Maine would have been the sixth state in the country to allow gay and lesbian couples to marry, but instead becomes the 31st state to oppose the unions in a popular vote.
With 87 percent of precincts reporting as of 2 a.m. today, gay marriage opponents claimed 53 percent of the vote to supporters’ 47 percent.
Marc Mutty, campaign manager for Stand for Marriage Maine which opposed gay marriages, claimed victory at a rally in Portland just after midnight. “We’ve struggled, we’ve worked against tremendous odds, as we’ve all known,” he said. “We prevailed because the people of Maine, the silent majority, the folks back home spoke with their vote tonight.”
That’s disappointing for my side, of course. But on the other hand, here in Washington State the referendum on the bill that grants domestic partners all the legal rights of marriage is currently passing. It’s passing by a slim margin according to the current count, but the bulk of the remaining ballots to be counted are in the traditionally liberal counties so supporters are cautiously optimistic.
And I’m suprised I can still be disappointed by the ignorance & bigotry of those who are willing to legislate away the civil rights of other Americans. Thank God we didn’t have referendums in 1954 or Brown v Board of Education would have been toast.
Susan, since when is getting married a right? Marriage has a definition and is regulated by the state. In every state (31 times to be exact) that the citizens have an opportunity (instead of the courts) to express their view on the issue (even liberal Oragon) “gay marriage” goes down in defeat. It just may be a hint or clue…
A ≠Ā
Marriage ≠SS
The rights of the majority count, too. One cannot call marriage that which is not and cannot be marriage.
Susan, since when is getting married a right? Marriage has a definition and is regulated by the state. In every state (31 times to be exact) that the citizens have an opportunity (instead of the courts) to express their view on the issue (even liberal Oragon) “gay marriage†goes down in defeat. It just may be a hint or clue…
Since the courts abolished the bans on interracial marriage. The laws are supposed to provide equal protection. The only people who need those laws are the minority. If the majority can vote on whether to give the minority certain rights, then there is no equal protection. “ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS.” – George Orwell. It seems that Maine (and the other States) are content to create a ‘lesser’ group of people.
The rights of the majority count, too.
What right of yours or other people opposed to same sex marriage is being infringed?
well brian and susan, most of us believe that no one has the right to redefine marriage. imo this was a vote for the common good over blatant self interest. i am sure it was an extremely bitter pill considering this is the second blue state to defeat it.
You are correct, marriage is a fundamental right in this country …between one man and one woman. Susan, ignoring the theological arguments, if you are denying that marriage between consenting adults should not be regulated by states (or THE state), then you just opened the legal door to incestuous marriages by consent, and multiple marriage partners by consent. Or, should those legally be ok too? The states already define and legislate marriage in other situations as well, not just for those of SS partners. Are you advocating that the state should get out of the “marriage business” altogether and leave marriage solely up to individuals? And if so, then who protects minors? Should the state mandate minimum ages? Or protect old people/the mentally challenged being taken advantage of? I’m just saying, that the argument that the government ought to get out of the marriage business completely is a dangerous one to make, if that is in fact what you are arguing.
“What right of yours or other people opposed to same sex marriage is being infringed?”
The right of the Lord Jesus Christ to define marriage as the Creator’s ordinance: ‘For this reason a man shall leave his mother nad father and cleave to his WIFE and the two shall become one flesh…’
Don’t fall for their misdirection: Susan and Brian have the same right to marriage as everybody else.
RE: “And I’m suprised I can still be disappointed by the ignorance & bigotry of those who are willing to legislate away the civil rights of other Americans.”
I completely agree. It is appalling that gay progressive activists wish for the legal definition of marriage to be expanded but only for their particular minority sexual orientation and not for others. The real question is . . . why are those practicing same-gender relationships who are demanding society’s legal and public blessing on their particular and specific sexual orientation so hypocritical and self-serving as to only want society’s legal and public blessing on their particular and specific sexual orientation—but not for all of the other sexual orientations out there.
They alone should have society’s blessing and approval expanded for their sexual activities. But not the other sexual orientations. Society’s definition of marriage should be expanded—[for reasons that they have not made clear other than that they want it and they are special]—for gays, but society’s definition of marriage should not be expanded for any other people who have differing sexual orientations, such as the polyamorous, the life-challenged, and those consensual, mutual, affirming, loving, adult, same-sibling relationships.
Ignorant, unreasoning, self-serving prejudice by progressive gay activists. It is appalling to watch them demand “justice” for their own particular minority sexual orientation — but not for any other minority sexual orientations.
Rank hypocrisy.
Live in the Light of His Truth and proclaim it BOLDLY!
Stay away from the proclamations of the flesh and those who live by it as it will put you on a path away from God.
Susan, once again you self-righteously slander all of us who hold to a moral standard imparted and revealed by the living God in the Holy Scriptures. Ignorance and bigotry indeed.
Exactly right, Sarah.
What I find amusing is that those who proudly call themselves “progressive” are demanding a license from the state to feel good about their relationships. And, yes, it IS all about “feeling good” and “self-esteem” because nearly all of these “rights” attached to marriage can be achieved by a visit to a lawyer or filling out forms yourself. I would think that “progressives” would have a problem with the whole concept of needing the state to license relationships. I’m not a “progressive,” but I have a problem with it.
Can I marry my dog? Then we could be a couple filing jointly on my tax return. That would lower my taxes. Golly, I could even count her puppies as dependents! I demand the right to marry whatever species I choose.
Poor Susan already has the same and equal right to marry as every other person in this nation. That she finds men too “icky” to even consider is her own problem.
Might want to have that misandry looked at hun.
