Here’s a not-so-subtle reference to “Dr. Laura” by West Wing. I’m posting as my personal protest to the passing of Prop 8 in California.
I suspect that all of those California Bible-thumpers who successfully voted in favor of bigotry are resting content tonight. And no, you don’t have to be consciously and intentionally bigoted to be bigoted.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHaVUjjH3EI[/youtube]
Here’s more on Prop 8 from Wikipedia:
Religious organizations that supported Proposition 8 include the Roman Catholic Church, Knights of Columbus, Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, a group of Evangelical Christians led by Jim Garlow and Miles McPherson, American Family Association, Focus on the Family and the National Organization for Marriage. Rick Warren, pastor of Saddleback Church, California’s largest, also endorsed the measure. . . . About 45% of out-of-state contributions to ProtectMarriage.com came from Utah, over three times more than any other state.
If only the Roman Catholic Church would have spent 1% as much effort on rooting out their own rapist priests as they did trying to prevent gays from having their long-term committed relationships recognized by the state.
The only reasons to vote yes on Prop 8 are fear, ignorance and hate.
A 2003 California law already gives gays registered as domestic partners nearly all the state rights and responsibilities of married couples when it comes to such things as taxes, estate planning and medical decisions. That law is still in effect.
Obama discusses the issue here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6K9dS9wl7U
The black families that supported Obama apparently also are in favor of a clear definition of marriage.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselec…
If your real desire is to have civil unions and all of the legal recognitions implied in a marriage nearly anyone in most states has that right. It involves a little more legalese but the paperwork exists. Why does it need to be called a marriage? Why does redefining marriage, which has a historical/contextual meaning in a religious setting matter to people who could care very little about the specifics of the Christian religion or perhaps any other religion?
Karl: Maybe if the government offered you only a second-rate version of marriage because of something over which you had no control, you'd feel differently.
How about some empathy, instead of rattling off the RNC official line? How would be any skin off your back to give some of our fellow citizens what most of us have?
Finally, listen VERY closely to this, because this is what likely separates our thinking on gay marriage. Marriage is two things. Marriage is a government right. Marriage can also be (but need not be) a union recognized according to religious beliefs and (I would agree with you) that almost all religions limit their recognition of marriage to relationships between one woman and one man.
Now listen VERY VERY closely. Government is not religion. Our Constitution puts a wall between religion and government. So whatever it is that religions think of marriage has nothing to do with the civil rights related to the government recognition of marriage.
In 50 years, most people will look back an see that you were on the wrong side of this simple legal issue, probably because you are squeamish about gay people. I'd recommend that you go out and get to know a few gay people. Have lunch with them. Join a reading group with them. Get to know them as well as you know your heterosexual friends. Then you'll know that Prop 8 is institutionalized bigotry.
"A 2003 California law already gives gays registered as domestic partners nearly all the state rights and responsibilities of married couples …"
"Separate But Equal" returns within my lifetime!
My opinion is that the government never should have been in the marriage business in the first place. Government should have limited its part to simple acknowledgement of the partnership of two people under whatever religious or cultural rules those two people happen to follow (subject, of course, to other reasonable statutes about age, blood relations, etc.). That acknowledgement should consist of formal granting of rights of parenting, survivorship, common property, and so on.
The Bible considers a lot of modern common practices to be abominable. I wonder how many of the gay-marriage opponents are divorced, for example. Or even how many take the name of the lord in vain because they have to work overtime on the sabbath, which means that they will miss the Packers game on the holy TV.
Civil laws are what they are. Religious terms and definitions are what they are. Why do so many claim that marriage is a civil term needing redefinition?
Lets see, if someone can change the definition of a term into something it was never mean be I guess nothing is really separate from the reach of government and supposed popular opinion.
One day America may loose a clear definition of many terms that have religious denotations by attaching govermental qualifiers to them, but for many, including Obama, marriage is a religious term and the government needs to remain concerned with civil affairs.
Karl wrote: "Why does redefining marriage, which has a historical/contextual meaning in a religious setting matter to people who could care very little about the specifics of the Christian religion or perhaps any other religion?"
Why does it matter to you, Karl?
