“I don’t support gay marriage despite being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I’m a Conservative.”
These were the words of David Cameron, prime minister of the United Kingdom and leader of the Conservatives, to his party’s annual conference last October. He prefaced his remarks by calling for full legalization of same-sex marriage in Britain, saying that it was about commitment and the ties that bind us.
Cameron is hardly alone. He is part of a new generation of conservative leaders in Europe and America that goes beyond the recent trend of ambivalence on the subject of same-sex marriage and actually sees it as a winning conservative issue.
I agree with him, but I didn’t always. I used to oppose same-sex marriage, generally because of who was in favor of it. I despise the rhetoric and tactics used by the left to attack conservatives on the issue and I regret to say that I based my opposition mostly on that resentment.
Most people who oppose it are not bigots, are not homophobic and are not peddlers of hate. The vast majority are just good people who think marriage is between a man and woman. Being called — and seeing my friends called — homophobic hatemongers for believing that quickly polluted my opinion and turned me off to any kind of attempted persuasion.
But at some point I began to make peace with the fact that I don’t have to like the proponents or count myself among their ideological ranks to believe that they are actually right about the issue.
We learned this week that Maine voters are going to face this question in November, so I think it is time that the case was made with conservative logic.
I am of the libertarian breed of Republican, so my general philosophy has always leaned toward leaving people alone to do what they want if what they want doesn’t infringe on my rights or harm me or society at large.
People should be free to make their own free choices and associate with whom they want to, uninhibited by the state and unshackled from the heavy yoke of government manipulation. That philosophy has animated my intense loathing of the federal leviathan, my distrust in concentrated executive power and my revulsion at higher taxes, more spending and massive debt.
It also has caused me to believe that it is time to extend the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples.
My support is not based on the concept of “rights.” State recognition of marriage — for heterosexuals or homosexuals — is not a right. Marriage, in the eyes of the state, is a special form of contract bestowed upon a certain class of citizens, and the state can define it however it wants. I do not have a right to have my Catholic marriage recognized by the state, and frankly I don’t view the state as legitimizing a promise between couples and God anyway.
Marriage existed before the state, and it will exist after the state. So since state-recognized marriage is about privilege rather than right, the question for me is whether that privilege should be extended to a new class of citizens. I believe it should.
To me, it is simply impossible to suggest that allowing homosexual couples legal recognition of voluntary contractual associations infringes on my rights in any way. It doesn’t. It is equally impossible to suggest that same-sex marriage harms me. It doesn’t.
As for societal harm, let’s be frank: Same-sex couples are committing to each other regardless of state recognition, so government recognition of a commitment contract between two people doesn’t particularly shift the paradigm from a cultural perspective.
Conservatives have always championed individual freedom to live their lives how they wish without the government saying “no.” We seem to care most when the government threatens to take our property or play rule maker about our private decisions.
We should care just as much about allowing free people to freely associate and freely commit to each other if they so desire.
The conservative message of individualism, personal responsibility and government noninterference has real appeal to the gay community, and that is something conservatives should embrace, rather than reject.
No, we don’t have to, but we should, and this November we will have an opportunity to.
Matthew Gagnon, a Hampden native, is a Republican political strategist. He previously worked for the National Republican Senatorial Committee. You can reach him at matthew.o.gagnon@gmail.com and read his blog at www.pinetreepolitics.com.
Mr. Gagnon – Very eloquently stated. As a Gay Republican, I too, agree with your concept that true conservatism really begs for a favorable view of same-sex marriage (SSM). The Republican party in which I grew up was fiscally conservative and socially liberal. We can look at Barry Goldwater’s statement about gays serving in the military (himself a well-known military pilot) and see that he was right on target. I paraphrase here, but he said something like, “You don’t have to be straight to shoot straight” and that, it is not the business of the government to be involved in this issue. I agree.
However, the state has created the secular institution of marriage and it has been deemed a contract in the courts. Denying fellow citizens the same access to secular marriage is unfair. The argument could be made that the state should not be involved in marriage at all, but that ship sailed a long time ago. We have it, it is here, it is in place. It should be made available to all citizens. The arguments about SSM leading to people marrying their car, their dog, or a child deserve no discussion. Anyone who made it through Business Law 101 knows that a contract can only exist between parties who are competent to understand the agreement to which they are about to enter. Cars, dogs, and children, are not competent nor have they ever been in the eyes of the law. Arguments otherwise are simply ruses.
Religion has no part in state matters. Why this is not obvious probably speaks more to our failing education system than to anything else. The religious leaders may hold their own opinions but they do not, or should not, have the right to interfere in secular matters. They enjoy special status and no taxes because they are defined in our Constitution as not being a part of our secular society. In lay terms, they do not have a dog in this fight. If they choose to alter this arrangement, perhaps they should consider abandoning their religious status, register as a PAC, pay their taxes, and abide by the rules and laws of the secular society. That is their choice.
When the whole issue of SSM appeared some years back, I honestly thought this would be a far easier argument than it has become. I am not involved in religion nor ever was. I did not expect the pushback from conservative religious groups for all the reasons you stated. It does not affect them. It does not affect individual marriages. They, with their special status, may choose to perform, or not, a ceremonial marriage ritual within their walls. Why are they even involved in this? Logically, it makes no sense. I suspect it is because of ignorance of the law and of the separation of church and state; the effects of which you referenced.
So, what happened to our Republican Party? How did we go from a party known for education, prosperity, intellectualism, great statesmanship, worldly views, fiscal conservatism and social liberalism to the Tea Party? How did we go from great statesmen, politicians, writers, and social commentators such as Lincoln, Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Bush-41, and George Will, William F. Buckley, Jr., and Nelson Rockefeller, Barry Goldwater, and Henry Cabot Lodge, to the likes of Rick Perry, Sarah Palin, Christine O’Donnell, and Michelle Bachmann? It is embarrassing. At least, I am embarrassed. I do not know how the gay group, Log Cabin Republicans, possibly could endorse anyone currently in line for the Republican nomination. It is a sorry lot.
Somewhere along the line we went from NPR to PBR, from class to crass, and from intellectual to a point where one campaign ad scolds Romney because he is fluent in French. During the debates, Huntsman was chastised for speaking Mandarin. Intellectualism now is a dirty word. Being ignorant is applauded. Could the party sink any lower?
I agree with your points and your concepts, Mr. Gagnon. I just am unsure how your logic and reality will be received in an era when we have a public that cannot understand the most basic concepts of our democracy.
Excellent reply to an excellent common sense article by Mr. Gagnon
Down is up. Up is down. The sky is green. Homosexual relationships are marriages.
Amen.
-Reverend Bob Carlson
Unable to say anything intelligent?
This topic has really helped Matthew Gagnon’s viewership!
YAY!
Excellent reply to a great article!
I am a former Republican who left the Republican Party in the 1980s because of its lurch to the right. I liked Ike, met Richard Nixon and George Romney when I was a “Young Republican,” subscribed to the National Review when I was in high school in the 1960s, and went to see President Ford speak in the ’70s. I voted mostly for Republican candidates in my twenties and thirties, but, alas, the Republican Party became dominated by Dixiecrats, Fundamentalists, and Know-Nothings.
As for today’s issue, the freedom to marry should be for all adults. Why should the state reach into the bedroom and tell gay or lesbian couples they don’t have the same freedoms straight couples have? If the Republican Party still claims to be the party of liberty and freedom, they should support the freedom to marry.
Marriage is a good thing: it encourages fidelity, loyalty, and family stability. If these things are good for straight families, they are also good for gay families. A conservative case for same-sex marriage says that marriage is good for society, and we should be promoting it rather than restricting it.
The right-wingers want to “protect” marriage by restricting it. But what sense does it make to “protect” marriage from people who want to get married? I’m not harmed by letting the couple next door get married. The freedom to marry is a good thing.
Thanks for the kind words! I think our political paths are not that far apart. I live in a DC suburb in Maryland but have a family farm in Maine where I originally am from, and to where I plan to retire.
I, too, was on the early Republican bandwagon. I still am registered Republican but probably should change to Independent, or even Democrat. I keep hoping our party will return to its roots. I am appalled that I, of all people, am called a RINO. Reality is that this latest crop of fools are the RINOs. How could a party with members such as George Will and William F. Buckley, Jr. and their eloquent writing end up with the bunch of buffoons currently in contention for the Presidency? It is stunning. I listened to Palin, O’Donnell, Perry, Santorum, and Bachmann and I cannot believe the level of ignorance, and seemingly the acceptance of such ignorance, coming from people who actually believe they would be the best candidate for the Office of the President of the United States! It is like a nightmare, or the biggest prank ever undertaken. I expect someone to jump out and say I have been punked. Friends of mine in the DC area who are political consultants and reporters say the same thing – they have never seen anything like this.
As I have said many times, the opposition to gay marriage seems to come dead-center from the religious crowd. And, what a contradiction in beliefs between them and the traditional Republicans (you and me)! Somehow, somewhere, the term “conservative” went from meaning fiscal propriety, minimal government participation, and social freedom (liberalism) to ultra-religious beliefs and socially conservative values. Conservative now mean religious. This is a complete change of meaning.
A true conservative government would want us to keep our fiscal house in order and would want a minimum of government interference in the lives of its citizens.
Today, we have radical fiscal austerity goals (the Tea Party crowd) that will stunt growth combined with bedroom police. To me, it appears they want to convert our democracy into a theocracy because, with their direct line to God, He told them so. It is so ridiculous I continue to say I am just stunned.
One more point: How in the world did Michele Bachmann get as far as she did? And, how naive can one woman be? I conferred with friends and it was unanimous – our Gaydars pinned themselves to the max-side of the scale when her husband appeared and uttered two words. Of course, we suspect he is so far in the closet he is back there with the winter parkas. Of course, he has a “clinic” specializing in “reparative therapy” commonly known as “pray away the Gay.” Our reaction? He was their first customer. Most of us believe Michele soon will discover the alternate meaning of the word, “beard.”