[blockquote]I’m suprised I can still be disappointed by the ignorance & bigotry of those who are willing to legislate away the civil rights of other Americans.[/blockquote]
And I’M surprised a seemingly intelligent and mature adult actually thinks that if someone doesn’t agree with her, they must be “ignorant” or a “bigot”. How arrogant and mindless are you, Susan? You have only yourself to blame for being so upset that the culture at large isn’t in complete lock-step with you.
But, here’s an idea: How about coming up with an actual reasonable argument to support your opinion, instead of relying solely on name-calling and emotion to combat your imagined injustice???
I probably shouldn’t reply to this, because this is all old, old territory that most everyone on this blog has been through time and time again… but:
I support the complete normalization of gay marriage, both in the state and in the church. That of course means that I have weighed all the arguments against it, and have found them ultimately unpersuasive. However, there are some arguments on the other side in which I can see some merit — I think they’re ultimately wrong, but I can see that they can, without absurdity, be brought to the table.
The argument that “gays and lesbians have exactly the same right to marry people of the opposite sex that straight people have” is not such an argument. It is one of the most transparently spurious lines of “reasoning” that I have ever encountered, and I am honestly surprised that otherwise reasonable people trot it out on a regular basis.
Remember when Henry Ford quipped that consumers could buy his cars in any color they wanted, so long as it was black? This is exactly like that, except that the people saying it don’t seem to realize that it’s a joke.
Or how about an election with only one candidate? (Remember how much flak you all gave the diocese of Michigan about that a while back?) “I don’t understand what you people who oppose him are complaining about; you have exactly the same right to vote for him as his supporters do.”
Or, more to the point, remember when there were anti-miscegenation laws all over the place? (Shouldn’t be hard; it wasn’t all that long ago.) Everyone was equally free to marry someone of their own race, so there should have been no problem — right?
Every time you bring up that argument, it’s just embarrassing for your side.
I noticed Ross that you failed to touch on anything that Sarah had to say which is by far a much better reasoning.
Ross,
But you miss the basic point. What business is it of the state to “license” relationships and, in doing so, automatically convey preferred status? That very fact means discrimination is inherent and the state needs to get out of the marriage business. (And, by extension, the divorce business.)
Btw, haven’t you read any articles about the problems with same-sex divorce, now that they’re married and finding out it’s not all peaches and cream? Not long ago, there was a lesbian couple suing for the right to divorce here in Texas. Now, how can they do that when Texas doesn’t recognize same-sex marriages? The whole issue was poorly thought out.
[blockquote]Btw, haven’t you read any articles about the problems with same-sex divorce, now that they’re married and finding out it’s not all peaches and cream? Not long ago, there was a lesbian couple suing for the right to divorce here in Texas. Now, how can they do that when Texas doesn’t recognize same-sex marriages?[/blockquote]
What??? I thought, as we all have heard and been told, that same sex marriages are more committed and last longer than hetero marriages. This is not true? I’m shocked!
Ross, apparently, the argument isn’t spurious, as it’s used again and again in our legal system, anyplace where society has placed boundaries or established some set of rules. By your reasoning, we all have the right to the maximum number of exemptions on our federal income tax, without regard to our family size (those who want to argue a filer with no family can gain additional exemptions just like the family man by having children must not realize how dumb they are). Also, those who would like to, ahem, become more familiar with a partner below a certain age might be surprised to find that the argument to “wait till she’s older” is an absurdity like Henry Ford offering only black cars. Etc.
I would be far more embarrassed at repeatedly making the fundamental category error of comparing a passive trait, like race, to a behavior.
Women and men have equal rights to marry the opposite sex. That is what marriage is. What is being advocated by homosexuals is not marriage and never has been.
When you define marriage otherwise you make it an absurdity. Thus, there is no limit. If you can “marry” someone of the same sex, then you should be able to “marry” multiple partners. You should be able to “marry” your dog because you love it. You should be able to “marry” your car because you love it. But it is not marriage.
The homosexualists use the logical absurdity of reaching their desired result by simply redefining marriage to mean something else. As Lewis Carroll’s Humpty Dumpty says, “‘When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean.” It’s one of the most fundamental flawed arguments in logic, defining away the situation.
As the old saying goes, however, calling a car an airplane does not make it fly.
Susan Russell could use a civics lesson. She says, “Thank God we didn’t have referendums in 1954 or Brown v. Board of Education would have been toast.” Contra Susan, we did have referenda in 1954 as we do today. Neither then nor now could a referendum overturn a US Supreme court opinion.
Not suprisingly, Susan wants it both ways. If her side should one day prevail in a referendum( so far they’re 0-31) then they’ll claim the sovereign people have spoken, but when they lose, the voice of people shouldn’t be sovereign.
Susan, time after time…including at Lambeth, you have been given the opportunity to provide a theological reason for same-sex marriage and for permitting active homosexuals into the ordained ministry. Time and time again, you have failed to do so. God’s moral law is clear and has never changed. I would recommend you begin reading Holy Scriptures (apart from the Readings on Sunday morning). It is clear that the troubles in TEC have been the result of Scriptural illiteracy.
God did not create you homosexual any more than He creates babies with holes in their hearts, missing arms or legs, blindness, or any other sort of human malady that is the result of sin. The question is whether you intend to be obedient or rebellious, submissive or defiant. Our baptismal covenant calls us to repent from our NATURAL human desires, turn away from those things which God abhors, take up our cross and intend to lead a new life following the commands of God the Father, just as is Son, Jesus did.
Ross, if the people of Washington State are “granting domestic partners all the legal rights of marriage” except, I presume, calling it marriage, then how are people being discriminated against by state action?
