Good News about DoMA

[Cruel2BKind]

My first preference would be to go in the reverse direction: if the churches are so bent on having the power to define "marriage", give them what they're asking and get government out of the "marriage" business altogether, so the ONLY legally-recognised status is a civil union. Any couple/triad/whatever can call themselves "married" if they choose, every church can decide what "marriages" they will and won't acknowledge, and every individual can decide whether they give a toss what the churches think.

But it doesn't seem to be a popular approach, so I'll support same-sex marriage as the next best thing.

That would be a really bad idea. It's good in theory, but here's the problem.

As much as I hate to disagree with JB, homosexuality was considered a mental disorder until the early eighties (or late seventies, not sure). Ever since then, part of the fight for LGBT rights has been a Public relations campaign. Trying to prove that LGBT people are sane normal beautiful people that deserve to have rights. For years we've had to try and debunk stereotypes and depict nothing but healthy monogamous relationships.

How do you think the public images of the LGBT community would change if there was a movement to obliterate marriage and make everybody switch to civil unions. It makes sense in theory, but everybody else would take it like a hostile takeover.

It wouldn't go well.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

What queers dont yet get is this: They gotta tone down their Lady Gaga Squad of Flaming Homers.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

I've pointed this out over and over again but I guess there are some people who have me on ignore.

Marriage is a contractual arrangement established by the state. It is not a religious sacrament despite what the Renaissance popes said so they could squeeze more money out of the peasantry. Churches, whether they admit it or not, (and the mainline denominations do) do not marry people. They bless the union. Now that may or may not be a big deal to some of us here but that's reality. And we all know that a civil marriage is just as valid as one done in St. Peter's in a full high mass. So leave off the arguing about what a few theological ignoramuses scream. Drop the silly idea of 'civil unions for everyone' and get on with killing DOMA and, as the elderly hysterical die off, legalizing same-sex marriages. Anything else is a distraction.

 

[Cruel2BKind]

What queers dont yet get is this: They gotta tone down their Lady Gaga Squad of Flaming Homers.

On the contrary dear.

When celebrities 'endorse' homosexuality, it helps the cause a lot more than any petition or pro-gay ad ever could. George Cloony saying that he believes 100% in gay rights means a lot more than some random preacher babbling about how all gay people should be rounded up and put behind an electric fence.

Because in our society, we feel like we know celebrities. They are close personal friends because we listen to their music and watch their movies. Chris Evans, Lady Gaga, George Cloony, they all support it. And then there are people like Jodie Foster, Neil Patrick Harris, and Sir Ian McKellan who actually ARE gay.

Maybe it's depressing to some that so much of our nations goodwill or bile can be directly influenced by what shows they watch and what music they listen to, but at least it's getting something done.

 

[Cruel2BKind]

I've pointed this out over and over again but I guess there are some people who have me on ignore.

Marriage is a contractual arrangement established by the state. It is not a religious sacrament despite what the Renaissance popes said so they could squeeze more money out of the peasantry. Churches, whether they admit it or not, (and the mainline denominations do) do not marry people. They bless the union. Now that may or may not be a big deal to some of us here but that's reality. And we all know that a civil marriage is just as valid as one done in St. Peter's in a full high mass. So leave off the arguing about what a few theological ignoramuses scream. Drop the silly idea of 'civil unions for everyone' and get on with killing DOMA and, as the elderly hysterical die off, legalizing same-sex marriages. Anything else is a distraction.

Thanks bear, you have such a way with words

 

[Bramblethorn]

That would be a really bad idea. It's good in theory, but here's the problem.

As much as I hate to disagree with JB, homosexuality was considered a mental disorder until the early eighties (or late seventies, not sure). Ever since then, part of the fight for LGBT rights has been a Public relations campaign. Trying to prove that LGBT people are sane normal beautiful people that deserve to have rights. For years we've had to try and debunk stereotypes and depict nothing but healthy monogamous relationships.

How do you think the public images of the LGBT community would change if there was a movement to obliterate marriage and make everybody switch to civil unions. It makes sense in theory, but everybody else would take it like a hostile takeover.

It wouldn't go well.

Oh yeah, I understand it's not politically palatable, which is why I'll argue for legalised same-sex marriage as the next best thing. But when I'm feeling cantankerous it's awfully tempting to call the bluff of the folk who believe gay folk don't need marriage because they already have civil unions.

