Ruth Hassell-Thompson was a young girl decades ago when her older brother, a gay man, vanished from her deeply religious family, moving away to escape their disapproving father.
Ms. Hassell-Thompson, 67, searched for years, finally finding him in a village in the south of France. When she urged him to come home, he said that “my father doesn’t want to see me.”
“But your sister does,” Ms. Hassell-Thompson recalled telling him, her voice breaking as she stood on the Senate floor on Wednesday and publicly revealed her brother’s story for the first time.
Talk about spin! It is not until the last graph that the reader learns the bill did not pass.
Actually, the New York Times had a headline article about the vote. This was a secondary article about the speeches. The salient point about the speeches was that they were very emotional and that all but one was in favor, with the opponents staying largely silent. That’s what this article reports.
It is all about listening to other folks stories. We are informed by what others say. This is prevalent in TEC thinking and is what is meant by dialogue.
I can’t accept SSM in the Church because it’s impossible for the Church to bless what the Bible and the Judaeo-Christian tradition universally condemns (no matter what petty excuses or exceptions people will try to conjure ex nihio). *However*, either America, being an officially secular country (separation of Church and State and all that) ought not allow two persons of the same sex to buy a house or a car together, or adopt, *or* alternatively, they should allow them to enter into all civil contracts, which includes civil marriage (or whatever one might want to call that particular civil contract, which is nothing but a bundle of legal rights and obligations, and no more).
[i]they should allow them to enter into all civil contracts, which includes civil marriage[/i]
That gets into deep, philosophical questions about the precise relationship between society and state, and marriage and the state. I’m satisfied with the idea that in a democratic government, what legally constitutes “marriage” should reflect what the majority of society considers “marriage.” Furthermore, if one were to view the civil insitutution of marriage as a mere matter of contract law, than pushes for “same sex” marriage don’t go far enough. Why not group marriages, incesteous marriages, etc?
AndrewA,
[blockquote]Why not group marriages, incesteous marriages, etc?[/blockquote]Why not interracial marriages? I’m only partly kidding, of course, but I would agree that group marriages and sibling marriages do not seem to be legally excluded from possibility within the U.S. legal system. However, I would suggest that one (1) have a bit more faith in the American people; and, if that proves impossible, (2) begin to develop purely secular arguments against group marriages and sibling marriages.
6, why? What do you have against group marriages and sibling marriages (to include same sex sibling marriages)?
So, a disapproving father is the bane of all existence and the reason FOR same sex marriage? I missed something. Dads have been known to disapprove of lots of things. Are they all reasons FOR same sex marriage? For instance, my no dates until you are 16 rule. How is that a logical reason to be FOR same sex marriage? Help me, people. I’m a Dad. And I have been baptized.
#7 Br. Michael,
I’m against group and sibling marriage.
However, group and sibling civil unions, well, I’ll have to think about that. 😉
The article stated:
[blockquote]Of the lawmakers who spoke on the floor of the chamber, all but one declared their support for the same-sex marriage bill. Nearly all those who voted against the bill remained silent during the two-hour debate. And though the bill was defeated by a wide margin, many of the senators shared the kind of personal stories rarely heard in such a public venue.[/blockquote]
This vote was a surprise to many New Yorkers because the State Assembly (our “lower” house) voted overwhelmingly [b][i]for[/i][/b] same-sex marriage not so long ago. There was a lot of expectation that the Senate would do the same. So, something is going on here.
We are rightly perceived as a mostly liberal state, and we are also largely unchurched — 85%. Yet, it seems that constituents let their senators know that supporting gay marriage would affect the next elections. This was definitely a national watershed moment in the progress of the gay marriage movement.
Those opposed to gay marriage “remained silent.” Apparently they did not want to be quoted in the media. This was a lack of courage typical of politicians, yet they endured the rhetoric and voted the bill down anyway.
In reference to the workings of TEC, there is something very interesting here. The same two strategies were used on the Senate floor as were used at the TE GC. Gays were painted as a persecuted minority and compared to victims of the Jewish Holocaust and also to victims of slavery and “Jim Crow” laws. Second, personal stories were told with with heart-rending emotional charges.
Both strategies failed by more than 2 to 1.
So, TEC members and GC Deputies: it [b]IS[/b], in fact, possible to stand up to emotional blackmail and revisionist history in the cause of defending basic values. If even the crazy New York legislature can pull this off, anyone could.