[i] Please stop addressing specific posters and return to discussing the thread. [/i]
no one has the right to redefine marriage
True. Marriage was originally a religious commitment. And no one has the right to redefine that. But wait…
Polygamy came into favor and was (begrudgingly) permitted in OT times. And no one has the right to redefine that. But wait…
The State decided that they needed to license marriage. And no one has the right to redefine that. But wait…
The Church decided on a rubric for the relationships of people who got married (no first cousins, etc.) And no one has the right to redefine that. But wait…
Jesus Himself (according to Paul) said not to get divorced AND if you must, you can not remarry. And no one has the right to redefine that. But wait…
Several Churches now not only allow remarriage of divorced individuals, but allow them to be priests as well. And no one has the right to redefine that. But wait…
The State allows the remarriage of divorced people. And no one has the right to redefine that. But wait…
The State refused permission for interracial marriage. And no one has the right to redefine that. But wait…
The State is prohibited from banning interracial marriage. And no one has the right to redefine that. But wait…
[i] Comment addressed to a specific poster deleted by elf. [/i]
The tenor and tone of this entire comment thread seems to ignore [url=http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John 13:35&version=NIV]John 13:35[/url].
(And my attempted link to John 13:35 didn’t work—sorry.)
ignoring the theological arguments, if you are denying that marriage between consenting adults should not be regulated by states (or THE state), then you just opened the legal door to incestuous marriages by consent, and multiple marriage partners by consent. Or, should those legally be ok too? The states already define and legislate marriage in other situations as well, not just for those of SS partners.
The State is perfectly free to infringe on our rights so long as there is a legitimate State interest (prevention of blood diseases, incest, etc.) What is the State interest in prohibiting same sex marriage?
“What right of yours or other people opposed to same sex marriage is being infringed?â€
The right of the Lord Jesus Christ to define marriage as the Creator’s ordinance: ‘For this reason a man shall leave his mother nad father and cleave to his WIFE and the two shall become one flesh…’
Seriously? The State should enforce Christianity? Should Muaslims be allowed to marry? Atheists?
Society’s definition of marriage should be expanded—[for reasons that they have not made clear other than that they want it and they are special]—for gays, but society’s definition of marriage should not be expanded for any other people who have differing sexual orientations, such as the polyamorous, the life-challenged, and those consensual, mutual, affirming, loving, adult, same-sibling relationships.
Sarah knows the answer to this. The other bans have overriding State interests. Same sex marriage has no such interest. It creates no harm, interferes with no legislation, etc.
[i] Comments directed to specific posters deleted by elf. [/i]
ember – it’s mortal sin. Love is not support of or indifference to a practice that will land those who practice in Hell for all eternity.
The analogy to the miscegenation case(Loving) is inapt in an interesting way. Had not the Supreme Court been able to recognize society’s definition of marriage in the first place, it never would have been able to find that race was not intrinsic to marriage nor rationally related to the state’s purpose in regulating marriage. The SC looked at our common conception of marriage and found that the race of the partners was neither intrinsic to marriage nor rationally related to any state purpose in regulating same. By the same token, one cannot say that the sex of the partners is not intrinsic to marriage. The more apt analogy would be a discrimination case against a movie studio for failing to hire any men for female roles. No one would seriously consider such a lawsuit. On its face it’s absurd. Even more so, in the case of marriage where the partners are involved in more then just role-playing.
” The more apt analogy would be a discrimination case against a movie studio for failing to hire any men for female roles. No one would seriously consider such a lawsuit. On its face it’s absurd. Even more so, in the case of marriage where the partners are involved in more then just role-playing.”
phil – I am surprised it hasn’t happened yet, but this will be upon us soon, we will see just such a lawsuit when a “transgender woman” man auditions for and gets refused for such a role. That is today quite plausible and is part and parcel of the social madness which brings us so-called same sex marriage. At its root, it’s a revolt against created order, against reality and even these absurdities are just way stations along the path.
At the risk of drawing a lightening bolt from on High I am going to agree with Brian from T-19.
I am deeply opposed to gay marriage as an Orthodox Christian. However I am also a libertarian politically and legally. I believe prohibitions against homosexual marriage are on thin ice from a constitutional point of view. It amounts to legislating religious belief.
As I have said on many occasions the only viable solution is to remove “marriage” from the states control altogether and redefine what the law now calls “marriage” as a civil union. All consenting adults who wish to have their particular domestic arrangements recognized by the state should be required to present themselves before the local justice of the peace or equivalent authority, and be joined in “civil union.” Those who thereafter wish to be “married” can go to their respective place of worship and ask their respective clergy person to marry them assuming they meet the requirements for marriage of their religious sect.
[i] [b] Resolved:
All legislation in this state wherein the word marriage appears is herewith ammeded as follows.
1. The word marriage is replaced with the words “civil union.”
2. “Marriage” is henceforth understood to be a purely religious rite and therefor outside the regulatory purview of the state.
3. Persons lawfully “married” in another state or jurisdiction are understood to be joined in “civil union” within this state provided they meet the requirements of this state for “civil union.”
[/b]i [/i]
In ICXC
John
As far as I can tell, Ross made a certain set of valid points, entirely related to the subject of the post. Other commenters responded to what he said. It appears Ross may have addressed those concerns in #33 – it’s no longer possible to tell – which would have been part of the dialogue which is usually thought to be the purpose of a blog. Unfortunately, that dialogue has been short-circuited.
Ad Orientem — re: your scheme — I have two questions (and these are not meant to be argumentative.)
