Are gay rights, including gay marriage, evolving?

06/25/2011 03:57:55 PM · #5426

Originally posted by Nullix:

Seems like religious types like us will be labeled with prejudice and hate. If there are no religious previsions, I would assume the Catholic adoption agencies will need to close.

If the shoe fits, wear it. You have continually spouted prejudice and hatred that would make ol' Archie proud while cowering behind an imagined role of religion for justification, which you have vividly illustrated again with the insane reference to adoption agencies. Adoptions are a civil matter. Catholic agencies would be no more required to serve gays than they would be to officiate a marriage ceremony for Wiccans, or that the KKK would be required to admit minority members. Like the KKK, you have the right to practice your personal bigotry in private, but you're only fooling yourself to pretend it's anything else.

You can be legally married without a church, and marriage licenses are issued by the state, not god. The requirement for a marriage license was used in the early 20th century by 38 states as a mechanism to keep whites from marrying blacks or other minorities. Those laws were invalidated as unconstitutional, and we're following that same path again.

The church has no involvement in marriage aside from being a traditional place to have a pretty ceremony, as plainly evidenced by the fact that society regards the marriages of Catholics, Hindus, Buddhists and atheists as equally valid when their gods (or lack thereof) are wildly divergent. Your personal beliefs are completely irrelevant when it comes to the rights of others. DADT is history, DOMA is all but dead, Prop 8 was ruled unconstitutional, the UN has passed a resolution acknowledging equality regardless of sexual orientation as a basic human right, and NY just became largest state to allow gay marriage by legislative vote despite a Republican controlled senate. You might not like it, and you probably won't accept it, but this particular example of hatred and discrimination is on the brink of extinction.

Melethia

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

06/25/2011 08:42:30 PM · #5427

I think I've asked before (but I'm becoming quite forgetful - disturbingly so) but why oh why is SO much money and effort spent to campaign against gay marriage as "bad for the sanctity of marriage" when divorce affects SIGNIFICANTLY more people (and children!), by orders of magnitude. Would it not be for the greater good of all to spend all that money and effort combatting divorce?

Kelli

Canon EOS-D60

06/25/2011 08:46:30 PM · #5428

Originally posted by Melethia:

Bite your tongue. You'd put the lawyers out of business! ;D

BrennanOB

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

06/26/2011 02:45:02 AM · #5429

Originally posted by Nullix:

I would assume the Catholic adoption agencies will need to close.

There is an assumption among opponents that those who see homosexuality as a choice, that they will be forced by law to accept a view they do not share. That gay couples will have to be married in cathedrals despite church teachings. Places of faith and affinity organisations are free to discriminate against outsiders of any type now and they will be in the future. You want to get married in a temple? Convert to Judaism. If you are unwilling, you can't. No one is trying to change that.

The fact that we as a country allow the sale of bacon does not mean that halal restaurants have to serve it. You think pork is unclean? OK, don't serve it. Just don't try to make it illegal for those of us who disagree.

That the state is willing to recognize gay unions does not mean that every church has to marry them. African-American adoption agencies have the right to only place black kids with black families. The fact that many people think they are wrong in their ideas does not mean they have to close down, if they have customers, they can do what they want. Private service agencies have the right to serve whom they want.

Relax, no one wants to require you to change your faith. They just want to allow the beliefs of others to be recognized as legal too.

RayEthier

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

06/26/2011 06:44:56 AM · #5430

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

Originally posted by Nullix:
I would assume the Catholic adoption agencies will need to close.

Private service agencies have the right to serve whom they want.

It could be that the Catholic adoption organizations (which I believe receive public funding) might have to disassociate themselves from the church to continue excluding the gay community.

I could very well be wrong, but I do believe that this is the current procedure in Canada.

Ray

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

06/26/2011 11:57:51 AM · #5431

Originally posted by RayEthier:

It could be that the Catholic adoption organizations (which I believe receive public funding) might have to disassociate themselves from the church to continue excluding the gay community.

I think you meant they'd have to disassociate themselves from public funding. As an arm of the church, bias is allowed, but to receive public funding they have to serve the public. ALL of it.

Message edited by author 2011-06-26 11:58:04.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

06/26/2011 12:06:21 PM · #5432

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by RayEthier:
It could be that the Catholic adoption organizations (which I believe receive public funding) might have to disassociate themselves from the church to continue excluding the gay community.