A few years ago while still in my early 20’s a friend and I were discussing gay marriage when he asked me the question that was like a shot from Mike Tyson is his hay day….’How can you preach freedom when you’re taking rights away from one segment of society?’ I, like the author was so caught up in being angry about who was attacking my beliefs, my actual beliefs became lost. I voted to allow gay marriage in the last election and I’ll vote for it this time and however many other times it takes. As I told someone the other day, our country was wrong to hold couples apart because of race and we’re wrong now for holding people back because of sexual orientation. As for who’s running in the current election….good grief it’s bad. LOL
Rest assured that not all religious denominations are anti-SSM and anti-GLBT, in fact they are welcoming (even more in fact, welcoming of everyone). If percieved antipathy by organized religion has kept you away, seek us out. You might be surprised.
I appreciate your comments and know of many religious organizations that, in fact, are open to same-sex commitment ceremonies and no doubt will perform marriages once the laws change. I applaud their actions.
The ultra-large religious organizations appear to me to be against SSM for a variety of reasons ranging from a perceived violations of the literal bible (Evangelicals, Fundamentalists) to loss of income, power, status, and threats to their 12th century dogma (older religions such as Catholicism) and thus control over their masses (meaning income levels, etc.).
I appreciate the social aspect of church and in my mother’s day, and way out in the country, church was a means of socializing and bringing together neighbors on a weekly basis. As much or more happened before and after church services as did during the actual service. All this makes sense.
I was raised a Universalist which later became the Universalist-Unitarian church. As you may know, this is a very open-minded and liberal group where the search for answers is embraced. This is direct contradiction to the old dogmatic churches who to this day control their masses with ancient claptrap backed up by the threat of eternal damnation for violations of their rules. All the while, the corruption, coverups, and sexual abuse is going on for decades on end.
For me, I do not feel I need the social aspects of church. I have many friends and a very active social life, and a family – a partner and an 11 year old daughter. Furthermore, I have a huge problem with the hocus-pocus of religion. You see, the moral teachings, lesson, parables, examples, and all that are good life-lessons. The ancient Greek and Roman mythologies offered similar lessons. Aesop’s Fables are another good example of stories in which lessons may be learned. The Bible, the Koran, and the Torah, are all good books for learning life’s lessons.
But, for me, the turn off is all the hocus-pocus and miracle stuff. I simply do not believe it and never have. I cannot walk into a church and fake praying. It would be insincere.
I appreciate the offer, but no, thank-you.
It was at the Unitarian Church that I first met Equality Maine volunteers in 2009, in fact!
A church that does not use the Bible or live by it isnt that what UUC does?
Do I detect judgmentalism and the sin of pride on your part, know-it-all618? Actually the Unitarian Universalists are non-creedal, which means that there is a range of theological understandings, and a variety of religious viewpoints. Some UUs consider themselves to be Christians, other do not. Some look to and use the Bible, others do not. How does that harm you?
Pride is probably the source of all sin when you get right down to it. For you to come preaching a different Gospel like you do here daily is pride in its highest form. You a have been lied to penzance and you too will suffer the consequences of your actions. The warnings against your actions are throughout scripture but pride has blinded you to Gods truths. Satan has you hoodwinked.
Maybe Satan has you hoodwinked. You have been lied to, and you are the one, after all, who has succumbed to the blindness of prejudice.
Well we agree, one of us is a phony. There’s a litmus test that should always be applied when searching the scriptures for truth and thats to see if it lines up with the rest of scripture. Trust me you fail 99% of the time and whenever it gets pointed out to you, you disappear. Satan used scripture too, remember?
So, since you fail 99% of the time, and when it gets pointed out to you you retreat to a childish rant of, “Ha, ha, I’m saved and I’ll watch you roast in Hell” ……
The childish rant is yours. Difference between someone who is saved and you is the true Christian knows hell exists and brings the message of forgiveness and the cross of Christ to a lost and dying world. Far cry from your self righteousness message.
Different Gospel ? …. which is it that you are so proud of ?
The one with 66 books ?
Most Christians believe that all of the books of the Bible, and only the books of the Bible, have been accepted as canonical by all Christians. And yet, how far from this is the truth!
In every age of the church there have been Christians, eminent for their piety and learning, who either rejected some of these books, or who accepted as canonical books not contained in the Bible.
Not one of the five men who contributed most to form the canon, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement, Jerome, and Augustine, accepted all of these books….. T
he greatest name in the records of the Protestant church is Martin Luther.
He is generally recognized as its founder; he is considered one of the highest authorities on the Bible; he devoted a large portion of his life to its study; he made a translation of it for his people, a work which is accepted as one of the classics of German literature.
With Luther the Bible superseded the church as a divine authority.
And yet this greatest of Protestants rejected no less than six of the sixty-six books composing the Protestant Bible.
Luther rejected the book of Esther. He says: “I am such an enemy to the book of Esther that I wish it did not exist.” In his “Bondage of the Will,” he severely criticises the book.
He rejected the book of Jonah. He says: “The history of Jonah is so monstrous as to be absolutely incredible.” (Colloquia, Chap. LX., Sec. 10).
He rejected Hebrews: “The Epistle to the Hebrews is not by St. Paul; nor, indeed, by any apostle.” (Standing Preface to Luther’s New Testament).
He rejected the Epistle of James: “St. James’ Epistle is truly an epistle of straw.” (Preface to Edition of 1524).He rejected Jude. “The Epistle of Jude,” he says, “allegeth stories and sayings which have no place in Scripture.” (Standing Preface).
He rejected Revelation. He says: “I can discover no trace that it is established by the Holy Spirit.” (Preface to Edition of 1622).
http://freethought.mbdojo.com/canon.html
Some are so very studious of learning what was done by the ancients that they know not how to live with the moderns. ~ William Penn
All you’ve done is copy and paste some nonsense from another Bible trashing website which by the way supplies no source. Have you ever read anything by Luther? I doubt it. I have. His greatest concern was what had become of the Catholic church and how they had become more concerned with rituals, legalism and faith in works rather than grace. He loved the Bible and he loved his Lord Jesus Christ and had the courage to stand against false doctrine. We need more men like him today more than ever.
All you have is to ignore the facts.
Must all churches and religions use the Bible or live by it?
Your choice , but their is consequences. Jesus said I am the way the truth and the life no Man comes unto the Father but by the Son
Jesus said quite a lot of things.
So you’re saying that He said that the billions of Hindus, Jews, Muslims, atheists, etc. will suffer the consequence?
That precisely what Jesus was saying.
That’s one doctrinal interpretation of what Jesus was saying.
With this thread, is there any wonder why I think the whole Evan/Fundy/RCC/LDS crowd is OTL (out to lunch)? Again, “Jesus, save me from your followers.”
Knowitall618’s responses sound kind of passive-aggressive to me. “Well, you can do what you want, of course, but burning in Hell for All Eternity wouldn’t be on MY list.”
Puh-leeze!
Yes. When the fundamentalists run out of rational answers, and find themselves painted into a corner, they lash out with “I’m saved an you’re going to Hell! God hates the same people I’m prejudiced against! So there!”
Penobscot County Republicans set date for joint Super Caucus
RINO’s , please go and take your party
back
http://bangor-launch.newspackstaging.com/2012/01/26/politics/penobscot-county-republicans-set-date-for-joint-super-caucus/
Hell for all eternity may not be on your list but Scripture makes it quite clear that its on Gods list and He’s quite serious about it. Maybe you should be too. God’s ways are not our ways. He doesn’t need our approval on how things are going to happen.
What makes you think that God follows your orders, and therefore disapproves of the people you are so prejudiced against?
You keep pushing your belief that only the people you approve of are saved, that God is on your side, and that God disapproves of the same people that you disapprove of. That’s the sin of pride. You seem unable to have a discussion about fairness or equal treatment under the law, because to you everything comes down to the idea that you are right and everyone else will roast in Hell for eternity. You believe in a small, hateful, petty “god.” That’s idolatry.
God disapproves of sin, all sin. We are all sinners in need of the cross of Christ where he paid the penalty we deserve. The gift is free to all, including you.
Then it’s best for you to worry about your own sins and let our sins be between us and God.
I do worry about my own sins and understand that yours are between you and God, UNTIL you try and normalize it and attempt to redefine marriage. Then it becomes a concern of mine. I have a small role to play but I will do what I can to stem the tide of immorality in our country.
Then you must also be fighting the fight on scores of other fronts, such as helping to make adultery illegal, making sodomy illegal, making gambling illegal, making contraception illegal, making a whole cornucopia of currently legal activities illegal.
I hear your argument from people all the time and it bothers me that it appears that out of all the supposedly immoral things in this country, THIS issue (and abortion, true) is the one that people are rallying against but doing NOTHING about the other immoral things. It looks like these people are singling out gays and because of that I can’t buy into that argument. (Except for those in the Society for Tradition, Family, and Property-the “red sash” people. Look them up-it’s a scary organization).
It also seems that the mere fact that it happens, but to other people, is enough to make those who oppose us upset. Like the people who pushed Prohibition-OTHERS are drinking alcohol and they must be STOPPED!
More importantly, this behavior is telling me that you think your religion is superior to mine and that goes against freedom of religion.
cp444 – I appreciate your comments and your concerns. I try to be understanding without being condescending. But, when I hear statements like yours, it comes across to me in the same manner as when I hear an Indian friend of mine tell me that he is getting a blessing from Ganesha, a god that looks sort of like an elephant in drag. To him, this is a really big deal. To me, and probably to you, perhaps not so much. However, there are a couple of billion people on the planet who think like him. Who am I to argue with his belief?