1. Can ANY two individuals apply for a “civil union.” For example, a friend of mine lives with her handicapped brother whom she takes care of. Can she and her brother apply for a “civil union” so that he could benefit from her health insurance? Do the individuals have to live in the same household? If so, for how long? In short, do you really mean that ANY two individuals (presumably of age) can obtain a “civil union” or are there restrictions?
2. Is the number limited to two for some reason? Could three individuals apply for a “civil union” and if not, why not?
Sarah’s comments are on target. Once marriage is redefined past a certain point it seems that there is no reason not to include other arrangements. At least I don’t see why same-sex marriages between siblings or parent/adult child, would need be regulated – as well as why marriage at that point should be restricted to two people.
re: SRussell’s civil right argument –
Calling it a civil right is not a very good argument. Many other cultures have polygamy, but we have continued a tradition in the U.S. of monogomous marriage intended primarily for bearing and rearing children. This implies we have decided to privilege a particular kind of family unit for the benefit of society.
Each state has kinship laws that prevent persons from marrying those who are
1. closely related by genes (the “western” tradition), or
2. too close in affinity, even if not related by close genetic ties (the biblical tradition), or
3. a combination of the above.
These laws are designed to prevent birth defects and/or exploitation.
In the U.S. even people who are infertile or past child bearing age must conform to these laws, which shows that these marriages are exceptions but are modeled on the tradition of monogamous marriage. I do understand that in Europe there are places where close blood related persons can marry if they can prove they are over 65 or infertile. I don’t think we have any laws like this in the U.S..
I am assuming that same-sex marriages, where legal, would have to conform to the same kinship restrictions imposed on other marriages. But since this could only logically be based on the biblical tradition concerning affinity, I fail to see how this new marriage category could be argued as a civil right. The fact we continue to confer a particular legal status on those who are carrying on a biblical tradition only means that we still think the tradition is worth preserving, not that we should redefine the tradition toward incoherence.
Franklly, I think there is a perfectly good secular argument against redefinition of marriage to accomodate same sex couples: it is bad social policy to extend benefits intended for families to groups of people that are not families. Yes, I know about childless couples and am very pleased that we have been able to generously extend benefits to couples in such circumstances. There is always the possibility of such folks having children, whereas same sex couples are inherently fertile. The homosexual movement downplays this reality (to put it mildly) but it stands and is, I think, compelling.
There are other problems. A “family” built around a same-sex pairing is an inherently artificial, state-created entity, kept alive solely by state sanction. The lack of any possibility of natural chld conception means that any “family” built around such a couple will involve a hefty dose of artificiality, from adoption to articifial fertilization. There is simply not the possibility of a natural blood relation that society has been essentially comprised of and no such family can look like a natural family.
There is also, of course, the fact that same sex couples are not particularly deprived as a result of the lack of marital sanction on their relations. They have no concern for their imitations of copulation to be licit, their children to be legitimate, and there is no advantage conferred by marriage that is not available in some other way. There is no compelling reason to grant marital sanction to such couples and no particular deprivation that such sanction would amend. Add to this the law of unintended consequences, and the homosexual movement continues to make a weak case, as the results of vote after vote has shown.
“It amounts to legislating religious beliefs.” Nonsense. Under such an understanding lawmaking would be impossible. Besides, our society’s conception of marriage, although grounded in religious belief does not in any conceivable way violate the establishment of religion clause. Such hare-brained libertarian thinking amounts to a naked public square.
Re 39
Catholic Mom.
I would apply generally the same laws as now exist in terms of eligibility for marriage with maybe a little fine tuning. For pragmatic reasons I think polyamorous relationships (yuck) should not enjoy legal standing because of the difficulty in sorting out rights, benefits etc. With respect to incestuous (double yuck) relationships, these are outlawed for very good reasons based on public health. They should not be recognized.
Remember all this does is to remove the word marriage from the law. Marriage is an inherently religious rite and should be returned to that condition.
In ICXC
John
Elves, can you clarify the rules for me? I was not aware that it was forbidden to reply to the points that other commenters made.
[blockquote]With respect to incestuous (double yuck) relationships, these are outlawed for very good reasons based on public health.[/blockquote]
And putting ones genitals where they were never intended to go doesn’t create a public health issue? Please!
Re # 9
Azusa
[blockquote] “What right of yours or other people opposed to same sex marriage is being infringed?â€
The right of the Lord Jesus Christ to define marriage as the Creator’s ordinance: ‘For this reason a man shall leave his mother nad father and cleave to his WIFE and the two shall become one flesh…’ [/blockquote]
The last time I checked the United States is not (thank God) a theocracy. When the government starts legislating in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ then it will be time for me to start packing and get my passport up to speed. I personally have no desire to reside in a Protestant Evangelical version of Iran.
In ICXC
John
Well, where I live, in Europe, an ever-increasing list of countries has legislated for same-sex marriage, with NO DIRE CONSEQUENCES WHATSOEVER.
In America you need to choose: are you really in the vanguard of defending human rights and freedoms (in which case, get with the program: abolish the hypocritical nonsense of Don’t ask, don’t tell, and legislate for marriage equality), or are you happy to fall even further behind the rest of the Western world?
there is no advantage conferred by marriage that is not available in some other way.
http://www.massequality.org/ourwork/marriag/marriagevscivilunions.pdf
I cannot see any compelling argument for not allowing any certain class of people to be able to make certain civil contracts and another class of citizens is prevented, based solely on the sex of the contracting parties.
#47 – “WITH NO DIRE CONSEQUENCES WHATSOEVER”
Except to their eternal souls.
Become just like Europe, an amoral theme park that thinks it still matters. Now there’s a compelling reason to change state or national policy.
to fall even further behind the rest of the Western world?
