-
Website
http://capitolfax.com/ -
Original page
http://capitolfax.com/2009/03/06/fight-over-il-civil-unions-kicks-up-some-dust/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
We have to stop this. Religious people are not insensitive ignorami. We are not lemmings blindly following demigods. We are a majority of Americans, and it is shocking to witness how the beliefs of these Americans, which have been the moral foundation of this country, has been smeared as backwards, unthinking, and obsolete. We didn't get to be the richest, fairest, powerful nation we are today without these basic tenants.
Accusing one another of being too ignorant, stupid, misinformed, or conservative doesn't change the fact that we all have one vote. If gay marriage proponents want the majority of Americans to change 20,000 years of human marriage laws, they need to first demonstrate some respect to those with whom they disagree.
Maybe your constituents can correct that the next election, Deb.
"20,000 years of human marriage laws"???? Wasn't aware that the cave dwellers had marriage laws. Did they just go down to the cave courthouse for a stone tablet "marriage license"?
I'm not gay. It wouldn't matter if I was actually. But exactly will this do to you? Are you afraid that if the law passes, you will suddenly be compelled to enter into a gay marriage?
And what about the respect on a human level for those that are gay. Should they not be treated as first class citizens?
I normally respect and enjoy your postings. Today however, you have painted yourself as an ignorant, close minded, insecure fool.
They are not mandating that churches must perform this service. Your life won't change.
My marriage crumbled after Massachusetts allowed gay marriage. It was horrible. My wife and I woke up the next day, looked into each other's eyes, and realized we were not gay. We couldn't take it anymore. We ended up going to Vegas and getting married while drunk and annulling it 4 days later even though we were already happily married to each other. It's shocking the power that the gay has over otherwise not gay people. Shocking.
...In all seriousness, if anything seeing the love and joy on these blissful couples' faces after they tie the knot has made my wife and I that much closer. Happiness begets happiness, at least for folks who are confident in their own love for each other.
Where do you get that? That's smack in the middle of the late Stone Age,pre-agriculuture, dude. Writing wasn't developed until about 4,000 B.C.
I'm sure you're not referring to the Old Testament, where old Solomon had his 700 wives and 300 concubines.
If you're referring to state and church laws regarding marriage in Western Civilization, you're getting well into 800-1200 A.D.
Lives can be affected even outside of church. I worked for a religious non-profit in Chicago for 5 years. Forcing it to provide same sex benefits to employees would be as much of a violation of their faith and morals as forcing a church to perform a same sex committment ceremony.
This is not hyperventilation. Catholic Charities in CA was forced to choose between providing benefits to non-married partners (both straight and homosexual) or else eliminate benefits altogether. Catholic Charities in Boston was forced to eliminate adoption services completely to avoid placing children in same sex households. Whether or not you agree with these measures doesn't change the fundamental premise: religious practice is not limited to religious services, and the trend is to disregard religious beliefs in the secular pursuit of the goddess "tolerance."
I would address your assertion that gays are treated as second class citizens, but I don't want to run off-topic, as Rich has been keeping a very tight rein on postings recently. I will simply say that homosexuals have every marriage right that heterosexuals do, and that the modern notion that has reduced "marriage" to "2 people who love each other" is a very novel social construct and experiment.
I have been called a lot worse. But I am not ignorant. I am not close minded. And I am not insecure. I am not any more foolish than the next guy.
Also, 20,000 years is really not a very long time in human history. You don't have to insult our ancestors by calling them names either.
I was telling my wife that we may have to get a divorce if the law passes. Rumor has it that if you get a gay marrige, the gay lobby throws in a free toaster.
Religious people are also not all of one mind, and that misconception is what's giving you heartburn.
The political movements that have sucked in conservative christians around abortion and homosexuality have succeeded in redefining religion - to the unchurched - as home base for condemnation, exclusion, and lack of compassion, which goes against the fundamental tenets of Christianity (I think). They have been used but they brought it on themselves, and if you want to combat the perception, you should start with your own house.
(Or at least by expressing that you think independently of the common misconceptions rather than pitch a fit on CapFax)
If they want to go through the trials and tribulations of marriage who am I to stop them.
If Jesus thought is was so unforgivable he would have been more specific about it.
He was specific about loving your neighbor as you would yourself.
He was specific about promiscuity being a sin, which I think is the far greater problem and if gay marriage helps limit the raucous lifestyle that spread AIDS throughout that community so destructively, then I am all for it.