Here is the deal for me. Very simply. I do not believe all this stuff. It is illogical. I was not raised in it. It has not been drilled into me since birth, as perhaps it has been for you. I feel no need for it. I do not believe in “magical thinking” nor in the pontifications from other humans in robes, burning incense, and lighting candles. It makes zero sense to me. I can imagine how it all came about and, no doubt, our society needed some explanation as to why thunder occurred and why it rained. “The gods were angry,” just sort of lost its punch after I took a course in meteorology during flight training. (Yes, in case you did not know, fairies can fly.)
What I find puzzling is why is my lack of belief such a big concern of yours? Are you troubled by the idea that your beliefs are somehow questioned by others? Is having other people not believe some kind of threat to your beliefs? I never have understood why your side of the fence is compelled to want the rest of us to be force-fed your Kool-Aid.
Listen – I live a very routine, ordinary life. I have my partner and our 11 year old daughter. We travel. We both would do anything for our daughter. Granted, she’ll have a hard time dating with two dads watching over her. “Why can’t I go out with Jimmy? He has a customized van and everything.” Uh-huh. Jimmy and I are going to have a little talk first. I was 16 once and I know what was on my mind 24/7.
But, I digress.
Again, thank you for your concerns. Unlike some, I am not going to go to church and buy into all this “just in case” when I die, there actually is a heaven and there’s a white guy, speaking English, in a flowing robe, looking like a cross between Burl Ives and Raymond Burr, welcoming me “home.” I think the people who go to church as an insurance policy are just a tad on the hypocritical side. That is not what I understand to be the definition of faith.
Thanks, but no thanks.
In the book of Romans Chap.14 verse 11 the Bible says Every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.Then in verse 12 the Bible says so then each of us shall give an account of himself to God.
Did Jesus say that ?
Quoting this or that from the Bible to support claims is like having expert testimony at a trial. There’s a quote or an expert to support almost any point from either side.
So, because of that, for ME, I’ll leave the Bible quoting and study to something between my minister, my church, and me.
It infringes on my religious freedom for anyone to use the Bible as a weapon.
Just curious – is there anything similar to that in the Koran, the Torah, the Tripitaka, the Donghak, the Mahayana, the Principia Discordia, the Smriti, the Hadith, the Sunnah, or any of dozens of other religious texts from various religions around the world? I guess if they all quote Romans 14:11, then I guess it must be accurate. If, of course, I do have to give an account of myself to God, then I feel comfortable in what I will tell Him. I will tell him I didn’t listen to the bigots, the self-righteous, and those who claimed to know Him on a personal basis. I will tell Him I tried to help others and protect them from people who think the know Him. Of course, it would be pointless to do this. After all, He is God, and thus would know it all, anyway.
So in your world morals and sin are all relative….. until jimmy shows up with the customized van?
Like you I also don’t buy into robes, candles, incense or magical thinking. I came to know the Lord Jesus rather late in life. I, like you was pretty much a live and let live kind of guy. That was until I actually received the Holy Spirit in a most unusual and unexpected way. I initially fought it. Trust me its real. The more you look into who Jesus really was the more amazed you’ll become. No, I don’t think He has blonde hair, blue eyes and fair skin. The Bible never gives us any description. The amazing part is when it happens to a person (born again) there is no denying it. That being said, I could never let a car speed by me knowing they were about to drive off a cliff (hell) ahead without saying something. I get ridiculed and snickered at similar to what a gay person experiences, but when I think of all the physical suffering generations of faithful Christians have endured before me, its a minuscule price to pay. We all know the lyrics to Amazing Grace. ” I once was blind but now I see” … well thats me friend.
So in your world morals and sin are all relative….. until jimmy shows up with the customized van?
Like you I also don’t buy into robes, candles, incense or magical thinking. I came to know the Lord Jesus rather late in life. I, like you was pretty much a live and let live kind of guy. That was until I actually received the Holy Spirit in a most unusual and unexpected way. I initially fought it. Trust me its real. The more you look into who Jesus really was the more amazed you’ll become. No, I don’t think He has blonde hair, blue eyes and fair skin. The Bible never gives us any description. The amazing part is when it happens to a person (born again) there is no denying it. That being said, I could never let a car speed by me knowing they were about to drive off a cliff (hell) ahead without saying something. I get ridiculed and snickered at similar to what a gay person experiences, but when I think of all the physical suffering generations of faithful Christians have endured before me, its a minuscule price to pay. We all know the lyrics to Amazing Grace. ” I once was blind but now I see” … well thats me.
Jimmy in the van is more that I don’t want her to be hurt nor do I necessarily want her knocked-up at 16.
As far as how it has worked for you, I am happy that it has and you are content.
You used that excuse far too many times. Whenever you disagree or scripture convicts you of sin, you manage to find a “scholar” that supports your lifestyle. This is nothing new. This has been happening since Jesus walked the earth and will continue till His return.
Leviticus 19:19. Looked at your laundry labels lately, cp444?
Actually I don’t make a habit of looking at my laundry labels. Do you understand Leviticus 19:19? I gotta give you credit, most would have thrown out “Shellfish” in their ignorance of Scripture.
Bigotry is a sin. Take the log out of your own eye, before you try to take the speck out of your neighbor’s eye, cp444.
Well in penzances world bigotry can’t be a sin. The word does not exist in the Bible….therfore lol
My “lifestyle”? What is that supposed to mean? (I’ll ask my wife. Maybe she knows.)
You, Sir, and those like you, have used your self-serving perversion of the Christian message, your excuses, far too many times, in my humble opinion.
Re: “Whenever you disagree or scripture convicts you of sin, you manage to find a “scholar” that supports your lifestyle. ”
Like the liberal Rabbi Jesus the Christ ?
How different would your so called conservative “christian”
political rhetoric be if it where limited
to what Christ, Himself, actually taught ?
Is this a relatively objective point of view from a decidedly moral human being … one with no horse in this race , in your opinion ?
“”The message of Jesus as I understand it,” said Gandhi, “is contained in the Sermon on the Mount unadulterated and taken as a whole… If then I had to face only the Sermon on the Mount and my own interpretation of it, I should not hesitate to say, ‘Oh, yes, I am a Christian.’ But negatively I can tell you that in my humble opinion, what passes as Christianity is a negation of the Sermon on the Mount… I am speaking of the Christian belief, of Christianity as it is understood in the west.”
It works for me.
And you can’t have it two ways at once.
You can’t serve two masters.
If your so called conservative “christian” political beliefs don’t measure to what
Jesus, Himself, said in Matt. Ch. 5 – Ch. 7,
why shouldn’t anyone think you are who He was talking about here… Matt. Ch. 7, vrs. 15 thur 23, … and treat you and your politics accordingly ?
But still, I do try to love and respect y’all.
But man, believe me, it is really hard sometimes
You do need to know that.
I think all the different people, worldwide, who claim to know the will of God should meet and have it out.
They can report back once they reach consensus
on what it is.
Just think how long that will take, and how during all that time they will be out of our,
all of us, the poor wrenched sinner’s, business.
Oh, happy days !
Gopher40 – if you follow the thread of comments below your comment, I think you can see why I do not wish to be associated with any religious anything. Please do not be offended as this is only my opinion. Personally, I could not care less what anyone else does with their religion as long as they leave my secular laws and me alone. Unfortunately, they truly believe they have God or Jesus or whomever on their side and they are 100% right and there is no room for discussion. The 2/3 of the world that is not Christian will burn in Hell because they did not accept Jesus. And, they really believe this.
Last summer when the alleged Rapture was to occur, the “righteous” people were supposed to shed their clothing right where they stood and be shot into space! Really! I am not making this up! I’m sorry, this is just nuts, plain and simple – nuts. In some countries, this would get you a tin-foil hat and a nice padded room. They are bizarre.
My opinion is just this: I think the whole shooting match is the biggest load of bunk every foisted on mankind. I understand why it exists. People needed to have an explanation for the unexplainable. They also mostly are sheep and need some kind of leader. Throw in the hocus-pocus of it all, and it is quite a show, but then again, so are Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny. I don’t believe in them, either.
Here is my deal: I will leave the religious crowd alone as long as they leave me alone. I don’t want their damn Kool-Aid. I want them to go away and leave me alone. Simple. They are free to pray, dance around a fire, set incense aflame, and bay at the moon. Just do it someplace else and away from our Legislature.
blah blah, you are bending over backwards to appease this trivel, I can’t even suffer reading your blob of teletubby sillynes, sorry
Speaking of sillynes, that word has no “y” and a second “s.”
With a tip of the hat to Pogo: “We have met the enemy and he cannot spell.”
That said, with an 11 year old daughter, I am all too familiar with the period of Po, La-La, Dipsy, and Tinkywinky (purse and all).
I have no objection to gay marriage as such, but I don’t like the state’s forcible redefining of the word ‘marriage’ – which really has meant ‘one-man-one-woman’ forever. Our Constitution and laws are built of words and if the words can be redefined, especially by the state, to fit the cause of the moment then neither Constitution nor laws has any fixed meaning.
Why not simply rewrite the laws about marriage to replace the word ‘marriage’ with, for instance, ‘union’? Then make ‘union’ available to all comers, who can call their unions ‘marriage’ if they want. It’s an easy change that doesn’t harm the important idea that words mean something.
Actually, I agree with you. What should of happened way back when is the church could have retained the world “marriage” and the state used the word “union” for its concept of two people being legally together (today’s “marriage”). However, they did not do that and so we are stuck with two different definitions of the same word. In the legal sense, it means a state-recognized contractual agreement (using a marriage license) between two people and so on. In the church sense, it has a religious, spiritual “blessing” for the lack of a better word, and means something apparently eternal despite the 50% divorce rate.
Neither the church nor the State owns the word “marriage.” We just have to live it and work around the problems.
If all legal marriages, around the world, could be converted to “unions,” I could see where your suggestion would work. That will never happen, of course.