I think you meant they'd have to disassociate themselves from public funding. As an arm of the church, bias is allowed, but to receive public funding they have to serve the public. ALL of it.

As I understand it the New York law passed with some (possibly unconstitutional) amendments granting certain exemptions to religious organizations ... I think covering things like having to rent out their facilities for same-sex marriages; IMO probably a reasonable trade-off for equal treatment by the government regarding the major issues of taxes, property, etc. Who'd want to get married someplace they hate you anyway, other than to create a fuss ...?

RayEthier

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

06/26/2011 05:46:33 PM · #5433

Originally posted by scalvert:

You are probably right, but from what I have read, the disassociation has to be complete, as in they cannot share accommodations or services that receive any form of public funding.

I have no problem whatsoever with this premise. I do however believe that churches, given their current status, may have a problem excluding members of the gay and lesbian community from exchanging vows in churches.

Not being all that well versed in this regard, I do welcome comments on this subject.

Ray

Nullix

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

06/28/2011 10:21:24 AM · #5434

Originally posted by Melethia:

Oh the irony; that's why money is being spent. There are many elements chipping away at marriage and one of them being the redefinition of marriage. According to the New York Times (more irony?) many ~~successful~~ gay marriages are open marriages.

I'm certain the money is being spent to save marriage and prevent more divorce.

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

06/28/2011 11:08:36 AM · #5435

Originally posted by Nullix:

Oh the irony; that's why money is being spent. There are many elements chipping away at marriage and one of them being the redefinition of marriage.

There was no redefinition until zealots introduced an unconstitutional gender restriction with DOMA, and infidelity is hardly the exclusive domain of gay marriage. Perhaps we should do a study on 60-90 year old gay couples who have stayed together and faithful for decades even without a legal commitment available to them? If infidelity was the big concern, then maybe all the money spent on Prop 8 in California should have been focused on their governor... or such paragons of conservative virtue as Rush Limbaugh (4th wife), Glenn Beck, Mark Sanford, John McCain and Newt Gingrich.

Message edited by author 2011-06-28 11:19:41.

BrennanOB

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

06/28/2011 01:32:35 PM · #5436

Originally posted by Nullix:

I'm certain the money is being spent to save marriage and prevent more divorce.

Why was this fight to save marriage not kicked off before gay marriage was the topic of the day? I heard little need for legislation while divorce rates climbed to 50%. Why is there not outrage in the religious community that third marriages end in divorce 75% of the time? The greatest threat to my marriage is the notion that marital vows are a bond easily broken, and those who keep their vows are now in the minority. The idea that a lifelong commitment that is legally recognized, would be a threat to my marriage because the partners happen to have the same plumbing, puzzles me. If the same couple gets divorced multiple times, that cheapens marriage.

06/28/2011 01:40:44 PM · #5437

I think the fight was lost when "no fault" divorce was introduced. I don't know, but has the Supreme Court weighed in on that? If so, what fight is left? Perhaps that fight was fought and lost, at least legally. Deb asked about the money being spent and I would wager that tens of millions of dollars are spent every year fighting divorce in the manner of marriage counselling, etc.

06/28/2011 01:52:48 PM · #5438

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I think the fight was lost when "no fault" divorce was introduced.

That fight was never fought. Anybody remember widespread state and federal bills aimed at preventing divorce or massive ad campaigns against adulterous political candidates as a group? I don't. Any no-fault divorce judges voted off the bench? Nope. Divorcee bashing? Don't ask if you were remarried and don't tell? Fears of remarried couples adopting children? No, no and no. "Saving marriage" is only a cheap excuse to justify unwarranted discrimination with no basis in reality.

06/28/2011 02:04:06 PM · #5439

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think the fight was lost when "no fault" divorce was introduced.

That fight was never fought. Anybody remember widespread state and federal bills aimed at preventing divorce or massive ad campaigns against adulterous political candidates as a group? I don't. Any no-fault divorce judges voted off the bench? Nope. Divorcee bashing? Don't ask if you were remarried and don't tell? Fears of remarried couples adopting children? No, no and no. "Saving marriage" is only a cheap excuse to justify unwarranted discrimination with no basis in reality.

Yes. It was called the status quo. No fault divorce was introduced to make it easier to obtain divorce. The campaigns you speak of did not exist because there was no need. The fight actually continues according to the wiki. The fathers' rights movement is fighting to put limits on no-fault divorce when children are involved.

Message edited by author 2011-06-28 14:05:22.

