal age limits for signing binding contracts.
This is the point. Christians (and many other religions) are justifiably outraged at having the government tell them they must accept the government's definition of a holy sacrament. The problem is that, so long as the government was defining it in a way that didn't offend us, we didn't ask the basic question "who the heck are you to be telling us what marriage is all about?"
Government "marriage" has the same relationship to real marriage as the plastic food in the window of the Japanese restaurant has to the actual food. It may superficially look the same, but they are entirely different things. If the government is going to provide benefits and hold individuals accountable for performance of what is essentially a civil contract, then we should call it a civil contract, not "marriage". Leave marriage to the churches.
You may say the government has no business handing out benefits to anyone at all based on marriage, but that isn't really how it works. For example, if you die, your wife will be allowed to step up the basis on your house for purposes of determining the tax liability on the capital gain when she sells the house (if its value exceeds the hefty allowance in current law). Having not been married in a church, my wife would not get to step up her basis and would potentially be taxed if she sold our house. Now what would be a logical reason for treating your wife and mine differently? The government cannot, under the equal protection clause, treat them differently because your wife was married in a church and mine was not. There are hundreds of little items like that in the tax code, in common law, in criminal law - it is not just a matter of the government handing out benefits to married couples.
And by the way, the government does not actually put a "stamp of approval" on marriage; it is just that all those little benefits that acrue to married couples are nice, and in order to determine who gets them, and people do want them, you have to have an objective test to determine who is married - hence, the government issues a marriage license, and currently will only issue a license to a heterosexual couple, regardless of whether or not any church would be willing to sanctify the union of a same-sex couple. Issuing a marriage license to gay couples would have no effect on who gets married in their churches - I guarantee you that even if the government issued a marriage license to a couple, the Catholic Church would not bless their union. It is simply not true that the government would be "telling Christians they must accept the government's definition of a holy sacrament."
If it "outrages" you that the government would issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple, believe me, it outrages me more that you would infer in your post that my marriage isn't "real" because it wasn't performed in a church.
Posted by: srogers on March 4, 2005 11:00 PMVery well put. In regards to John B's comments, as long as our Government maintains a separation of Church and State, the Government really has no choice but to officially sanction marriages, because we as a society have said that we do not want our Government forcing any religion on us. Therefore acceptance of a religion or the performance of a religious ceremony can not be a requirement for Government recognition of marriage. This is why Judges can, and often do, perform secular marriages.
In this country, the law only recongnizes one definition of a marriage, and that is the legal definition, not the religious one. A religious ceremony all by itself may mean the world to those participating in it, but it means nothing legally until the happy couple signs their marriage license and pays their fee to the county clerk. Once that is done their union is legally recognized by the state. Even religious figures who perform religious weddings need to be vested with the power to do so by the state, otherwise the marriage isn't valid.
So if the power to sanction marriage in this country flows from the State, and marriage in the legal sense is a legal contract that affords certain benefits and protections to the married couple, the state ought not to be able to discriminate against which couples can be married, simply because those couplings are not allowed under the conventions of various religions. Religion has nothing to do with marriage as far as the State is involved, therefore religion should not be an issue in the State deciding who can and can not be legally married.
And before someone tries to twist my logic into meaning that the State should sanction brother and sister marriages, or man and goat marriages, I'll just head you off with a "No, it won't". The state can certainly use specific criteria in determining who is not eligible to marry, such as age (no under-age weddings), blood relation (no weddings that would result in obvious genetic problems for offspring), and no weddings outside of the human spicies or to dead or otherwise inanimate objects. However the State shouldn't be imposing any religion's morality on who can and can not be married, because the State is not in the business of promoting or performing religious ceremonies.
Posted by: Jason on March 5, 2005 01:50 AMIt would be a matter of definition. If you do not belong to any church, you may still take Communion at many churches (mine included) if you agree with the basic beliefs of that church. If you wanted to call having toast with breakfast "communion" that would be up to you. Many Christians would disagree with you, but the government should not get involved. Essentially, the government should not define religious sacraments.
"outrages me more that you would infer in your post that my marriage isn't "real" because it wasn't performed in a church."
To this day, many churches do not recognize civil marriages without a religious ceremony. Some do not even recognized marriages done in other churches. They see the civil union as an entirely separate issue from the religious union.
"But so long as there are real legal and financial benefits that accrue to married couples, it is downright arrogant to claim that only those married couples who are married in a church should be awarded those benefits."
Exactly my point. Civil "marriage" and the religious sacrament of marriage are two entirely different things, and need to have different names, if for no other reason than to avoid the confusion that now surrounds this issue.
As a side note, while not often brought into this argument, it seems that many people enter into the religious sacrament of marriage without the state approval. Sometimes this is for financial reasons, sometimes because of other personal reasons.
What the government can do is define a certain type of civil contract as a "civil union," with the legal benefits and obligations of that civil contract. The problem here is that the government has taken over the word (marriage) that describes a religious sacrament for this contract. Since we had the word first, I think it's up to the government to come up with their own word.
(Actually, the confusion dates from a time when church and state were thoroughly integrated, where the church had civil authority and the King was the head of the church. Many civic benefits were denied to people that were not members of the church. I do not advocate going back to that system.)