Is Christianity about “keeping up with the Western world?”
Good point Christopher Johnson, not too mention Sharia Law to follow right behind.
#52 – precisely, “keeping up with the Western world” sounds awfully like idolatry to me.
Just how do kinship laws effect same sex sibling relationships? Breeding can’t take place so why keep them apart? Catholic Mom raised valid points that I don’t think have been adequately addressed.
Re #55
Br. Michael,
That’s a good point which I had not considered. As repulsive as it is (oh boy is it), I may have to bow to that argument.
In ICXC
John
“What right of yours or other people opposed to same sex marriage is being infringed?â€
In reply to my point :”The right of the Lord Jesus Christ to define marriage as the Creator’s ordinance: ‘For this reason a man shall leave his mother and father and cleave to his WIFE and the two shall become one flesh…’
Brian asks: “Seriously? The State should enforce Christianity? Should Muslims be allowed to marry? Atheists?”
This is nothing (specifically) to do with Christianity. (However, I was speaking as a Christian to other Christians.) But since you mention it, the US Constitution with its concept of rights is based on belief in God the Creator (yes, seriously – it’s there in print).
Brian cannot answer the point, that if marriage is nothing other than the free association of adults, then there is no argument against sibling-marriage or group marriage.
I know of no state that has yet legalized adult incest (but maybe they exist). Perhaps Brian can tell us why this should be illegal (if that’s what he thinks).
brian,
wow, you are making quite a leap from old testament to state interest. why don’t you make an argument about gays getting married in the OT and then how we redefined that? right, because it wasn’t done-ever. on the secular side even the decadent pre- christian romans who experimented every which way, didn’t provide for gay marriage.
i know wikipedia is generally poo pooed but i did find this interesting:
“The word matrimonium, the root for our own word for marriage, matrimony, defines the institution’s main function. Involving the mater (mother), it carries with it the implication of the man taking to woman in marriage to have children. It is the idea conventionally shared by Romans as to the purpose of marriage, which would be to produce legitimate children; citizens producing new citizens.[1]”
the bible does allow for divorce under three circumstances and yes it is a little easier to define because at least something was said about it.
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/divorce.shtml
what it doesn’t ever allow for is gay marriage; it doesn’t even infer it.
“The other bans have overriding State interests”, after seeing a documentary on bbc regarding incest relationships that argument is moot. the argument against marriage is to avoid birth defects, but one couple were brother and sister and appeared to be in love; they had 4 children and only 2 had birth defects.
getting into that territory would be outlawing marriage against anyone who was genetically predisposed to birth defects. i don’t see how polyamorous marriages would have any effect on the state, but i am sure you will englighten me.
what you haven’t done is argued how same sex marriage is good for the overall society.
Ohhh SUSAN!
And you think Brown v Board of Education has been good for us?
In my town, there popped up a plethora of private schools, which left all the public schools filled with children not from their neighborhoods. Thus, the parents had no interest in the school where their children went—many never saw it.
How is the Public School System now? NO.
bl
Brian cannot answer the point, that if marriage is nothing other than the free association of adults, then there is no argument against sibling-marriage or group marriage.
Brian has answered it in several posts, but he will answer it again for you. The State can not infringe on marriage unless it has an overriding reason. There are significant public policy reasons against incest being legitimized. There are no reasons against same sex marriage.
A rose by any other name….If two members of the same sex enter into a contract (which is how the state defines marriage) with the same priviledges as in marriage ( as the ammendment Oragon passed) how are peoples rights being abriged? Becuase these people can’t us a word with a long history and meaning that excludes them? That meaning has not been changed in the book of common prayer dispite the fact that folks with in the Episcopal Church are developing rites for same sex marriages…If I want to become a Samurai, no matter how hard I train, work, and understand their dark arts I will never be a Samurai because I am not Japanese and not born into the blood lines..I feel so deprived and my rights violated!!
The compelling argument for not allowing a certain class of people to be able to make certain civil contracts is based on moral implications it has on society…especially its children. It legitimizes and legalizes evil, which profoundly impacts society, and it removes my right to raise children in a godly manner by modeling ungodly behavior…even teaching it as viable in schools.
Every humanly-created law is legitimate insofar as it is consistent with the natural moral law. The Church’s respect for homosexual persons cannot lead to approval of such behavior or to legal recognition of gay unions or marriage. That would not only be approval of deviant behavior, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself.
magnolia
The ONLY definition of marriage that matters is what the State defines. The reason this is the case is because in the United States we do not allow religious definitions. My reference to the OT was made because of an argument that said the definition of marriage can not be changed. I was simply demonstrating that marriage is defined many ways by different nations, religions, cultures, etc.
The limitation of matrimony to those who are abkle to bear children does not apply unless the State wishes to require a certain number of children be produced from each marriage. Clearly they do not.
the bible does allow for divorce under three circumstances and yes it is a little easier to define because at least something was said about it.
Actually, as I mentioned, the Bible does allow for divorce. What is does not allow is remarriage after divorce. And yet, we have many remarried Christians and some of them are even priests.
As for the bans
-incest creates blood disorders in children, true, but that is not the sole reason for legislating against it.
-polygamy creates a legal nightmare requiring the creation of all sorts of new property and inheritance interests as well as other significant legal entanglements that would be a burden to the State.
-same sex marriage is no more or less beneficial to the overall society than is opposite sex marriage.
The compelling argument for not allowing a certain class of people to be able to make certain civil contracts is based on moral implications it has on society…especially its children. It legitimizes and legalizes evil, which profoundly impacts society, and it removes my right to raise children in a godly manner by modeling ungodly behavior…even teaching it as viable in schools.