And again, marriage is, well, marriage.
20,000 years is an arbitrary number. Can you please provide marrige statistics for that time period. You can take your time, as I'm sure record keeping was a little more lax back then.
And back then, they were cave dwellers.
@SSM
Perhaps they should have to make a hard choice. Discrimination is discrimination. I suppose 50 years ago when the church felt that interracial marriage was an abomination that you would have supported that?
Perhaps the church should take a LONG hard look at itself and ask the favorite WWJD. Seems to me that the good man spent a lot of time with those that the Church felt were "undesirable".
Prostitutes, tax collectors, lepers, and the like. I don't remember Jesus having trouble tending to the whole flock. Not just a select few that the "elders" deemed appropriate.
Thank you! I strive to post a differing insight regarding these issues, and I appreciate those who tell me so.
On this issue, a lot of people don't want to listen however. There isn't an awful lot of respect for those of us who respect traditions that have been proven successful over the eons. On this and other popular and emotional issues, I find myself feeling like the Lorax in the Dr. Seuss story.
I am fluent in two languages, and attended university in Germany. While there, I studied red light districts, marijuana laws, and went to the most liberal university in a country far more liberal than the US. I lived there.
So when I say these things don't work, it is because I have witnessed it first hand.
It is frustrating to see the US fall into the same holes that Western European countries have fallen into, and are now trying to figure out now to extract themselves from.
Want to know the impact gay marriage laws have had on another country? The Netherlands have proven that the slippery slope isn't just a fool's tale. They have gone from a "controlled and defined" level of gay marriage to now fighting off polyamourous marriage, (multiples). Once that Pandora's Box has been opened, everything is up for debate. And our debating skills are only as good as our ancestors were, when they finally figured out how to make a society function, centuries ago.
I will always stive to provide some differing opinions, and they may not always be popular ones. I think it is important for those with whom I disagree to get a good shot or two from the opposing sides of the political stands they take.
I am conservative, as well as you should be! Let me tell you why....
I think VMan is citing Fred and Wilma and Barney and Betty sources.
Take a breath, dude.
Prostitutes, tax collectors, lepers, and the like. I don’t remember Jesus having trouble tending to the whole flock. ======
Yes, but then Jesus always said, "Go, and sin no more," not "Keep doing whatever you want." A not so minor point that "progressives" like to ignore when they try to throw this argument in our faces.
Don't you get it? The radical gay lobby will never "calm down". Ergo, it energizes a vigorous campaign by opponents of the extreme gay agenda.
Please.
I've been bombarded with e-mails from the religious right on this issue - well before the Mormon "controversy" began here.
Unlike just about every other news site, most of us are not stupid at this blog. Try not to insult our brains.
Thanks.
Religious scholars have debated whether or not homosexuality is a sin for many years. I have my own ideas but do not feel qualified to debate them at length. Gays in our community are a fact and no law will change that. Religious gays have to reconcile with their God - that is personal. The state has to decide how to treat its' citizens. That is what's at stake.
Agreed. But that goes for all religious people. The "calm down" comment was for everyone. Stop throwing so many stones. If your own house is in order, rejoice. But keep in mind that it won't last forever.
I am for just leaving everyone one alone. Apply all laws evenly
Given the fine tradition of marriage the Mormons are best know for it seems like they ought to retire to the sidelines.
Same goes for most hetros.
Most progressives believe seperation of church and state means just that.
"Religious gays have to reconcile with their God-that is personal".
No, perhaps those that feel that holding others down, discriminations, and outright hostility will have to "reconcile" with God. BTW, I don't think that gays have their own God. Pretty sure we all have the same one.
And, I'm not so ignorant as to profess to know what God does or doesn't feel on certain issues.
And the debate about who Jesus associated with is germaine to this debate. Many churches don't even want to associate with the gay community.
How's that inclusive?
And how can a gay person "repent" for something that isn't chosen. No more than a black person can be discriminated against simply because of skin color.
It's not like we all sit down one day in school, and along with the "what will I do when I grow up" scan-tron test we are also assigned a gender preference.
It is clear: if laws are on the books that give preferential treatment to heterosexual couples in lasting relationships that meet minimum legal standards, then homosexual couples who are in similar relationships are being discriminated against. Period.
I don't know how you came to the conclusion that I was saying that gays have a different God than the rest of us. For those of us who believe in a personal God this is how we express ourselves.