Why do people insist that marriage between one man and one woman is a biblical model? I seem to recall a whole lot of talk about multiple wives, concubines, and slaves, and nothing about this type of marriage until much later. American heterosexual marriage is no more a Christian state of being than American Christmas celebrations are a religious ritual.
If we're going to insist that a religious model of marriage be the only legal kind, then we're going to have to make a lot of changes to accommodate other religions, lest we violate church/state separation. So, marriage will also be defined as one man and no more than four women for Muslims, one man and one woman, who may be killed by her husband to make way for a better bride, for certain Hindus, one man and an unlimited number of wives for Mormons and certain other Christian sects. . .then the only thing that has to happen is for a religion to be unearthed or established that sanctions homosexual unions. Once they have a religious basis, they'll be legal. Fair's fair.
Mike, you asked why marriage matters to me.
It is not simply a belief that God somehow approves of heterosexual sex but not others. That is a part of it, perhaps a minimal common denominator aspect, but there is way more than that to the sanctity of sex within the context of the Judeo-Christian marriage. Once we pass from this world there will however no longer be marriage as we now know it.
Marriage matters because of its basic commitment to ongoing interpersonal relationships that it models. It is also a Biblical pattern that represents the love and commitment of Jesus Christ for the body of Christ – the Church which bears His Spirit in a dark and perverse world.
The church is called to be spotless and pure, to be set apart from defilement. This can only be accomplished when those who represent the Bride of Christ are set apart from their sinful nature by having their sins forgiven by faith in the sacrificial blood of Jesus Christ that was shed to accomplish the task.
This is not some human accomplished endeavor that the marriage represents. It represents a total commitment by God to do what He says He will do for those who trust in the authority of His word and the power of His Spirit.
Those who dilute this meaning leave themselves compromised with the values of the world that are contrary to this promised salvation. Those who try to enter into the marriage supper of the Lamb without the covering of Jesus's atonement will be rejected and cast out. They will not be present at the marriage of the Lamb of God where the final acts of atonement and reconciliation for each individual will occur.
I will not stand before my creator on that day and be able to say I have not had sex with such and such a person. I will need to cast myself upon His mercy and forgiveness and trust that He will do what He says He will do because of His word, His authority, His promises and His commitment to accept me and cleanse me from my sins, some of which will certainly by of a sexual nature. At that marriage feast the participants will be forever spotless and sin of all variety will be imputed back upon the Creator of this world Jesus Christ. Jesus will become sin for us one last final time, that we might become the righteousness of God in Christ.
You asked why it mattered to me, that's mostly why.
That sermon may well be why marriage matters to you, Karl, but it doesn't constitute an actual, logical, well-thought out or legally justifiable reason to prevent or preclude gay people from marrying each other. Not everyone shares your paralysing fear of posthumous judgement. You don't live in a "Judeo-Christian" country and we don't live in a "Judeo-Christian" world, so there's no reason to impose this narrow J-C version of marriage on everybody else. If two adults want to commit to each other, they should be able to, full stop. If a gay person has the responsibility to pay taxes, obey laws & pay penalties if convicted – like everyone else – I fail to see the fairness in denying them full, unequivocal spousal rights and the right to call themselves "married".
My friends and neighbours and colleagues and I were all born with the same rights. However, as soon as it turned out some of them were gay, they had those birthrights stripped or curtailed and they suddenly discovered they were "separate but equal" at best, and could aspire to no more higher status than "friends" in the eyes of the law. In California they had to fight tooth & claw to regain their human rights, only to have out-of-state fundamentalist polygamist cultists (the very antithesis of "one man + one woman" marriages), among other equally odious & well-funded fundamentalist groups, pay for a hideous, fear-mongering campaign strewn with blatant lies to end their equality.
Why this Judeo-Christian god cares so much about who loves who and in precisely what way is beyond me. Why this god is apparently so preoccupied with the sex lives of human beings will always be a puzzle.