For many legal reasons, having two legal terms mean the same thing in law is problematic. Even if you stated at a State level that “union equals marriage and marriage equals union” in the eyes of the law, you still run into the problem with other States, the Feds, and other countries. In theory, you could have a couple joined in “union” at the State level. If they move to another State, that state could say, “we recognize other states’ marriages but we do not recognize unions.” Yet another can of worms to deal with.
The simplest method, therefore, is to to have people married and the law is blind to the gender of the participants. We are talking only about secular, state-sponsored marriages. The churches can do whatever they wish to do and recognize or not these marriages. From the legal viewpoint, the views of the churches are irrelevant.
This is further proven just by having a straight couple be married by a Justice of the Peace (or in Maine, a Notary Public). This straight couple is married as far as Maine, other States, the Feds, and other countries are concerned. The Catholic church (as a good example) being somewhat annoyed they lost out on the marriage ceremony fee (I suspect), does not recognize this JP/NP marriage as valid. Well, really, who cares what they think? Unless you are a member of their church, why would this even hit the radar screen?
As far as the State redefining the word, that has happened countless times. The marriage law used to exclude divorced people, inter-racial couples, first cousins, and so on. Yes, they all included the man/woman thing, but I am sure that was just a sign of the times, as were the bans against divorce and and inter-racial marriages.
Mankind progresses as it learns more. This is just one of those moves forward. In 20 years, this will be as ho-hum as inter-racial marriages are today.
“As far as the State redefining the word, that has happened countless times.”
True enough, but if you don’t hold the line on meaning… well, look what’s happened to ‘interstate commerce’. Or ‘terrorist’, for that matter.
What if you have some churches that are willing to marry same sex partners? If you mandate that church ceremoniesare marriages and civil ceremonies are called unions, you will still be in the same pickle.
Well, some churches do perform legal same-sex marriages in those states and DC where it is legal. From a legal standpoint, what the churches do or don’t do does not matter. Church marriage ceremonies hold no legal value unless a state-issued marriage license has been obtained. The State simply considers the ceremony provided by the clergyman to be sufficient to satisfy a civil contractual marriage license. The clergyman is acting as an agent for the State in this case. However, without the marriage license, the state, of course, has no knowledge of the marriage and thus is does not legally exist.
The whole idea of using different terms for civil vs. sectarian weddings just won’t work from a legal view. First off, that ship sailed. It is what it is. The term “marriage” should just be used for both and get over it already. We don’t say a couple is straight-married. We shouldn’t say they are same-sex married. They are just “married.” Case closed.
In the example you provide, if a union is defined as same-gender and a marriage is defined as different-gender, and the ceremony takes place in a church, then I suspect the church would call it a marriage and the clergyman, having acted as an agent for the state, would have the couple registered as having a union. Again, the church stuff is purely ceremonial ritual and has nothing to do with the legal side unless the clergyman happens also to be acting as an agent for the state.
Let’s just make it simple, both legally and within churches that recognize SSM. Call it a marriage and be done with it. Think of the money we will save on not having to reprint forms!
There are Churches that are willing to marry gay people…
the timely ” what if ” is: what if they did so and filed the paper work just as they do for other weddings ?
… that, weddings, not marriages is what happens in a church anyway …
Then if get any flack they can claim freedom of religion AND equal treatment under the law, to do so and have both gay and straight marriages treated in same way.
If only as making the point that all churches and all Christians are not against equal rights, there’s merit it.
It is a nice way to protest in those States that recently outlawed it.
Less so in Maine, where it is on the ballot.
But big weddings in this summer and fall, with the paper work filed after the Nov. election might have a place in Maine politics.
Hey progressive churches, why not make a joyful noise unto the Lord, about this ? : )
“Neither the church nor the State owns the word “marriage.” We just have to live it and work around the problems.”
Exactly. Further, according to numerous dictionaries, “marriage” means simply the joining of two to become one. Using this definition one could marry two flavors in a recipe, two colors in a work of art, two fabrics in a garment.
My greatest issue with opponents are those who insist that the church has some greater right to define the word and that their definition trumps all others. Language is owned by all who speak it whether for good or bad purposes.
I agree with you in concept, but we both know that would never fly. That why I support what is being done here: a people’s referendum being put to the people of Maine… the people of any society should have the right to define state recognition of institutions like marriage themselves.
If they choose not to, I’m not going to complain that rights are being violated… any more than I would if the state got out of the marriage business altogether and no longer recognized my heterosexual marriage. It is a state-defined privilege for all involved.
I simply believe that the state – by getting the approval of its citizens – should extend the definition, and that there aren’t any real compelling reasons to say no at this point.
“I agree with you in concept, but we both know that would never fly.”
Well, it certainly won’t if nobody’s willing to introduce the proposal in the Legislature. I don’t expect the Republicans to do much with it, but maybe the Democrats would be willing to take a shot.
Mr. Gagnon – I see your points as I mentioned in my other posting. I do have a disagreement with whether this should be handled by popular vote and that this is any special right.
My view is that if the State wishes to be in the marriage business then it should include all citizens who are capable of entering into such a contract as there is not, as you mentioned, any perceivable harm to society. For example, one could see potential harm to children created as a result of incest, and to underage children being married, and potentially to first cousins, and so on. But, assuming there is no perceived harm to themselves or to society, then I do not see why the current ban against same-gendered participants is any “special right” which should be put to the vote of the public.
I am not seeing how this is any different than the ban against inter-racial marriages. For whatever reason, those marriages were banned. By the mid 1960’s the last of those laws were removed from the books. It was an injustice, an unfairness, and an anachronism. Honestly, I do not know if those laws were removed by popular vote or by legislative action. I should look that up.
I see this more as a discrimination issue. Why should not women get the same pay as men for the same work? Why should not fathers have the same visitation rights as mothers? Why cannot fathers be awarded custody of a child as fairly as it being granted to the mother? And, why should two people of the same gender not be allowed access to the State’s contractual vehicle called marriage?
My view, and I believe it is the view of most conservatives and libertarians is that we as US Citizens should be allowed to do whatever we wish to do and enter into whatever arrangement we so desire, EXCEPT where excluded by law. The presumption of the law is first that the concept exists: “People are entitled to marry and this marriage will be recognized by the State.” “Second, the following exceptions exist.” The presumption is that we are entitled to do whatever. The exceptions are the “intrusions” by the government. And, it better be a pretty good reason to “intrude.”
It is a fine point, I realize, but it comes back to the question I have posed countless times and have yet to have received an answer. That question is: “Please provide one valid reason that justifies the ban against SSM that does not involve a perceived violation of a religious tenet.”
My answer is I do not believe there is one.
You write that marriage has meant one man one woman forever. Absolutely untrue. Historically speaking, it meant one man many women LONG before it became what it is here today. How many wives did Abraham have? The short answer–8, and please note, this was at the same time. Nor was Abraham the exception. Polygamy was the rule. Jewish law teaches that if the husband of your sister-in-law dies (your wife’s sister) then it is your obligation to marry her. Now there’s an interesting concept! Please note this jewish teaching was in effect during the tie of Jesus.
So one-man-one-woman is a recent concept and also not true of many religions or cultures as of this day.
OK, you’re right. But it has been ‘man-woman’ forever, in whatever proportions.
Don’t just brush this off. What you’ve jsut acknowledged is that how marriage is defined is definitely FLUID, not carved in stone.
More importantly, xxskier, what the definition of marriage has ALWAYS reflected is a desire to control assets and finances, it was never historically related to the modern day concepts of love and fidelity.
… AND weddings, NOT MARRIAGES, are what take place in churches.
Gen.2:20-25 The man gave names to all the cattle and the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field,but for Adam their was not found a helper suitable for him.So the Lord caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man,and he slept.Then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place . The Lord God fashioned into a woman the rib which he had taken from the man. The man said ,This is now bone of my bones,And flesh of my flesh, She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother ,and be joined to his Wife,And they shall become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked and not ashamed
And, the word “marriage” appears … where??
They were shacking up.
And they had three sons. And no daughters. So how did that family reproduce? Incest?
Actually, Eden was discovered in West Virginia. It explains a lot.
“But it (marriage) has been ‘man-woman’ forever, in whatever proportions.”
No, but as there were laws against being gay, committed gay partners stayed on down low, but history is full of them.
“It has been suggested that Clyde Tolson, an associate director of the FBI who was Hoover’s heir, may have been his lover”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover#Personal_life
You think??? I’m in DC and have been since the late 70’s. It was a running joke. Lived together, dined together, went on vacation together. J. Edgar left everything to Clyde. They are buried in Congressional Cemetery, close to each other. My opinion as a professional gay? There was some soap dropping going on in that household.
They are just one example, and a good one,
For better or worse, depending on your opinion of his contribution to life in America,
no matter, it shows that a partner in what was effectively a gay marriage was still tough enough to be Elliot Ness’ boss, shattering many , ahhh ….
… is “delusions” the right word ?
Yes, that’s a good word. It does amaze me, but I suppose it should not be any surprise, the misconceptions about the average gay family and this famous “gay agenda” which I have yet to see in print. As I have said in the past, the only push-back I see from the idea of gay marriage comes from the ultra-religious crowd. I really think shortly after they are born, blinders are pop-riveted to the sides of their heads and they are force-fed the Kool-Aid of some religion. Any attempt to peek behind the curtain or look out the window is met with sharp retribution. Close-minded is the name of the game.
Well, again, they really seem to think that I care about their self-imposed rules. I really do not care. My only concern is when they try to compromise progress by imposing their religious restrictions on our secular laws. Other than that, they can blast off toward the moon, come the next Rapture.
“As I have said in the past, the only push-back I see from the idea of gay marriage comes from the ultra-religious crowd.”
Not just on this issue, but in general the ultra-religious crowd deserves some push back, too.
Our own ultra-religious crowd are no better than the ayatollahs who want Sharia Law.
How much influence their covert adgenda have on conservative politics and ”mainstream” conservative “christian” churches is shocking.