Regarding the repentance issue, please read the post I was referring to. I did not assert that being gay is a sin. I was merely responding to the assertion that Jesus was inclusive of prostitutes, money collectors and lepers who, at the time, were viewed as sinners. I was clear in my post that I am not attempting to claim that being gay is a sin. Please read my post more carefully before you sling the mud.
Ok.
Maybe I read too much into the "reconcile" comment. My thought is, what is to reconcile? Being gay, is well, being gay. It's not like an action that needs to be reconciled on your day of reckoning.
You aside, there are plenty on the right that attempt to portray Gay=SIN. It will be interesting on how they handle the news when science conclusively proves that gay is an inherent charcteristic (genetic) versus "lifestyle choice".
That argument is about as logical as blacks "prefer more pigment" then white people.
BTW under various christian religions, gay marriage is a sin. BUT they do not prevent other sinners from marrying, so why single out this sin.
All religious people seek to reconcile their lives w/their God. We are all imperfect people and we make mistakes (sin?). We then go to God and seek to get closer and receive blessings and forgiveness. We also experience joy in our lives and we come to God to celebrate those joyous occasions. All this comes under the heading of reconciliation.
I hope this clarifies the issue for you.
Some slippery slope illogic: The marriage slippery slope goes back to the government granting marriage licenses. As soon as that happened, all kinds of people started thinking they ought to be allowed get married. Therefore, the government should never have started to grant marriage licenses.
Maybe Rich should ban slippery slope arguments.
Sooner or later they will require gay marriage for everyone, no matter if you are gay or not.
If only we had the capacity to recognize that different situations allow for different outcomes. I lament that we lack the rational capacity to debate one issue at a time (civil unions), and to address the next step(gay marriage, or whatever) on its own merits.
If only our brilliant ancestors, after they discovered fire and the wheel and sanctified heterosexual marriage, had taken some time to learn how to stop on the slippery slope.
But alas, we remain bound by inevitability.
Our generation is accepting of gays and we will be legalizing gay marriage as soon as we are of age to run for office, whether you like it or not.
217-453-2300
or 217-453-6300
No, VM, you're not. About 40% of Americans regularly attend church. Most pools on basic civil union rights get above 50% approval. Because at their heart, most Americans do not hate gay people, they are not offended by gay people and they do not believe gay people are out to molest their children.
And do you really want to lean on historical law as your main pillar in this argument. Think about some of the other things that have been historial law for thousands of years (and still are today in some place)...the right to own people as property, the right to kill women for disobediance. Human history is pretty messed up sometimes. Every once in a while there are chances to fix small parts of it. This is one of them. Giving two people who love each other the same basic rights as everyone else is not sinful. If you think it is, you are in the minority. You're entitled to your opinion, just not the ability to impose it on others.
So you are then a "whipper-snapper"?
but i do want to make sure that the state recognizes unions between adults, man and man, woman and woman, woman and man, no matter how smart, stupid, childish or oddly matched they may seem. it's their adult choice and the state should let them be legally joined.
then everyone should go fight their battles at their respective religious institutions.
So, instead of continuing this needless fight, the government should cease sanctioning marriages altogether. Instead, the government should just issue civil union certificates to people wishing to form a legally binding contract in the tradition of marriage.
If you want to get married, well, that's between you and whoever is willing to act as the officiant for your ceremony, should you choose to have one.
We're arguing over semantics when we should be debating contract law. Gender and religious tradition are irrelevant to the discussion.
Faith v. Reason arguments can't be won by either side.
Something I just noticed after reading through the string of comments: We are completely ignoring the actual policy. Call me naive but shouldn't legislative debate center on the Pros and Cons of a specific piece of legislation?
Do we ask what health care policy was in vogue 20,000 years ago? No. So why do we think the opinion of cave men matters on this issue?
Do we ask what the Bible tells us about stoning criminals to death? No. So why do we think the Bible is a guide here?
The greatest generation may have many reasons to look down upon us twentysomethings. But on this issue we are the ones looking at our respected elders in disappointed puzzlement.
People need to shut up and mind their own houses. What in Hades does it matter to straight people if two gay people want to get married? How does that affect a straight person's marriage? Answer: it doesn't. No one is forcing anyone else to be gay or have a gay marriage. If two people want to celebrate their committment to each other, they should be allowed to do so.