I take solace in this fact: Proposition 8 will be overturned and there's nothing that can stop it, short of the USA being declared a theocracy like Iran. Perhaps not next year, perhaps not for a decade. But I know this: the bigots and fundamentalists and rationalisers and apologists are, as always, fighting a losing battle, winning only temporary victories and in time will vanish, just as slavery proponents & anti-suffragettes have vanished. They are delaying the inevitable as much as Canute commanding the sea to calm, as bigots always fight against human nature, which always tends toward fairness and equality. Throughout history in all nations, bigots and hatemongers and fear-peddlers of all stripes have fought such inevitable societal progressions as the emancipation of slaves; women's suffrage; fair labour laws; interracial marriages; votes for black people; de-criminalising homosexuality and now the right for all people to marry the one they love. All of their causes eventually were (and will be) lost & I almost pity them for their lack of empathy & compassion and the enormous wastage of their time and money and energy – but I can't feel much for those who feel nothing for others.
Thanks for the sermon and prophecy Hank. I'll take it under advisement. You need to tell Obama the same message by the way.
Karl, my question was misunderstood. My bad. I wasn't clear enough. What I wanted to ask is why does it matter to you what OTHER people do?
Your response was interesting but it was all about you, and that's fine. I am not attempting to change your mind about or inhibit anything that you wish to do with your life. And so I wonder where your zeal for meddling in others lives comes from. Why do you care what OTHER people do? It's none of your business…or is it?
Karl: Interesting point about Obama. I assume that you aren't taking your position on gay marriage because you were running for President in a nation half-full of bigots, right?
Perhaps my comment is cynical–I'm merely recognizing realpolitik. When Obama has a bona fide opportunity to right this wrong, he'll jump on it. That's where I'd put my chips.
That Karl neatly ignored & declined to respond to my entire post, including my request for an actual, logical REASON to deny gay people what is, essentially, their birthright (until they realize they're gay of course) speaks volumes. I submit he doesn't actually know WHY he's afraid of gay people – but his church has told him they're wrong, therefore, they're wrong. Anyone who disagrees with that is … wrong! Fundamentalism in action. Pitiful. Erik Brewer mark II..? Barack Obama's irrelevant to this conversation by the way, heck knows why you brought him up.
My "prophecy" will come to pass Karl. It's a lock – a lot more than any prophecy made by anyone in your books or on your TV stations or in your mega churches. People of your persuasion – those fighting the inevitability of fairness & equality – are always defeated. Your bigoted & fearful species will become as extinct the dinosaurs you probably think were on the Ark – and hopefully in my lifetime.
Again I ask why the need to change a religious denotation of a word into one that pleases those who prefer to not believe in the religion?
The percentage of American's that are religious to one degree or another may still surprise many naturalists.
Maybe we need to redefine prayer so that it means something unoffensive to those who don't believe in it. I mean if someone really needs to excuse themselves from listening to someone else's prayer that really is a civil right as well. Why not just change what prayer means to those who practice and believe in it. Lets redefine it mean a dillusional mental state.
Marriages have legal (civil) ramifications. Those civil rights ought to apply to all who desire the legal status. It does not mean that have the right to force a redefinition of a religious term simply because they think it should mean all things to all people.
I think bigamy and gold digging ought to be frowned upon as well, but I guess maybe people have the right to be as naive or ruthless as they darn well please.
Lets say we try and redefine any religious belief we so choose into a perverted human inderstanding. From all appearanecs that should fit well with atheistic naturalism's view of values and morality. If this is the case, naturalistic atheism is itself a religion practiced by those who claim it isn't.
I can have empathy for people without being expected to change what I hold to be of a religious an a moral value to me. Why must those who think they don't possess a religious viewpoint feeled compelled to crush others who fully and openly claim to have one?
Does our Constitution and Bill of rights guarantee individual freedom of religion? Do they promote collective activist freedom from the religion any group decides is the most offensive to them?
What do naturalists care about what a Christian believes about posthumus decomposition. If it really matters that much to you it is a religious conviction, because it sure isn't scientific.
Matters of the spirit, attitudes, values, and morals are not scientific, unfortunately all of these are part and parcel of human life and experience.
"Marriage matters because of its basic commitment to ongoing interpersonal relationships that it models."