But even more shocking is how people who would reject their goals, both religious and political, outright, if they understood them, are … well … being very used, at the very least, to spread a covert message that is just so unbelievable that it embarrassing to mention it, seriously.
If you do not know what it is, start here, knowing what Wiki is.
Their article, as strange as it might be, is as tame as one would expect if a convert group can edit it.
My point is to follow the external links there or Google,
NAR, of course, or Dominionism for yourself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Apostolic_Reformation
“America’s Best Christian takes time to explain to less informed Christians the curious details of the Lord’s concept of marriage.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw
Thanks for a good laugh!
:-)
Ha! You’re welcome!
I’ve learned a lot from that dame!
Did you see the “It’s Time” clip?
Currently, straight couples obtain a marriage license, aka civil union, and then most get married in a house of worship that will have them. As Gagnon notes, it is a contract authorized by the State, which can only be broken in a court of law, not a house of worship.
You can find the actual legal language of the ballot question here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/79511662/Equal-Marriage-Citizens-Initiative
Yes, that is why it is called “Divorce Court,” and not “Divorce Church.”
Weddings are all that happens in the church.
I understand your idea that marriage was “meant ‘one-man-one-woman’ forever.”
But we have been re-defining marriage throughout the centuries. Go to the Bible. Consider Jacob, the biblical patriarch who was so loved by God that God changed Jacob’s name to “Israel” and literally made him the father of his country. Jacob had two wives and two concubines all at the same time, and had twelve sons by his four “wives.” The twelve sons became the patriarchs of the Twelve Tribes of Israel. King David had fourteen wives. King Solomon, according to the Bible, had 700 wives and 300 concubines, although, if that is true, it is difficult to understand how he ever had enough time to govern the country.
Our definition of marriage has kept changing. When Jesus went to the wedding in Cana, there was no church or synagogue wedding ceremony, and no marriage license. The families reached a financial deal, the couple consummated the relationship, and the friends and relatives had a party. That’s how it was done throughout most of human history, and most marriages were arranged by the parents. There were no church weddings until the 1500s.
Under American slavery, slaves were not allowed to marry — that made it easier for slave-owners to break up families. More recently, it was legal for a husband to beat his wife, and blacks and whites were forbidden to marry one another. Newt Gingrich still seems to think that marriage is one man and one woman and another woman. Maybe it’s time to revisit the way we think of marriage. Massachusetts, the state with the longest experience with same-sex marriage, is also the state with the lowest divorce rate.
My gay friends and relatives should have the same freedoms my wife and I have. Let’s allow them the freedom to marry. It doesn’t hurt me if my neighbors receive the same freedoms I already have.
If we replace all civil marriage with civil unions, I support that. But two separate systems will not pass Constitutional scrutiny by our supreme court.
Besides, marriage has several meanings already. The marriage wall in a modular home, the marriage of ideas, etc. in our case, we are expanding the scope of civil marriage, not redefining it in my opinion.
“Why not simply rewrite the laws about marriage to replace the word ‘marriage’ with, for instance, ‘union’?
The Churches fought against doing that already….
They thought God would allow them, and them alone, to define marriage.
Gay rights advocates were forced to up the stakes by the churches’ refusal to compromise.
The Courts and what the US Constitution says about equal treatment
under the law, trumped that conservative “christian”gambit .
I suspect anyone not knowing that is ill informed on the issue.
But I must further suggest that I feel that the uninformed are not suggesting it,
rather that double dealing revisionary obstructionists hope to use that
… like a variation on the old segregationists’ separate but equal song and dance
… to cloud the issue.
Call it gay union and o.k. It is not marriage.
Calling it “gay union” is to make it second-or-third-class marriage for second-or-third class citizens. It would be better to treat everyone equally under the law, which is what same-sex marriage would be. Give all adults the freedom to marry the adult they love. It doesn’t hurt me if my neighbors get the same freedom to marry that my wife and I already have.
Once upon a time, when I was a child, we had public bathrooms for whites only, and other public bathrooms (and drinking fountains, and schools, etc.) for “coloreds.” The system was called “separate but equal,” but it was never equal. To say to some people “You can’t use the bathroom that is reserved for whites only” is to tell them that they are less valuable, less good, less important than white people.
To tell some adults that they can’t get married, but can have “gay unions,” is to tell them that they are less valuable, less good, and less important than straight people. They are, at best, second-class citizens. It’s “separate but equal” all over again, and once again it isn’t equal at all.
I take the Libertarian view on it. If it makes you happy, and doesn’t harm me, or take my property, do whatever you want.
If it offends someone’s religious sensibilities, they can still cling to the belief that it isn’t a “real” marriage, only secular, and therefore doesn’t count to God.
As soon as the polls show that government sanctioned gay marriage can garner votes, the politicians will “bravely” step forward and vote for it.
I hear you, but you know, it seems they cannot rest until everyone has drunk the Kool-Aid.
A favorite bumper sticker: “Jesus, save me from your followers.”
Or a favorite Gandhi quite: “I like your Christ, but I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ.”
Priceless. I will have to remember that one.
Of course, what is so amazing is these sanctimonious Christians are just blind to their behavior. What an uptight, wound around the axle, angry group of people! Jeesh! I guess there is a good reason why they call us gay. Better gay than being that tight-a**ed.
I’m straight but not narrow.
After I wrote that, I thought about the “us.” That was not intended to mean you and me, but the “us” of the gay community. Sorry for the poor wording.
It is my observation, having gotten new neighbors big on a fundamentalist church,
they don’t even know the Bible. I brushed up on what Jesus actually said to defend myself.
I recommend Matt Ch 5-7. ( the sermon on the Mount to wolves in wool suits ). I was shocked by how short chapter in their book is, too.
Instead of reading it themselves they listen to political editorials based on some Old Testament verses.
In fact since getting interested in this I came cross a survey that suggests that people that who read the Bible by themselves become more liberal.
“Why does this happen? One possible explanation is that readers tend to have expectations of a text prior to reading it. Given the Bible’s prominence in our society, it’s little wonder that many people think they know what’s in it before they open it up. But once they start reading it on their own, they are bound to be surprised by something, and this surprising new content is then integrated and grafted on to the familiar. Beliefs do change with the addition of new information. ”
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/october/survey-bible-reading-liberal.html?start=2
I agree. I admit that I have not read the bible cover-to-cover. I regret this for a couple of reasons. First, I love crossword puzzles and those often have references to so-and-so’s son, etc. Second, I would really need to know it well enough to “refudiate” [Palin’s new creation] the naysayers. Much like sports, I am like a dog watching television – aware of it but not quite getting it all in.
That said, I am going to contradict myself. Back in September, I think, a national survey was completed. In it, they discovered atheists and agnostics scored better on tests about religion than did those who claimed to be religious. Here is the link:
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/28/nation/la-na-religion-survey-20100928
This really does not surprise me. Those who did the worst on the tests were members of the closed-minded religions who insist their followers look only within the confines of their own church for answers. Contrast this with agnostics, atheists, and religions that are open to searching for answers wherever those answers might take them. I took a sample test and scored in the upper 80’s which I considered good. Dead last were Hispanic Catholics and those with lower educational experience. Not surprising given how entrenched Catholicism is in the average Catholic’s life.
I tried once to read Revelations.
I couldn’t do it.
It got to the point that I left in it the bathroom and had nothing else in there to read.
I still couldn’t finish it.
I gave up when I realized that while I’d seen things like it before, (the NYT printed the Unibomber’s manifesto), I could understand how amazed ancient people who knew nothing of paranoid schizophrenia would think it must be inspired.
I suppose it is, too, in it’s own way.
I took comfort in discovering that Martin Luther said of it:
” I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it.”
I got as far as the “begats” and promptly dozed off. I had not heard the MLK quote. Too funny! Love it.
I disagree on one part. Reading many of the comments on the other marriage equality BDN comment threads, seeing the rash of preteen and teen suicides due to homophobic bully, seeing politicians couple and compare homosexuality to bestiality and pedophilia, you can see that quite a few are actually hateful bigots.
I think the fact that barring gays from marriage, the military, adoption, employment protections, etc. are considered legitimate points of view in our country is ridiculous. It really makes me angry — I can’t imagine what a gay person must feel like hearing these kinds of things their entire lives. It must feel awful trying to contain that anger and maintain a pleasant attitude while having to beg fellow citizens for the same rights they already enjoy and take advantage of.
Yeah… I didn’t say that they didn’t exist or it didn’t happen… but the media portrayal – much like reporting every murder – takes every instance of it happening and makes a huge story out of it, which gives a warped perception of reality. There is a concept in media about news coverage, and how they report (understandably) the unusual events, because they are more remarkable than every day events. So, when a kid is bullied to the point of suicide, it is out of hundreds of thousands of gay teens who don’t get to that point.
Again, my point isn’t to suggest anti-gay bigotry doesn’t exist. It is 2012, and racism, sexism, ageism… they all still exist.
But the real point is that there is no malicious intention, or homophobia present in most people. It is a perfectly acceptable opinion to have that marriage is a male-female institution. It is my argument that society has changed and our conceptualizations of love and commitment have evolved to the point where extending the definition makes sense and is called for.
But I don’t begrudge good people who hold that belief, especially since even a majority of Republicans now favor extending RIGHTS of partnership to gay couples, even if they don’t want the word marriage used…
I think a big deep breath and a lot more understanding – on both sides – is required on this issue.
Not really though. There is a plethora of evidence to suggest that it’s not just a few gay teens facing extreme bullying. The suicide rates, attempted suicide rates, homelessness rates, etc. are much higher for young LGBT people. So kids are killing themselves over this and we’re going to ask them to be more respectful of their detractors? Please accept my disdain, disgust, displeasure of you, or at the very least my deeming you second-class? And then, we’ll codify the opinions of their bullies into the law of the land.