This idea that marriage is some holy union only to be enjoyed by a specific group of people is a joke. The concept of "marriage" has changed again and again throughout history. Marriages have been for love, for convenience, for political alliances (think medieval Europe there), etc. Back in ye olde Bible, men had multiple wives and concubines, as was already pointed out.
The fact is married person get certain civil perks(be it in the form of how you get taxed, legal recourse to health benefits, the right to visit your partner in the hospital, distribution of property at death, etc.). It is inherently unfair and discriminatory to deny these civil benefits to people based on their sexual orientation.
All unions should be considered "civil". Churches have no business engaging in telling people what CIVIL benefits they should be entitled to. Are people forgetting that you can get "married" in a church, but unless you actually get a marriage certificate from city hall (or whatnot), the government doesn't really give a hoot.
So everyone, regardless of orientation, should be able to get that civil marriage certificate. End of story. "Traditionalists" would do well to remember that no one is saying churches should be required to hold ceremonies for gay unions. That's still at the discretion of the particular church/congregation/denomination. And they can choose to be as exclusive and discriminatory as they like since it's their own religion. You can still be safe from "the dirty gays".
It is time for civil authorities to get out of the business and leave it to the believers. Just issue the civil unions and be done with the whole mess.
One example is health care benefits for a spouse are treated as taxable income by the federal government. This can cost a couple hundred dollars every month.
Another example is the surviving spouse, must pay taxes on an inheritance. Annie Leibovitz, the famous photographer, was just in the news because she had to take out a loan in order to pay taxes for inheriting her home from her deceased lover, Susan Sontag.
This is simply not fair.
It is also important to note that the issues I presented were not issues 100 years ago or 2000 years ago.
And the right somehow has this notion that homosexuality was never accepted, except when a civilization was about to fall. This is simply not true. Last time I checked the ancient greeks helped civilized the world and they certainly engaged in homosexual activity.
I guess I would hope that 40 years from now, when the the "new guard" is starting to run the show I'm not defending discrimintory policies.
That's what this is about. 40 years ago, it was minorities.(civil rights) 40 years before that, it was womans' rights. Before that it was cheap labor from Europe. And 40 before that it was slavery.
Why don't we just finish it now.
Let the churhes marry whom they wish. Just seperate the two.
Second, it is a made-up issue. I don't think there will be women dressed as men hanging out in a bathroom to attack little boys. The concern is men dressed as women hanging out to attack little girls. I follow the news a lot and I can't remember ever hearing a story like this. Even if it has happened, its certainly not a common problem. I think we would be better off addressing real problems rather than worrying about imaginary issues.
Gays then get the rights to live in a miserable, commited, relationship like the rest of us. ;)
I am with Vman in many ways. I have spent considerable time in the Netherlands, Scandinavia and have family in Germany. The secular progressive governments there have chiseled away at the foundations of families and insinuate the government in many places it should not be. Many of the ideas being proposed in our country have a history in Europe and do not work there. Why do we want to repeat the same mistakes
You will now have examples of religious institutions who the government will attempt to control as described by /south Side Mike
I am not against civil unions per se, but am concerned about where the next push will be in the name of fairness. If granted that should be the end of the quest of same sex marriage. Like that will happen.
"You will now have examples of religious institutions who the government will attempt to control"
1. They already do. I haven't seen many human sacrifices lately. But I would imagine if my church wanted to have one, the government might intervene. So far my church seems to be holding on.
2. This law wouldn't "require" churches to perform these ceremonies. So really, what is the Gov't imposing? Nothing.
The "next push" is a shadow arguement.
I am not so sure that the gov't won't step in to force churches to perform these ceremonies. I believe that the govt just coerced "eharmony" to provide match-making services for the gay community after a lengthy legal action that could have ended up in bankrupting the company. Laws forcing pharmacists (who claim religious concerns) to give out birth control (including day after pills) are in effect.
The stated goal for the gay community, known by their own statements, is for full marriage approved and sanctioned by the gov't. The consequences of that, intended or not, are a legitimate concern for many.
Debating that issue w/mutual respect is more interesting to me than inflammatory statements.
You have got to be kidding. You don't need a church to be "married". Why would the govt suddenly feel the need to mandate that they do?
The laws about pharmacists has been covered here already. That is a JOB, not a church. And the debate is not relevant to this discussion.
And so what if "marrige" is recognized by the Govt? It still won't affect your church. They don't have to perform it.
Total red herring.