But only church-sanctioned ongoing interpersonal relationships, Karl? This very statement shows why it is important to ALL people to have the right to marry, as well as why it is important for us to allow all people to marry if they so desire. Homosexuals have been condemned for ages for their "promiscuity" – but when they want to commit to an ongoing interpersonal relationship, they are denied that option. I think that there is an underlying fear among the foes of same-sex marriage that committed long-term relationships will chip away at the image of sex-crazed gay men out to convert our children that has sustained them for so long. Anything that would humanize an "other" undermines the whole foundation of the us-vs.-them wall that some folks would like to see instead of the one separating church and state.
Every single argument I have ever seen put forth to oppose same-sex marriage, the entire basis comes down to a selfish desire to force a specific belief system on everyone. That belief system allows people to cover up their more banal feelings of "ewww, icky!" and their base desire to punish anyone who doesn't conform with words of authority. After all, if scripture says it, then they're not really guilty of bias, and their distaste isn't personal but mandated from on high! The truth is that them gays are doing disgusting things in the bedroom, and they should be punished, not rewarded, and there are words in the bible to say whatever you believe anyway to back that up.
Without being taught an aversion to a particular brand of love, though, most of us look at gay marriage as a "basic commitment to ongoing interpersonal relationships" that shows ALL people that what's important is the commitment, the love, the family, and not who's doing what to whom behind closed doors.
"Again I ask why the need to change a religious denotation of a word into one that pleases those who prefer to not believe in the religion?"
Karl: This is not the problem. I don't take my position to "please" anyone. It's to guarantee equal civil (not religious) rights under the Constitution.
Karl,
Marriage as it is practiced in this country is far more a civil matter than a religious one. The state designates a certain status for couples as marriage. Between state and federal protections and privileges accorded to "married" couples, the number is upwards of 1500 laws, all under the heading Marriage.
Furthermore, just because someone doesn't believe in a god does not mean that ritual is unimportant, and civil unions just don't supply that imprimatur. People get married by the justice of the peace all the time without a nod to the religious aspect, but the fact is those unions are still Marriages.
And on a broader note, I still don't understand how expanding a right undermines it. You would think that if more people wish to participate in a given practice, that would strengthen the tradition, wouldn't it?
Unless (and forgive me my crudity, but here I think it necessary to make a point) the focus of anxiety really is all about the fucking.
Aside from the West Wing recitation of the older internet "Letter to Dr. Laura", California's Prop. 8 pandered to a natural human aversion to "the other".
Hank seems to feel that universal fairness and equality is some sort of manifest destiny. History shows clearly that such conditions are hard-won and temporary rights peculiar to materially rich cultures. A civilization has only those morals that it can afford. When it folds, even those "unalienable" rights disappear.
It takes individual discipline to grant to others the rights we want ourselves. Selflessness is a learned trait, and a costly behavior. "What's in it for me?" is an instinctive cry. Organizations that pander to this feeling grow quickly. Churches and governments know this. (Eternal salvation! From what? Um, we'll get back to you.)
All they need is to single out a scapegoat to dramatically collect followers. Faith was covered in the founding documents. The 20th century gave the U.S. laws preventing the use of gender, or skin color openly. Now, they use sexual preference as a filter to glean "us" from "them".
Basically, if you are instinctively attracted to your own kind, then you are one of them. How dare they make us feel uncomfortable by pretending that they feel just like us?
As to Hank's "prophecy". I'd bet on it. We can still afford to grant a little more dignity to another minority at the expense of alienating those who pander to fear itself. Or is that a profit?
Karl ( and anyone who shares his viewpoint):
Life is a long, difficult and lonely struggle. All we look for is a bit of warmth in this cold world. If one person miraculously finds another to love and accept them along the way, why should it matter if they happen to be the same gender?
I know in my heart that if there is a God of love, as Jesus said, He does not disapprove.
How in the world can I respond to four people at once? I prefer civil discussion when I have time to do such. I do have a job, a family, church responsibilities and other friends some of who are like minded and some of who are not. I have a life beyond being attacked by ad hominem opinion based individuals who prefer to strong arm and push their agenda upon others.
Decrying someone is illogical is not an argument, that can easily degenerate into a shouting contest or worse. Use clear definition of terms and principles of deduction clearly and maybe you can show me where I have missed your line of thinking.