I think it is a bit ridiculous to paint those against marriage equality as having this rosey outlook. We’re going to pretend that claiming marriage need to be protected from gays (“sanctity of marriage”, “it’ll be taught in schools!”, “Defense of Marriage Act”, etc.) is not the mark of malice? Get real. I don’t think it is fair to ask a gay person to tolerate intolerance.
Yes, but bullying gay teens is less about being “gay” than about being different. Bullying is an epidemic in all schools and cuts across all lines… the bullyers find anything different to bully the bullied.
When I was in school, I saw kids being bullied for being poor, being ugly, being nerdy, being promiscuous, and a whole host of other reasons. The bullyer isn’t elitist for example… they simply want to feel powerful and use whatever they can as an excuse to do their bullying.
Legitimate anti-gay hatred is so much more rare than that. It exists and it should be stamped out… but bullying is a much bigger issue than that… it is about power, and any way that people are different.
Anti-gay sentiments are rare? Come on, be real. When the slogan of a mainstream winning campaign is “Protect Marriage” as in, protect it from gay people, you can’t honestly say that disdain, disgust, disapproval, etc. are rare things. When the law of the land regarding marriage equality is a defense against gay marriage, you can’t honestly say that.
They are right. Kids get bullied for many, many reasons…one of them being if they are gay, transgendered, overweight, poor, have a disability, their appearance, etc. Bullies aren’t any less cruel to the overweight kid than the are to the gay kid. It’s also not only homosexual teens who are killing themselves over bullying. As a single mother who once was on welfare I have to say that I have seen way more hatred on this site directed at single mothers and poor people than I have towards homosexual people. The bottom line is that people who hate homosexuals are usually equal opportunity haters…meaning they hate EVERYONE who isn’t just like them whether they be gay, a different race or even just poor or a single parent. Hate is wrong regardless of who it’s directed at and it’s much easier to combat hate if no one group that gets bullied or hated tried to lay claim to having it any worse than any of the other groups.
Kids do get bullied for many reasons, but I think you are unaware of the research and statistics available, so you shouldn’t make statements on the facts. LGBT youth face much higher rates of bullying, violent crimes, homelessness, suicide, etc. That is factually true.
Now see, I find this sort of remark SO OFFENSIVE. Two of my children were bullied terribly, two others have been assaulted more than once and we have been homeless several times. One of my children was actually suicidal at only TEN years old due to how they were treated by other kids. None of them are homosexual. Clearly none of what my children experienced matters and pales in comparison to those same experiences had by someone who happens to also be homosexual.
I didn’t say that. Bullying is a problem for many children and not just gay kids. But the fact remains, statistically, a gay child faces higher levels of bullying. They’re also more likely to commit suicide and become homeless. I never said these things are only bad if they’re happening to gay kids, just that these general issues/problems impact gay children in a disproportionate way.
Trust me, I know it’s hard raising children. Sometimes it can be hard convincing them to love themselves despite bullying. But can you imagine how much harder it is to do that when they’re hearing leaders in this country talk about how gays could destroy the sanctity of marriage that they could ruin the armed forces?
He didn’t say the that only victims of bullying are homosexual.
But-now that you bring it up, how do you know your children aren’t gay? I was gay at 10 and I was bullied at times, but I never told my parents I was gay (not that I even really understood the whole concept at that time anyway).
Most of them are adults. Two are in long term heterosexual relationships of about 4 years, the other adult is brutally honest and doesn’t give a flying fart what anyone else thinks and would say so if he were. The tween daughter is boy crazy to the point where I’m about to rip my hair out. So yeah…I know. They would also tell me if they were because that’s the type of relationship I have with them.
Is anti-gay bullying rare? I suspect you’re right on this, I certainly hope you are. I think the confusion comes from the outspoken and outraged minorities that find their way to the opinion pages. They’re a vocal lot and make their numbers seem much larger than they really are. Further, because they’re so outspoken they give the impression that they’re representative of those who are opposed to same sex marriage. Hopefully they’re not.
You suspect? Why don’t you do some research?
Good point. When I was in school the three kids in my class who got bullied were the kid with the lisp, the Jewish kid, and the tall skinny smart kid with the pimples. It was because they were different. Kids are cruel, and their cruelty really hurts the kids who get bullied.
The negative campaign — the fear campaign — that the Catholic Church and Christian Civic League ran the last time the issue of same-sex marriage was on the ballot came across to my gay friends as a continuation of that kind of bullying. Equality Maine ran a positive campaign, but negative ads work, and that last-minute infusion of secret out-of-state money for negative ads turned the tide. My gay friends felt crushed and bullied all over again.
The school anti-bullying bill (LD1237) sponsored by Terry Morrison (D-South Portland) was reported out of committee with a unanimous Ought to Pass vote this week. It now moves to the House, where it is hoped it will be enacted without further delay.
There is plenty of foul behavior coming from both sides of this issue. There are people who have sincere concerns about legalizing same sex marriage that don’t come from bigotry or bias. Most of the people opposed to making this legal could easily have a change of heart if they had better understanding of things. Rather than have civil dialogue and open conversation about these fears in a respectful way these people get called bigots and treated as if they are hate mongers when nothing could be further from the truth. That creates resentments and hard feelings and pushes good people and potential allies away.
There needs to be FAIR, open and considerate dialog without name calling and assumptions made. If that happens I think same sex marriage would easily pass in Maine and virtually every other state in the country.
I know this because I used to be one of those people with sincere concerns that were not based on bigotry or bias. I never had a problem with or interest in anyone else’s intimate relationships. I was a mother of young children who I just didn’t feel were ready to understand something I wasn’t ready to have to explain to them. As much as I hated having them see opposite sex public displays of affection I was genuinely terrified of how seeing those same displays with same sex couples would confuse them and lead to those questions. I never intended to teach my kids that homosexuality was bad or be negative about the topic. I have always had homosexual friends who I would stick up for no matter what. I just wanted to be the one to decide WHEN I talked to my kids about the subject and I was fearful that this decision would be taken away from me if same sex marriage were legal. I think this is where most people who oppose it are coming from. I firmly believe it has very little to do with how anyone feels towards homosexuals and everything to do with what I just explained.
Unfortunately, during the last election on same-sex marriage those opposed to the freedom to marry — the Catholic Church and the Christian Civic League — ran a campaign that played on fears and prejudices. Equality Maine ran a positive campaign, but fear won out last time. Can the right-wingers run a positive campaign this time? I doubt it. They know that negative ads work.
Yes, the very fears I just explained were played into by those opposed to same sex marriage. Those in favor of same sex marriage have consistently assumed that those fears are based on bigotry and bias when that’s not really the case in most situations. It’s really about parents being concerned about having to explain things that they will feel like they are being forced into explaining before they are ready or before they feel their kids will be able to understand. I USED to have those same fears when I lived in Vermont when civil unions became legal. I soon realized those fears were silly and nothing changed at all…but I didn’t know that before hand and those concerns were about my kids and ONLY about my kids, so they came from a pure place.
Those fighting for same sex marriage have got to learn to address those fears and concerns in a respectful and understanding way and recognize them for what they are and try not to take them personally because in most cases they really are NOT about how the person feels about people who are homosexual. It’s a parent thing.
What is positive about something that you think is morally wrong?? What you are asking is for us as believers in Gods word The Bible to compromise for your sake.I am not going to waver for that. sin is sin, The Bible is still the worlds #1 seller for books as much as you think our ways are outdated we think Gods words are new every day.So instead of worrying about the speck of sawdust in someones eye please take the plank out of your own
You could use that same rationale to be against interracial marriage though. The fact is, God and the Bible were cited in efforts to ban interracial marriage. Seems a bit similar to this. I’m fine with you having your own personal beliefs, but why use your beliefs as a reason to prevent access to legal protections you can enjoy yourself? If this is simply about a need for respect, why can’t you respect that gay couples want the same things straight couples have?
As a Christian, I believe that prejudice and bigotry are sins. “Why do you see the speck in your neighbor’s eye, but do not see the log in your own eye?” (Luke 6:41). The Bible says a lot more in favor of slavery than it says against homosexuality — in fact, it never addresses the issue of loving, committed, adult, same-sex relationships. Yes, there are prejudiced people who look to the Bible to find support for their prejudice, just as there were slave-owners who found support in the Bible for the sin of slave-owing.
But the Bible in general, and Jesus in particular, shows support for fairness, equal treatment, and compassion for those who have been marginalized by our society.
I am for the freedom to marry because I am a Christian, not in spite of it.
you are a master at twisting words to say what you want them to . thats because your conscience is tormented by your actions of your lifestyle. If I told myself I was a duck every day after a period of time I would think I could fly.
In reading your comment it seems to me the problem is you being uncomfortable explaining elements of the world to your kids. I can appreciate that. I would also say that I never have been a huge fan of any couple, straight or gay, showing overt public displays of affection (PDA’s). But, there are degrees. Holding hands, a peck on the cheek, sitting side-by-side, the “Kiss-and-Ride” metro stations (spouses drop-off spouses at Metro & driving away), all seem fine to me. Perhaps, not to you. If you feel like telling a couple to “get a room,” then perhaps they have gone too far with their PDA. I probably would agree.
What you will find is the kids really don’t think much about it one way or the other. No doubt, they have classmates who have two moms or two dads. Unless an issue is made of it, kids are pretty flexible and roll with the flow.
As far as both sides being vitriolic, I somewhat agree. But, much like dealing with the Tea Party crowd, there is not a lot of discussion possible if the opposing side feels it has God on its side. Probably because of my profession, I tend to think like an engineer and depend upon logic and critical thinking. Not everything is black-and-white, of course, but researching facts is how I operate. I look on the other side and see almost no logic and nothing but emotion. They don’t like SSM because they don’t like it. Period. End of discussion. Their religious leaders, either in an actual church or on FOX News, have whipped them up into a lather. And, from a legal view, they simply do not have a dog in this fight. It could not be any clearer to me. If you read the Prop-8 trial transcripts, you can see why the 9th Circuit also agreed, and if this gets to the Supreme court, I believe they, too, will agree there is no valid, legal reason for denying a minority access to this state-sponsored institution called marriage. And, no it won’t be just the “activist” judges who agree with this, it also will be the strict constructionists following the letter of the law. I doubt the emotional anti-SSM crowd ever will understand why it is so.