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

06/28/2011 02:07:19 PM · #5440

I think it would be an interesting conversation to ask people what the purpose of marriage is? Forget whether it is straight/gay. Why do we have marriage? Has this even been discussed in this thread?

BrennanOB

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

06/28/2011 02:12:50 PM · #5441

It would be an interesting discussion, because our form of marriage is an interesting series of overlays of legal, societal, religious and cultural imperatives. How we see the institution is a bit like the old story of the seven blind men describing an elephant.

Nullix

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

06/28/2011 02:31:05 PM · #5442

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I think it would be an interesting conversation to ask people what the purpose of marriage is? Forget whether it is straight/gay. Why do we have marriage? Has this even been discussed in this thread?

I'll take a shot:

Marriage: Covenant by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring.

Leica 35mm f/1.4 Summilux M Aspherical MF - Black

06/28/2011 02:32:04 PM · #5443

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

And I am quite sure it would obvious affect how you would view divorce, open marriage, gay marriage, and a host of other issues. Generally these argument only exist because of a difference in a fundamental view.

50,000 posts condensed into two lines:

The important factor in marriage is the declaration of love -----> Why would love between two men not count?
The important factor in marriage is the tradition of the institution -----> Why would you be allowed to redefine it?

Really, divorce and marriage can be looked at on this dichotomy:

Marriage is a binding contract between two people (and possibly God if you believe in that) -----> Divorce should be reserved for extreme circumstances.
Marriage is only a cultural phenomenon -----> People should be able to enter or leave as they choose, even unilaterally.

I only wade back in here with great trepidations. I'm over this thread. Luckily, according to Shannon, the whole issue is on the brink of extinction (don't buy a bridge from him)... :)

Message edited by author 2011-06-28 14:38:53.

scarbrd

Leica M10

06/28/2011 02:36:50 PM · #5444

Originally posted by Nullix:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think it would be an interesting conversation to ask people what the purpose of marriage is? Forget whether it is straight/gay. Why do we have marriage? Has this even been discussed in this thread?

I'll take a shot:

Marriage: Covenant by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring.

Then we should outlaw marriage for sterile people and people past child bearing age.

Nullix

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

06/28/2011 02:48:25 PM · #5445

Originally posted by scarbrd:

Originally posted by Nullix:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think it would be an interesting conversation to ask people what the purpose of marriage is? Forget whether it is straight/gay. Why do we have marriage? Has this even been discussed in this thread?

I'll take a shot:

Marriage: Covenant by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring.

Then we should outlaw marriage for sterile people and people past child bearing age.

How did you come to that conclusion?

I'm sterile (not by choice) and even sterile people have children (I have children).

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

06/28/2011 02:49:08 PM · #5446

Originally posted by Nullix:

I'm sterile (not by choice) and even sterile people have children (I have children).

It seems like every definition or framework for marraige winds up including populations that either don't fit or have few supporters...

Message edited by author 2011-06-28 14:49:25.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

06/28/2011 02:55:30 PM · #5447

Originally posted by Nullix:

Originally posted by scarbrd:

Then we should outlaw marriage for sterile people and people past child bearing age.

How did you come to that conclusion?

Duh ... if the "purpose" of marriage is procreation, then those -- all of those -- incapable of biological reproduction should be prohibited from marrying -- that's the primary basis for the current prohibitions on same-sex marriages. If you don't make the law affect all similarly-situated persons the same, then you have just defined (unconstitutional) discrimination.

The the purpose is to express mutual love and a commitment to lifelong mutual support, then I don't see how the gender of the couple makes any difference.

06/28/2011 02:58:47 PM · #5448

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think the fight was lost when "no fault" divorce was introduced.

It was called the status quo. No fault divorce was introduced to make it easier to obtain divorce. The campaigns you speak of did not exist because there was no need. The fight actually continues according to the wiki. The fathers' rights movement is fighting to put limits on no-fault divorce when children are involved.

The fight was lost when the status quo was introduced and the fight actually continues over something there was no need to have campaigns to fight? Are you conflating two different issues or disagreeing with yourself?

While there may be some merit to the goals of the fathers' rights movement, the issue at hand was long term family stability, not who gets rights after the collapse. Moreover, divorce rates have little to do with the right to marry in the first place. If there was any connection at all, then consider the fact that CA, NY, MA and CT rank among the lowest divorce rates in the country while the Bible Belt states of AR, TN, AL, MS, OK and NV have the highest rates of people married three or more times. Hmmm...