Which is why those contracts are against public policy. Incest is illegal, pedarasty is illegal, polygamy is illegal – note the pattern. Is homosexuality illegal? No.
“There are significant public policy reasons against incest being legitimized.” This is just an opinion. Equally valid justifications exist against same sex marriage. Brian is just indulging in special pleading that favors a homosexual couple. Yet even he must admit that even under his rules same sex siblings would be permitted.
I attempted to reply to some of these questions — specifically, I was replying to Sarah in #11, but the theme has since been taken up by several other commenters — in my comment at #33, which was deleted by the Elves for being “directed to specific posters.” I’m no longer certain how and when I’m permitted to reply to the conversation, but for the record I did try 🙂
Bob Lee, Brown Vs. the Board of Education has undeniably been good for us. Good grief.
I find one argument being advanced for same sex “marriage” in this thread rather curious, given the argument made by the advocates of change in TEC.
Here it has been argued that “the state” has no interest in marriage and marriage is “historically” a religious matter in which “the state” has interfered.
But it has been argued in TEC circles that marriage “historically” is a civil matter, not a religious one and that the Church ought not to involve itself in what is essentially, according to the argument, a civil matter.
Taken together, the argument seems now to be that neither “the state” nor “the Church” should be involved in what apparently is a purely personal matter. If two people want to “marry” let them “marry” regardless of any “limitation” on that “right” by either Church or State.
Now it would seem to me that this “solution” isn’t particularly in the interest of the Church and its teaching about the proper use of the “gift of sexuality” and the care and nurture of children. Nor is it in the interest of the State and its concern for social stability and also the care and nurture of children.
I would observe as a historian, the “Church-State” dichotomy makes little sense prior to the Post-Reformation period.
In examples described above, it is not the feelings or thoughts of an individual that are immoral…it is the behavior.
This is just an opinion. Equally valid justifications exist against same sex marriage. Brian is just indulging in special pleading that favors a homosexual couple. Yet even he must admit that even under his rules same sex siblings would be permitted.
Absolutely not. Incest is illegal and prohibited, whether same sex or opposite sex.
Septuagenarian
There are 2 arguments. The civil marriage argument says that marriage is a State issue and therefore can not endorse a particular religion. The church marriage argument says that the church should be free to set its own standards for marriage. They both agree with each other: civil marriage does not have religious requirements and church marriage is free to apply any moral requirements within its conscience.
I’m surprised I can still be disappointed by the ignorance & bigotry of those who are willing to legislate away the civil rights of other Americans.
Susan Russell [#2]: Where do you stand on other people’s First Amendment right to the “free exercise of religion”?
–Would you oppose laws requiring Roman Catholic hospitals to perform abortions?
–Do you oppose laws requiring every pharmacist (not just the pharmacy but each pharmacist who works there) to dispense abortion pills regardless of her conscience-based objections to abortion?
Or does ” legislat[ing] away the civil rights of other Americans” refer only to politically correct rights?
[blockquote]Incest is illegal and prohibited, whether same sex or opposite sex.[/blockquote]
Of course, not very long ago same sex sexual contact was illegal. The courts (not the people) declared that such laws violated the U.S. Constitution–not because the State did nor did not have an interest in prohibiting such behavior or that there was some constitutional prohibition of such laws, but because enforcement involved a newly discovered “right of privacy”.
If siblings choose to have sex with each other, would not the enforcement of such a prohibition involve the same sort of “invasion of privacy”?
I think Brian’s argument is rather circular. The states generally state that same sex marriage is illegal. He wants the state to sanction that. He states that incestuous marriage is illegal. Supposedly the state can change that. All it takes is for some court somewhere to hold that laws prohibiting incest violate a minority “right” to marry whomever they choose and/or that laws prohibiting incest are unconstitutional invasions of privacy.
And, of course, there are already those lobbying to have pedastry laws repealed or radically modified.
[i] Comment targeting elves deleted. [/i]
Dear Elves: I posted #72 before reading your admonition, in #27, not to address specific commenters. The second paragraph of #72 should begin, “I would really like to know where those who make this argument stand on other people’s First Amendment right to the “free exercise of religionâ€?
The state has, in recent years, decided that all “victimless” sexual acts cannot be made illegal. Incest per se is not illegal. Only incest with minors. Polygamy per se is not illegal, only polygamy that involves underaged girls. Pederasty is illegal because by definition it involves minors. If 15 (adult) people want to live together and have sex in various combinations that is legal. Sex between same sex (adults) is legal.
But incestuous relationships cannot be granted the status of marriage. Polygamous (adult) relationships cannot be granted the status of marriage. Groups of random adults and/or sheep cannot be granted the status of marriage. And the voters have stated consistently that same sex relationsips cannot be granted the status of marriage. See the pattern?
Catholic Mom
Your State has no such laws on the books saying that incest and polygamy are not illegal. Your State’s Attorney may choose not to prosecute these crimes (such as prostitution), but they remain illegal. And, no, I see no pattern.
From Wikipedia (gotta love it):
In addition, there are no laws in New Jersey prohibiting groups of adults living together and having mutual sexual relationships, as in polygamy or polyamory. It IS illegal for a man to legally marry a woman and then attempt a second state-sanctioned marriage by representing himself as unmarried.
So…exactly as I said. The behaviors (as long they don’t involve children) are perfectly legal in many if not most states (and certainly in my own state of NJ.) They cannot be sanctioned as marriage in any state, however. The same is true for same-sex relationships, except that the courts of certain states have decided that they CAN be granted the status of marriage. The voters disagree.