You mentioned in your opening paragraph that there are people who have concerns about SSM who do not come from bigotry or bias. I would like to know what those concerns are. The terms “bigotry and bias” are usually terms used after someone provides their reason against something. It this is determined, perhaps, to be bigotry or bias.
You mentioned your personal fear/concern about having to discuss SSM with your kids. But, you can see where this really is your problem and not society’s. I am sure there are parents who have a tough time talking about Amish and Mennonites in their traditional clothing, or Jews wearing a yamaka, or Indians with the center forehead dot, or people with a ton of tattoos and piercings. But, that is life. That is our multicultural society. Are you sure it is just your reticence in speaking about s-e-x? If so, then don’t. Just tell them they are two people who love each other and got married. I am reminded of a friend of mine who had a condom business (really) and his 4 year old son asked what they were for. Dad replied they were penis covers. The kids nodded and said, “okay,” and went about his business. Don’t make more out of this than need be.
Personally, I have not heard one argument against SSM that did not involve a reference to some religious tenet. I have asked people to provide me with one valid argument not involving religion and there are crickets from the other side (and, likely, a few exploded brains).
So, please, hit me with those “sincere concerns.” What are they?
You are assuming far more than you should.
I am a firm believer that it is both irresponsible and inherently WRONG to train a child to co-opt the beliefs, views and opinions of their parents or other adults. It is and has always been important to me that my children be able to decide their own views and opinions based on all the information when they are mature enough to fully understand a given issue. The reason we have a country full off parrots who listen to and repeat whatever they hear or are told is because not enough parents teach their children how to be independent thinkers…especially about really important issues.
I happened to live in Vermont when Civil Unions became law…and I do support same sex marriage now. I had nothing to go on back then since Vermont’s law was the first in the country. I did end up having to talk about the issue when two of my children were too young, but it was because of the hatred and bitterness from the backlash and the reaction to that…it was so ugly.
Mr. Gagnon, thank you for an excellent article.
I am not harmed by letting my neighbors get married. In fact, marriage is good for society — it promotes fidelity, loyalty, and family stability. If these things are good for straight families, they are also good for gay families. We should not restrict marriage, but should promote it. As an ex-Republican, I’m glad to see some Republicans still promote freedom and liberty. The freedom to marry is a good thing. My friends, relatives, and the members of my church should have the same freedoms my wife and I have.
I do try to not use the bigot word, because it is like invoking hitler or nazism– it shuts down the debate without achieving anything.
I do use it when dealing with the more outrageous commenters here who clearly want inflammatory rhetoric and not reasoned discussion, because the term fits their type.
Matt, ever read “The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress”, by Robert Heinlein? Any opinion on line marriages?
You are both right.
It is SO possible.
But reason and compromise are required to understand that possibly.
The person who wrote this article is not a “real” conservative, and easily dismissed
as a RINO by the extremists, who have taken over and so are now the uncontested voice of the right. They are all that anyone regularly hears.
By definition a conservative is :
” A person who is averse to change and holds to traditional values and attitudes, typically in politics.”
The logic of that in an ever changing world, in which change is the only constant,
is questionable.
The fundamental reality of that statement is not my point here.
However I must say it , because bares directly upon my point.
I think it is a relatively fair generalization that I might expect one of two reactions for
pointing out a basic logical flaw in the very concept of political conservatism.
This not being the Washington Press Club Dinner, the more common one,
that regardless of the undeniable logic, I must be conservative bashing,
and so must be a liberal bigot for speaking the obvious truth is what needs to be addressed.
My point is fairly concise and is, in point of fact, in defensive of traditional American values.
Speaking plainly, if responsible conservatives, ones who understand the importance of compromise in the operation of the the American political system, for example
do not stand up to the illogical, uncompromising Neo-Know Nothing extremists
who have polarized American politics, leaving it to liberals alone to point out that
is not productive nor good values, those who profit by less big government win.
Not because our government is smaller, just because it no longer works.
The Koch Bros. have less big government interference, because their hand selected
political hacks in Congress and the Statehouse are incompetent Neo-Know Nothings
running the government into the ground. BUT THEY ARE THE NEW RIGHT.
They marginalized the right’s moderates, have taken over the GOP… now the GOTea Parity , got elected to Congress and the Statehouse, THEN proven that they are not only Neo-Know Nothings but incompetent do nothings, as well.
There is the new American conservative.
And despite being logical, factual and insightfully correct,
I’m just bashing all conservatives, right ?
Decide that for yourself, I say, because, despite it not being in my immediate
best political interest, I’VE GOT A SOLUTION !
,… although it is not for me, the reasonable marginalized reasonable conservatives
need to show the world that still exist.
The evidence of that, is currently weak, I must hope you will (must ?) admit.
So look :
Penobscot County Republicans set date for joint Super Caucus
By Dawn Gagnon on Jan. 26, 2012, at 6:51 p.m.
BANGOR, Maine — Republicans from 24 communities in Penobscot County will gather on Saturday, Feb. 4, for a joint Super Caucus at Husson University. The caucus begins at 1 p.m. and is open to registered Republicans from the following towns and cities: Alton, Bangor, Bradford, Bradley, Brewer, Carmel, Clifton, Corinth, …
http://bangor-launch.newspackstaging.com/2012/01/26/politics/penobscot-county-republicans-set-date-for-joint-super-caucus/
Take back your own party, please, or speak up on the internet more, at least.
fwteagles: “It really makes me angry — I can’t imagine what a gay person must feel
like hearing these kinds of things their entire lives. It must feel
awful trying to contain that anger and maintain a pleasant attitude
while having to beg fellow citizens for the same rights they already
enjoy and take advantage of.”
I can tell you exactly how it feels. In 2009, I was elated the Maine Legislature created legislation that later was signed into law by then Governor Baldacci. This seemed like a done-deal. Progress, finally! Then, a group which was merely a front for a religious organization (or two) managed to get 55,000 signatures on a petition. This happens to be the same number of people in Maine who believe the world is flat, but I digress.
Then, a long battle ensued with millions of dollars being wasted to try to overturn SSM. I listened to the lies, the misrepresentations, and all the religious claptrap I ever want to hear. Then, the law was overturned by a paltry 30,000 votes in a State of 1.3 million (granted, not all are of voting age). I was dejected, insulted, hurt, and felt like that 3/5ths of a person mentioned in the Constitution. I am a well-off male WASP and I am unaccustomed to being treated in this manner.
And, to discover your victor is a group of religious buffoons with a long history of pedophilia who thought it more important to spend millions to prevent me from being married than to spend it on heating the homes of their flock! Well, you can imagine how I felt. The sanctimonious claptrap and hypocrisy of this group takes the cake.
As a young child, I thought religion was the biggest farce ever foisted on mankind and my attitude has not much changed. I have no problem with others who believe in this magical thinking or those who feel they someday will shed their clothes where they stand and physically rocket into space, apparently missing a satellite or two on the way up. However, they must obey our laws and their involvement in our secular laws was just beyond the pale. No amount of logic or critical thinking ever will sink into their brains. And, to be a sheep of an institution living in the 12th century and interested only in its self-preservation, power, and money grubbing while sexually assaulting its youth, just stuns me. I would hang my head in shame being associated with such a group.
After the 2009 fiasco, I vowed I would not stop the effort to ensure equal rights for all. I am out for blood. The churches may saute their collective rear-ends as far as I am concerned. Angry? Oh, yes. Well beyond that.
See my response to your other post. Don’t condemn all churches or churchgoers. We’re with you and we welcome you if you care to come and visit.
My work on the campaign in 2009 actually brought me closer to my faith. Since September 2009, my partner and I have been attending an open and affirming church regularly. We have met scores of wonderful and supportive people there. We are a couple, just like any other couple, and are fully welcome in that house of worship.
Since you attend church I assume you have a Bible ? What does it mean to you in Genesis where God destroyed Sodom & Gomorah? To me homosexuality is a sin as i read it in Gods word,But it is a forgivable sin .One needs to cry out to God for forgiveness & repent of their sins.God sent His only son Jesus Christ to earth who willingly gave up His life and was crucified on the cross.He died and rose again on the third day and now is in heaven But is coming back to take His church with Him . This is Gods provision for attonement for sin.Its a free gift for ALL one needs to ask Jesus to come into their heart and to forgive them for their sins and make Jesus their Lord and Saviour.If Jesus is not Lord of all, then Hes not Lord at all
What does Jesus being Lord have to do with SSM? I believe there should be equality in marriage, because I’m Catholic. I was raised with the idea that everyone deserves to be treated with respect no matter what. As long as someone is a citizen of this country, that person deserves to be given the same privileges as others who reside here (gender, race, ability and sexual orientation should have nothing to do with it). Don’t forget that in the same section of the Bible where it talks about homosexuality being a sin, it also says that you can stone your child to death and flog your wife in public if they disobey you…
The fundamentalists have to push their belief that only they are saved, that God is on their side, and that God disapproves of the same people that they disapprove of. That’s the sin of pride. They can’t have a discussion about fairness or equal treatment under the law, because to them everything comes down to the idea that they are right and everyone else will roast in Hell for eternity. They believe in a small, hateful, petty god.
And by the way, the Bible never says that loving, adult, consentual, mutual same-sex relationships are a sin. The right-wingers take a few verses out of context and mis-interpret them, that’s all.