If you don't choose to go through with a religious ceremony, for whatever reason, then most churches would not consider you to be "married." This is actually the case now. If you aren't a member of that church, why would this bother you?
As to the rest of the benefits, why should the sex of the parties to a civil contract have anything to do with the matter?
On another side note, why is your token Democrat arguing for less government interferance in personal affairs, with the Republicans arguing for more? Seems like I do this a lot on these boards.
Posted by: John Barelli on March 5, 2005 08:34 AMAfter poking around looking at the etymology of "marriage," it appears that the word ultimately derived from the "mari" (young woman - of middle european origin), to "maritus" (a married man - latin), or maritare (to be provided with a young woman - latin) to "marier" (c. 1300, Old French) This means there would have been variations of the word in the duchies in what is now France but what was then about eight independant dukedoms. That also means the word came to England long before Henry VIII formally broke off relations with the Pope and created the Church of England. Up until that time, the Pope had always been the head of the Christian Church (although there had been periods where there had been an "anti-pope" when factions of the church fought each other for control), never any King.
I think that there is ample evidence that "marriage" derived from a simple pledge of union between men and women, in many forms from different cultures, and was not first used or invented by the church. There is also evidence that marriage is customarily between men and women, but that simply states the obvious; it doesn't prove that it needs to be that way, and it overlooks the fact that same sex couples have existed in our various cultures for thousands of years.
I think quibbling over who gets to use the word "marriage" is childish, but I would support some kind of differentiation between a civil contract and a holy sacrament, something like "civil marriage" vs "holy marriage". Given that choice, my wife and I would gladly have entered into a civil marriage, and that civil marriage could be available to same sex couples as well. But to say, "the word is mine, you can't have it . . . ," I just can't get on board that kind of "argument".
Posted by: srogers on March 5, 2005 10:05 AM"I think quibbling over who gets to use the word "marriage" is childish, but I would support some kind of differentiation between a civil contract and a holy sacrament, something like "civil marriage" vs "holy marriage". Given that choice, my wife and I would gladly have entered into a civil marriage, and that civil marriage could be available to same sex couples as well. But to say, "the word is mine, you can't have it . . . ," I just can't get on board that kind of "argument"."
But this word is what seems to be giving this whole issue the emotional charge that it has.
A few of the people arguing against "same sex marriage" are simply anti-homosexual, and would be out marching alongside with Fred Phelps. (For those that do not know of the "Reverend" Phelps, a quick Google search on his name will show you what I mean.)
Many more may have some reservations about homosexuality, but are not arguing for restrictions on rights and obligations. Rather, they see marriage as a sacred bond between a man and a woman, committed to life-long monogamy, and actually having much more to do with family and personal commitment than with sex.
Having the government re-defining "marriage" beyond that is personally offensive to them. To them that is what the word means, and to redefine it to include gay couples is to strike at the very core of the marriage covenant. This is how you get laws like the "Defense of Marriage Act."
I can understand that feeling. If certain legal rights and obligations were available only to people that were baptized, we would end up having to redefine baptism to mean jumping into the community pool. It changes the meaning of the word, and it is an important meaning, with great significance to many people.
A court, rather than a church will decide the definition of the word "marriage." The court has to take up this case, as the government has gotten into the "marriage" business, granting rights to and imposing obligations on the participants. Quite frankly, that is offensive to me.
"the Catholic Church took the existing word and attached to it its idea of the concept, creating the "sacrament of marriage". In so doing, the Church redefined marriage in a more narrow sense than it had before"
In one way, you are correct. Marriage, prior to the church, was indeed a civil contract. But the woman (or women) usually had no say in or rights under that contract. It was between the family (usually the father) of the bride and either the groom or family of the groom.
Marriage, as we know it today, is an invention of the church. Pope Nicholas I declared in 866, "If the consent be lacking in a marriage, all other celebrations, even should the union be consummated, are rendered void."
This could easily be argued as the beginning of the modern concept of marriage. The legal rights and obligations of marriage date from even later, and were granted primarily by the church. Before the church got involved, women were property, and marriage was very much a civil matter. It was a transfer of ownership.
Later, when we rowdy, upstart colonists came up with this amazing concept of separating the power of the state from the church, it was a very radical idea. Not surprisingly, the separation was not as complete as some would think.
So, I think that I can safely say that marriage, as we know it today is indeed an invention of the church. So, if the government wants to regulate it, we either get into that messy "separation of church and state" discussion, or the government simply needs to call its version, with the legal ramifications, something else.
For what it's worth - I think you hit the nail on head with your posts on this thread.
Posted by: zapporo on March 5, 2005 08:40 PMMmmmmm....yes Mark...I can see that now, yes, all people who are mentally ill are really normal because why would anyone choose to be schizophrenic! i get it. For that matter why would anyone choose to be a pedophile, clearly they have the urge so therefore it is normal. Why would would any psychotic murderer for that matter choose to be that way? Surely it causes trouble in their life? You are on to something there Mark
Posted by: ethical on March 9, 2005 07:17 AM