First Nick And Erich, Obama matters in this discussion because he has stated he believes these issues are a matter of states rights as they are not currently in the Constitution. If he encourages or even permits federal activism concerning gay marriage he has gone against his stated ideology. If he has only used those ideas to get himself elected and changes on a dime the first chance he gets his approval ratings will start dropping the same day. Obama knows the roll of civil rights in improving the quality of life for all individuals.
Mark, As to why I should be concerned as to what other people do.
The Judeo-Christian perspective is one of many religions in the world, most of the rest of those religions consider the practices and activities of other people to be of at least slightly a matter of societal concern. It matters to me what other people do.
I'm not pleased when corporate board members claim they are just being capitalists when they use company profits for ungodly personal aggrandizement.
I'm not pleased when the school yard bully makes others quake in fear of his offensive selfishness.
I'm not pleased when politicians claim they are acting on behalf of principles, when they decide the principles according to their political party affiliation, their personal net worth, or a blackmail letter.
There are many many laws passed and put in place to establish or maintain social values which the individual needs to act in accordance with.
Morality, bias, prejudice and bigotry can either be directed at people or the laws themselves. If it is someones desire to use culture and the majority rule of a democracy to alter laws and understandings of those laws then so be it. If it is someones desire to label people who abide by traditional definitions of terms and their applicability of laws as hateful and phobic that is an ad hominem attack upon people that is certainly anything but logical.
When people are the receivers of personal directed hate, abusive scare tactics used inorder to force people into silence or submission that is called fascism.
Allison, The one interpersonal relationship that I value above the human level is my Spiritual commitment to trust and believe God. If I were only a humanist I too would see the gross inequity in laws that don't permit gay marriage. I believe in the two greatest commandments. I also don't see how they can be separted in the life of truly commited Christian.
Humanists too often forget their Creator and then only the second commandment means anything to them.
If I value God and his word I will also respect people, but not leave them to their own tendencies to become more and more selfish as they leave God their creator out of their attitudes, thoughts and actions.
Karl, you can't get past the "mechanics" of homosexuality and your own personal disgust to see that this is a conversation about universal love, a sentiment which seems to be in short supply in your world view.
God is love, right? If two people are in love, then God is there with them, correct?
If human love was all I had to base my perspective upon then I wouldn't be having this discussion with you and society would have been much different for a very long time.
There is such a thing as unconditional love that even though it has a standard of morality that is to some arbitrary, it still permits freedom of will to the one that chooses another standard to live by while never turning their back on the one who turns their back on their creator.
This whole discussion comes down to whether or not people are accountable to their Creator or just to other people.
Karl: I would add this, and I assume we can agree to disagree. If we all believed in the existence of a sentient Creator of the Universe and we all agreed on the same TYPE of sentient Creator of the Universe, these conversations would be much more succinct. With all due respect to the Creator (if He exists at all), he is the elephant in the room that makes these conversations endless (and oftentimes exasperating to those who don't recognize his existence).
View from CA on Prop. 8: From the "Yes on 8" ads, you would think Prop. 8 had something to do with sex ed in schools, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech. The truth: local school boards would still determine sex ed curriculum based on the same state guidelines, no priest or minister would be forced to marry same sex couples, religious groups could still define homosexual marriage as a sin. There are lots of legal things, like gluttony, that are defined as sins by various religions. Unless they advocate discrimination or hatred toward fat people, churches can preach against gluttony all they want to – maybe they should do it more!
Let's remember that the exalted spiritual definition of heterosexual marriage manages to co-exist with things like the drive-through wedding chapel in Las Vegas. And what about husbands whose idea of marital sex is no foreplay and then rolling over and snoring? Aren't they an offense against the sanctity of marriage? I think they should be put in the stocks so all the wives of the village can throw rotten tomatoes at them.
Karl wrote: "If human love was all I had to base my perspective upon then I wouldn’t be having this discussion with you and society would have been much different for a very long time."
I wish for just once you WOULD base your perspective on human love like Jesus asked you to do. "Love one another…", remember? It would be a different world if we all did that.
"This whole discussion comes down to whether or not people are accountable to their Creator or just to other people."
No Karl, this whole discussion comes down to the fact that you THINK you know what the Creator wants. You don't. No one does. No one ever has and no one ever will know what God has in mind.
THAT is what we are talking about, my friend.