(Personally, I'm not wild about the attempts to whitewash things and present all gay folk as monogamous and 'normal'. Because there are gay folk who DON'T fit the vanilla mold, and they have just as much right to happiness as the ones who do. Over here the response to "if you legalise same-sex marriage it'll be polygamy next" seems to have started shifting towards "so what?" and I'm pleased to see it... although that said, poly marriage would take a lot more legal work than same-sex.)

 

[TexasWife25]

I've pointed this out over and over again but I guess there are some people who have me on ignore.

Marriage is a contractual arrangement established by the state. It is not a religious sacrament despite what the Renaissance popes said so they could squeeze more money out of the peasantry. Churches, whether they admit it or not, (and the mainline denominations do) do not marry people. They bless the union. Now that may or may not be a big deal to some of us here but that's reality. And we all know that a civil marriage is just as valid as one done in St. Peter's in a full high mass. So leave off the arguing about what a few theological ignoramuses scream. Drop the silly idea of 'civil unions for everyone' and get on with killing DOMA and, as the elderly hysterical die off, legalizing same-sex marriages. Anything else is a distraction.

Hmmm I think saying marriage isnt a religious sacrament is somewhat disingenuous. I agree marriage is a contract sanctioned by the state, however depending on your religion it is ALSO a sacrament.

 

[sr71plt]

My first preference would be to go in the reverse direction: if the churches are so bent on having the power to define "marriage", give them what they're asking and get government out of the "marriage" business altogether, so the ONLY legally-recognised status is a civil union. Any couple/triad/whatever can call themselves "married" if they choose, every church can decide what "marriages" they will and won't acknowledge, and every individual can decide whether they give a toss what the churches think.

But it doesn't seem to be a popular approach, so I'll support same-sex marriage as the next best thing.

Legally, isn't that what we already have in the United States? It's not the church ceremony that legally establishes the marriage--it's that marriage license that had to be obtained at city hall.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

On the contrary dear.

When celebrities 'endorse' homosexuality, it helps the cause a lot more than any petition or pro-gay ad ever could. George Cloony saying that he believes 100% in gay rights means a lot more than some random preacher babbling about how all gay people should be rounded up and put behind an electric fence.

Because in our society, we feel like we know celebrities. They are close personal friends because we listen to their music and watch their movies. Chris Evans, Lady Gaga, George Cloony, they all support it. And then there are people like Jodie Foster, Neil Patrick Harris, and Sir Ian McKellan who actually ARE gay.

Maybe it's depressing to some that so much of our nations goodwill or bile can be directly influenced by what shows they watch and what music they listen to, but at least it's getting something done.

No. If homosexuality was viable it woulda taken root and florished. But its a weed in Mendels gene garden. Celebrities enjoy fags like they enjoy snakes.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Legally, isn't that what we already have in the United States? It's not the church ceremony that legally establishes the marriage--it's that marriage license that had to be obtained at city hall.

It takes both the license and the ceremony, but the latter can be performed or officiated over by a member of the clergy or by a judge, including a JP. In some states or countries, there may be others who can do so, but there has to be an affirmation before witnesses.

 

[RjThoughts]

I've said it before and it bears repeating:

How can Same Sex marriage effect mine?

How can we deny two loving adults the right to be miserable?

 

[TexasWife25]

It takes both the license and the ceremony, but the latter can be performed or officiated over by a member of the clergy or by a judge, including a JP. In some states or countries, there may be others who can do so, but there has to be an affirmation before witnesses.

In some sates the JP can also act as the witness.

 

[sr71plt]

It takes both the license and the ceremony, but the latter can be performed or officiated over by a member of the clergy or by a judge, including a JP. In some states or countries, there may be others who can do so, but there has to be an affirmation before witnesses.

The point is that it, legally, isn't a religious requirement at all. The church isn't a legal necessity to any of it. So the church only controls it to the extent that people let it do so.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Yuh gotta wonder howcome marriage ended up a religious sacrement rather than a priviledge of the kings court.

Dats cuz the king got tired of the relentless struggle tween parents, and children making babies with assclowns. The king recognized he wasnt scaring the kids, maybe the priests could do better. Let the parents annoy the priests.

 

[RjThoughts]

Hmmm I think saying marriage isnt a religious sacrament is somewhat disingenuous. I agree marriage is a contract sanctioned by the state, however depending on your religion it is ALSO a sacrament.

In most major religions, Same Sex marriage is looked upon as sacreligious. They take the Old Testament literally. But, on the same token, ANY Christian that says it is not sanctioned by God because it says so in the Bible AND eats ANY pork or shellfish, watches television on Sunday, and other items placed forth in several books of the O.T. are HYPOCRITES.