The utter gall of those gay activists who join a Church that defines marriage as we do, work day and night to undermine that definition, and then want to quote that the march of their egos = the march of the Holy Spirit. Hello: Unitarianism is calling. Be honest and just go there, but stop accusing those who uphold our Prayer Book standards as changing “your” Church.
I would suggest that Brian from T19 has it backwards. The starting point should be that the state has no compelling interest to force its citizens to prefer and subsidize the sexual relationships of certain individuals unless there is a strong public interest to do so. Traditional one man/one woman marriage is the most stable and the only historically tested means to bring new children into this world. This doesn’t mean that all marriages will result in children, or that children can’t result from non-marital unions. But under the traditional definition of marriage, the procreation and raising of children is seen as a fundamental pillar. Under ideal conditions a man-woman union would be capable of reproduction.
Same-sex marriage fundamentally undermines and excises this procreative aspect of marriage. By accepting same-sex marriage, the state is making a clear statement that the procreation and raising of children can NOT be part of the fundamental definition of marriage (same-sex couples can NEVER be capable of reproduction). That leaves marriage SOLELY as being a sexual friendship of adults.
And the state should simply not be involved with that. It would be better and more honest for the homosexual activists to simply argue that the state ought not recognize marriage since they choose not to participate in marriage.
I am very happy that the vote went the way that it did, the voters have more sense than the governor and the legislature. Homosexual marriage is wrong.
Well said, jamesw.
I might add that there is a strong corollary between the increased acceptance (and normalization) of SSM in a country and a decreased number of marriages over all, divorce rates, and national fertility. All of these factors lean to less stable societies for children, and hence a weakening of the next generation. Hence, the State does indeed have a compelling interest against this innovation.
I would note that what constitutes a “minor” in terms of sexual relationships varies from state to state and can be changed at any time by the state legislature. And there is at least one group out there lobbying to reduce the age and/or to decriminalize sexual relations between adults and teens and even children.
One of the things that keeps coming to mind in these discussions is the State’s interest in people marrying and having and raising children. For example, throughout the history of imperial Rome there was concern from the government about the decline in population. There were, in point of fact, laws compelling marriage and child bearing, but they were ineffectual.
Many Romans at the time delayed and or avoided marriage and also practiced contraception, abortion and infanticide which resulted in declining population and contributed to the decline and fall of the empire. Some historians note that one of the factors contributing to the growth of the Christian Church in the first three or four centuries was that Christians married (monasticism not withstanding), bore children and did not practice contraception, abortion and infanticide (and in fact rescued babies left to die by the pagans). As a consequence the Christian population grew as the pagan population died off.
In terms of current population trends, American fertility has been declining for decades. Certainly the widespread use of contraceptives and the roughly million abortions performed annually are contributing factors in this. Population growth is largely a consequence of immigration. Because Latin American immigrants (both legal and illegal) are a major part immigration and because Hispanic culture places great value on family and children, we are seeing a dramatic shift in population characteristics. And this becomes a problem for the State, particularly its public education system.
And it should also be a concern in TEC when it talks about Hispanic ministries. If TEC is to support abortion rights, contraception, gay rights and the like, it will be culturally antagonistic to the Hispanic population it seeks to attract.
I must say that I agree with Catholic Mom and Septuagenarian. In particular post 73. Under Brian’s reasoning it is hard, if not impossible, to even argue that marriage or civil partnerships should be allowed at all, as it grants special benefits to partners and is discriminatory against people who do not get married or live in a civil partnerships. Why should relationships be privileged over singles?
Regarding “keeping up with the Western world”, one of the lessons of history is that civilizations rise and then decline, eventually becoming of interest only to archaeologists and some historians.
I mentioned earlier that there was a parallel between the declining Roman population in the imperial period and its role to the decline of the Roman Empire. I noted in particular the widespread practice of contraception, abortion and infanticide among the pagans as a major factor in that decline.
There are other parallels as well, including increasing immorality, the dependence of large numbers of the population on government provided grain, economic decline along with the debasement of coinage. These also have parallels in the contemporary “Western world”. I would suggest that the “Western world” is well on its way of decline and will, in due time, enter the dust bins of history and archeology.
There are accounts of buffalo following the herd leaders over a chalk cliff to their doom. There is also the example of lemmings.
The desirability of “keeping up with the Western world” depends entirely on where “the Western world” is headed. Not all change is progress. Decay and death are changes.
This has been a fun thread to read. Most fun has been to read various progressives thrash about trying to hide from their own prejudice and [in some cases] self-serving hypocrisy.
One of the common comments has been “Incest is illegal, pedarasty is illegal, polygamy is illegal – note the pattern. Is homosexuality illegal? No.”
But of course, that is precisely the point — one which they are all aware of too [which makes it even funner]! True non-prejudiced, concerned progressives would be striving — as recall they did when sodomy was actually illegal — to rid our society of such unjust and wicked and bigoted laws against polyamorous relationships and all other such laws against minority sexual orientations as long as they did not violate the laws of consent and mutual affirming love. After all, who is the State to tell us whom we can love?
No, were the progressive activists not hypocrites and prejudiced, they would be working hard to repeal the unjust laws that allow people to simply state “polygamy is illegal.” Why? Because this oppressed minority sexual orientation should be allowed the same rights as all other sexual orientations.
Marriage should be for all citizens, and this is certainly a civil rights issue!!!
But the truth is . . . gay activists are, for the most part, interested solely in expanding the legal definition of marriage — and receiving society’s forced pretense of approval — for their own particular special currently faddish sexual orientation and none other.
Prejudice. Hypocrisy. And now, on top of that, in this thread at least, a very unjust appeal to laws that ought to be overthrown — just as the wicked and discriminatory laws against sodomy were overthrown [because we all know that sodomy laws were merely “anti-gay prejudice” anyway].
The other priceless thing to point out, again, about this thread, is that those trilling about things being “against the law” already know in their hearts just how weak and flimsy such an “argument” [sic] is . . . because they themselves were opposed to the laws that effectively outlawed same-gender sexual practice.
Really fraudulent rhetoric here — and [i]known[/i] fraudulent rhetoric too.
No — the progressive activists are the worst sort of prejudiced people. They simply want [i]their convenience for their particular favored sexual orientation[/i] while denying that legal expansion and forced pretense of societal approval for other minority sexual orientations that they themselves do not favor.
Genuine goodness is threatening to those at the opposite end of the moral spectrum. Satan’s agents are motivated to ridicule and persecute us. Genuinely good intentions are sneered at by the media and those promoting a hedonistic lifestyle with a quest and intent to bring down those who are good and moral.
We see this in the Anglican Communion: the Enemy of Christianity is always to discredit it, and one way he does it is to create a counterfeit religion. —- Which should remind us that we are not fighting against flesh & blood and that God’s injunction to us is to stand firm.
Thank you Sarah. Good summary.
I tried to say this yesterday, and it was deleted for being “directed to specific posters.” So I don’t know if I can say this without being deleted again, but I’ll try.
In reply to NO ONE IN PARTICULAR, but simply as a GENERAL COMMENT DIRECTED AT THE COSMOS, I would say that if, hypothetically, I were to encounter some extremely non-specific people — I envision a Greek chorus wearing masks and nondescript clothing, and speaking in unison — if I were to encounter such generic persons remarking that progressives ought, by the logic of their position, to support polyamorous marriage or other historically-unsanctioned expressions of sexuality, then I might hypothetically reply in this generic and non-specific fashion:
In brief: yes, and I do. Less briefly: a sexual relationship (which is one aspect of what marriage is, although of course far from the totality of it) requires free and informed consent by all partners, and this is the bar which rules out relationships with children, animals, or the metabolically-challenged. Which groups, hypothetically, someone might have mentioned.
Polyamorous relationships, therefore — assuming that everyone involved is an adult — are OK, or at least not ruled out automatically. Now, as it happens I know people in the “poly” community, and they will uniformly tell you that a working long-term poly relationship is hard — it is not at all the life of light-hearted orgies that their detractors envision. But it can be done; I personally know at least two triads that have lasted for over a decade (multiple decades for one of them) and a number of pair marriages that are “open” to one degree or another and have likewise lasted for the long haul.
So yes, I do support the normalization of poly marriage. Not all reappraisers do, mind you; we’re no more monolithic on this position than you all are monolithic on, for instance, whether the Reformation was a good thing or not. But I support it, although I think that should it be legalized we’d find rather fewer takers than some might expect.
Polygamy deserves a special comment: in theory, it’s just a subset of polyamory. However, the word is often used in connection with traditions where the women frequently have little practical choice about the marriage, and may be exploited within the context of the marriage. At which point, the “free and informed consent” test has been failed and what we’re talking about is no longer OK.
Now, some non-specific members of this nondescript Greek chorus may or may not have intoned a minor chord about adult sibling incestuous relationships. That one is harder, because even though consent is not an issue (given the “adult” specifier) there is the possibility of harm to others in that there is an increased likelihood of birth defects should the couple have children. (Obviously this applies only to brother/sister couples; brother/brother or sister/sister couples do not incur this risk.) On the other hand, the odds still favor healthy children (they just don’t favor them nearly as strongly as with an unrelated couple) and as a rule we don’t forbid even people who are guaranteed to pass on deletrious genetic conditions to their children, to have those children. So it is, as I say, a tricky question.
However, I am not aware of a significant number of people (by which I mean, I am not aware of any) who are advocating for this right. Thus, I think the question can safely be left on the ground unless and until such a movement arises.
Thus, I speculate idly to the universe, is how I might phrase my reply to such a hypothetical group of imaginary persons.
Sarah
You used to be above making false statements to bolster your position. But since GC09 you seem to be making a habit of it. Dissembling is beneath you. Rely on the strength of your argument rather than the base reductionism to the supposed arguments that “all” progressives make.
Thanks for the honesty of the above unnamed person. I sincerely appreciate it — it is, in fact, the reasonable choice.
I should point out that, just as it is possible to give informed consent through a living will regarding one’s wishes after death . . . so it is possible to give . . . er . . . informed consent through a living will regarding one’s wishes after death.
So the whole little argument about those who might be life-challenged not being able to “consent” is actually dull and void — dead in the water, so to speak. That one is really not arguable.
And of course . . . since we’re all about the “laws” and “changing the laws” if we are into “justice and inclusion” than the cruel and unjust age of consent laws for those who are age-challenged by dent of their tender years also can be changed. Since — as *many* fearless progressives believe, we are all interested in sex from a very very very early age [if never] than “consent” is a rather relative term there. Who are we to make the claim that age-challenged crumb crunchers can not issue “consent.” *Surely* we can all agree to just go ahead and lawfully lower the age of consent to a reasonable number like . . . puberty . . . which as we all know gets steadily younger and younger by the year.
And I believe that we are reliably and earnestly informed by certain minority sexual orientations that even if creatures may not speak, they can eagerly give their assent to loving relationships through other quite clear means which the sensitive human beings are able to certainly discern.
No — just as “marriage” may be deconstructed to include all stripes and minority sexual orientations as a matter of justice, so I think we can all recognize that “consent” is, shall we say, a rather flexible and easily deconstructed word as well.
“Consent” can be just as broad as we wish it to be.