According to most Catholics, my marriage is null and void. Why? Because I married OUTSIDE the faith. My feeling, if your Christian sect doesn't like your marriage, find one that does.

 

[RjThoughts]

In some sates the JP can also act as the witness.

In NY, for a marriage to be lawful, you need:

An official, who maybe a sanctioned religious person, or someone else recognized;
Two witnesses, who must be at least 18;
Both must be of majority, OR be at least 16 and have parental concent;

Both must affirm their intentions - Do you Miss, take Mister. Do you Mister, take Miss.

A license accorded by the country clerk must be signed by the 5 people and filed.

And that's it!!!

This was the rule 27 years ago when I got hitched, I doubt it's changed.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

In most major religions, Same Sex marriage is looked upon as sacrilegious.

A broad brush statement like that demands that you justify. Where is your evidence that "most major religions" consider same sex marriage sacrilegious? Yes, the Vatican does and yes, the Southern Baptist/Fundamentalists do. How about Presbyterians, Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, Buddhists? Footnote, dude, footnote.

As to your reference to the Old Testament, may I point you to the Conference of Jerusalem in the Book of Acts where those dietary requirements and circumcision are not a requirement for converted gentiles?

 

[Cruel2BKind]

A broad brush statement like that demands that you justify. Where is your evidence that "most major religions" consider same sex marriage sacrilegious? Yes, the Vatican does and yes, the Southern Baptist/Fundamentalists do. How about Presbyterians, Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, Buddhists? Footnote, dude, footnote.

As to your reference to the Old Testament, may I point you to the Conference of Jerusalem in the Book of Acts where those dietary requirements and circumcision are not a requirement for converted gentiles?

Can you clarify that acts bit for me?

An infuriating response that homophobes give is that at some point, all of the rules in leviticus were made null and void, but for some reason gay marriage is still sacrilegious. I'd like to know the scripture.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Can you clarify that acts bit for me?

An infuriating response that homophobes give is that at some point, all of the rules in leviticus were made null and void, but for some reason gay marriage is still sacrilegious. I'd like to know the scripture.

Acts, Chap 15.

 

[RjThoughts]

Wrong person

 

[RjThoughts]

A broad brush statement like that demands that you justify. Where is your evidence that "most major religions" consider same sex marriage sacrilegious? Yes, the Vatican does and yes, the Southern Baptist/Fundamentalists do. How about Presbyterians, Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, Buddhists? Footnote, dude, footnote.

As to your reference to the Old Testament, may I point you to the Conference of Jerusalem in the Book of Acts where those dietary requirements and circumcision are not a requirement for converted gentiles?

Leading up to the NY state legislative vote to legalize Same Sex marriage, anecdotal evidence came out that Islam, Orthodox and Hassidic Judasm, Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Armenian Orthdox, and several fundemental Christian sects - Seventh Day, Jehovahs Witnesses, Southern Baptists - sent leaders to lobby against passage of the bill, which passed when 4 Republican state senators voted with their consciences and with the support of those they served and NOT the RNC, changed from Nay to Yea!

 

[Bramblethorn]

Can you clarify that acts bit for me?

An infuriating response that homophobes give is that at some point, all of the rules in leviticus were made null and void, but for some reason gay marriage is still sacrilegious. I'd like to know the scripture.

There's some good discussion of this by Real Live Preacher:

http://reallivepreacher.com/node/868

In brief: there are six passages in the Bible that touch on homosexuality. The first two are about homosexual rape; the next two are in Leviticus, which is generally taken as not applying to Christians (except for the ones who want to apply it selectively to homosexuals, natch).

The last two come from Paul in the New Testament (I Corinthians & Romans). AFAIK those are the ones that most apologists will invoke if forced to let go of Leviticus, but RLP gives a good explanation of why he doesn't find either of them compelling.

(I'm not Christian myself, but I'm usually interested in understanding why other people believe stuff.)

 

[voluptuary_manque]

He's not the only one. Most theologically serious people, as differentiated from the seriously dogmatic, feel that Paul was far more concerned with people doing activities that indicated worship of pagan gods than he was about who slept with whom . . . so long as they weren't married, of course.

If you delve deeply in Scripture you will find that Jesus makes absolutely no comment on the sexual behavior of unmarried people.

 

[sr71plt]

I was always more than a little bit suspicious about Paul himself.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

I was always more than a little bit suspicious about Paul himself.

I'm not sure of the arguments but there is a body of opinion that Paul was widowed.