What Jesus as being Lord has to do with it says it all. Jesus is Lord of all or Hes not Lord at all. For me I try to include Jesus in all my decision making (My filter for every thing i do) does my decision Im making line up with Gods word if not then I should make a decision that does line up with Gods word. I beleive that the Bible is our own manual on how life should be lived . yes I sometimes make poor choices and I have to live by them poor choices but their is forgiveness available for them poor choices the Jesus I cry out for forgivness to Him .So no Im not perfect, just saved by Grace by Jesus who paid it all by dying on the cross
Citizen was the wrong word. I probably should have used inhabitant.
Read the story of Sodom and Gomorrah again, please (Genesis 19:1-29). Many people think God destroyed Sodom because of homosexuality, but that is not what the Bible says. In the story, two male angels arrive in Sodom to warn Lot that God has already decided to destroy the city — the decision has already been made (“their sin is very grave,” but unspecified — Genesis 18:20).
So the two male angels stayed at Lot’s house for the night. The men of the city gathered around Lot’s house and demanded the right to rape the visitors.
There is nothing here about consensual sex, or homosexual love — it is attempted rape. Rape is always a sin, whether it is the rape of a person of the opposite sex, or the rape of a person of the same sex.
Why was Sodom destroyed? Jude 7 says Sodom was destroyed because of “sexual immorality and unnatural lust.” Rape, and attempted rape, certainly qualify as “sexual immorality and unnatural lust.”
In Ezekiel 16:49-50 we are told that Sodom’s sins were “pride, gluttony, prosperous ease, and failure to aid the poor and needy. They were haughty and committed abominations.” There are many abominations in the Bible, including shaving your beard, and eating pork or shellfish. Jesus said that the love of money is an abomination to God (Luke 16:15).
Dueteronomy 29:22-28 suggests that the sin of Sodom was idolatry. Whatever the sin of Sodom was, NOWHERE does the Bible say that the sin of Sodom was homosexuality.
That version of yours is about the biggest stretch of the imagination possible. Its an outright lie by the gay activists. Tell me penzance, how is it you never condemn the muslims? After all you seem to be the expert on all ‘religions”. Afraid of losing your head perhaps?
Go back to the Biblical text, and read it again. The story of Sodom says nothing about consensual relationships. It is about attempted rape. The men of the town were pushing and shoving Lot, and were demanding that the men be sent out to be attacked by the crowd. The mob tried to break down Lot’s door. Then the angels blinded the attackers in order to stop the violence. It’s about attempted rape. Rape, whether opposite-sex rape or same-sex rape, is always wrong. Rape is a sin. The Bible never says that the sin of Sodom was homosexuality. The text is clear, as are the other passages I quoted. Read the text.
You have listened to the “popular” version of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, the “conventional wisdom,” without paying attention to what the text actually says.
You need prayer that God will open your eyes and your heart to see His truths its not my job to get you saved thats Gods, but it is my job as a beleiver to share Gods words with you
Not to take any side on this issue, but if you’re going to use the Bible you’d do better to cite Romans 1:26-27… Sodom and Gomorrah is an example of God punishing gang rape, which I’m sure we could agree no one wants to legalize…
However, for argument’s sake, do your and my faith justify denying something to a group of people in the civil arena that don’t share our faith? Yes, Jesus will someday reign on this earth and people will have to answer for their actions, but who are we to establish His reign over other people before He gets here? That would a Theocracy, which thankfully America is not one… I put my trust in Jesus to change the hearts of people, because I know as a mere mortal I can’t. I would offer that when people use religion as a reason to vote against things it drives more people away from the kingdom of God, rather than closer.
Very eloquently stated Aaron. This is *exactly* how I want people to think of this issue.
Civil law and American society in general is, and should be, pluralistic.
The responsibility for creating a moral society shouldn’t be our laws (though they do have a hand in that), but rather in ourselves. In other words, if Jesus will someday reign again on earth and judge us as a people, it will be us and our actions he judges, not the laws we craft.
When it comes to violating another person’s rights, property, or harming them, our laws should protect people against that.
When it comes to choices that do not harm another person’s rights, property, or harm them in general, it should be our behavior as human beings that dictate our morality. You can make alcohol illegal, but it won’t stop people from abusing it… but if it is legal that doesn’t mean we HAVE to abuse it.
Freedom means you can do something. Our social responsibility, however, means that being allowed to do something doesn’t mean it is good to do… and it is up to us as people to accept our social responsibility.
It is like becoming an adult… we can set our own rules and we are allowed to stay up until 4 am every night, eat ice cream for dinner, and so on and so forth… but at some point, even though we know we can do it, we have to accept our responsibility as adults and do what is actually best for us, freedom be damned.
That’s what religion should do… if you believe gay marriage is a moral pox on our society, the way to address it is to deal with people, not deal with law. Gay marriage is illegal in nearly all states, yet in every single one of those states, gay couples have commitment ceremonies and consider themselves married… so is society any less “rotten” because the law says the state doesn’t recognize that union?
Our civil religion should be what I outlined above – if free people make a freely made decision and it doesn’t harm others, we should accept it legally. If anyone has an issue with that, fine, but deal with it at the human level.
And if you judge and condemn others based on your interpretation then he’s hot your lord at all.
Great that you can say those words, but the real test is to live by them which you obviously are not.
Per chance, is the church you attend a Universalist Church? If so, that explains a lot to me and to many other folks.
I’m not sure what you’re implying.
However, no. There’s a great big cross hanging up there in my church.
Next?
There are a lot of things done in the name of Christianity, like hanging a cross that doesn’t show the suffering side of it. You might feel comfortable in the church you belong. That doesn’t mean it is on the path of salvation. Jesus says whoever loves him does the will of his father. I think it would help if you read the entire New Testament. In it you will find enough points that make everyone uncomfortable. If not, then you should re-read it because it clearly states everyone has sinned and continues to struggle against sin, including Paul himself.
The cross that shows the suffering side — the Catholic crucifix — is a “Good Friday” cross. The empty cross, without the body of Christ on it, is the Protestant “Easter Sunday” cross. I respect both ideas, but I was raised with the “Easter” cross, and still prefer it.
You missed my point entirely. Many who have gravitated to this church are there to achieve political ends, not so such to embrace the God of Christianity or the suffering cross (“Whoever wishes to follow me must pick up his cross”). That’s not what the founders of that church intended. As a result the church has been highjacked for political reasons.
You write about “what the founders of that church intended…” but we don’t even know what church Regular Joe belongs to, let alone what the founders of that church intended. Can you go back in history in a time machine and read minds?
In Matthew 25 Jesus said that those who will enter the kingdom of heaven are those who feed the hungry, clothe the naked, comfort the sick, visit those who are in prison, give drink to the thirsty, and welcome the stranger. That sounds like the mission of the United Church of Christ, the Unitarian Universalists, the Episcopalians, the Quakers, and all the other churches you are so prejudiced against. they are following the teachings of Jesus, and you say Jesus’s teachings were just too political for you. You preach a different gospel, I guess.
Do I detect the sin of pride on your part? You have the divine truth and other churches do not? That’s called “idolatry,” putting your self-satisfaction, pride, and hubris ahead of God.
The Universalist Church, which claims everyone eventually gets saved, is primarily being used by its adherents to promote political causes, not to save souls. That’s just a fact. If there is a sin of pride on my part, it is certainly not in that assertion.
It seems important for you to criticize someone else’s church. That’s hubris, the sin of pride, but you will have to deal with that on your own.
I prefer to try to understand what others believe. My understanding is the Universalists follow the teachings “By their fruits you shall know them” (Matthew 7:16), and “Treat others the way you wish to be treated” (Matthew 7:12 and Luke 6:31) — that is, they teach that how you live your life is more important than the doctrines you claim to believe in (see James 2:14-18).
They are less concerned about “orthodoxy,” correct belief, and are more concerned about “orthopraxy,” correct behavior or moral behavior. Read Jesus’s Sermon on the Mount, found in Matthew, or the Sermon on the Plain in Luke. There’s noting in either sermon about what to believe. they are both about what to do.
You can disagree with the Universalist approach to religion of course; that’s up to you.
Over two hundred years ago the Universalists were founded on the idea of universal salvation — that a loving God would NOT create a torture chamber called Hell and then create us so flawed that we had to be sent there. No human father would torture his own children for eternity, so why do we think God would be less moral and more cruel than we are?
“For as all die in Adam, all will be made alive in Christ” (1 Corinthians 15:22). The “all” who are condemned in Adam (everyone) is the same “all” who will be made alive in Christ — everyone. “I do not judge anyone who hears my words and does not keep them, for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world” (John 12:47). “For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all” (Titus 2:11). That’s historically what Universalism was about. God is love, and God wants the best for all of us.
Again, I’m not telling you what to believe, I’m just trying to explain, through my study of religions, what the Universalists originally based their faith on. Today they are less Bible-based, and instead they teach ethical conduct, the importance of conscience and reason, the freedom of religious expression, and the value of religious community. In 1961 the Universalists merged with the Unitarians, and in most local congregations they have combined the names as “Unitarian Universalist,” although because the denomination is decentralized, some local churches still use just one of those names.
Several years ago I researched this church. What you explained to me was not anything new to me. What you seem not to understand is that I am not disputing the Universalist Church doctrines. I was merely pointing out the fact many of its members are primarily using the church to achieve political ends, not so much to save souls. They call themselves ministers, but are no more ministers than I am. So, as you can see, I am not criticizing the church, just those who are abusing it for political reasons. Regrettably they have gotten out of hand and are clearly not in sync with their founders.
I heard once that Jesus himself was very political. I am not sure that it’s a bad thing that a church be involved in politics.
Heck-look at the Catholic and Mormon churches-they practically write laws! So if they can be involved, then it’s not unreasonable that other churches are involved as well.
What are the issues the UU deals with? Could they be social justice issues?
“I once heard that Jesus himself was very political.”
“Catholic” and Mormon churches-they practically write laws!”
It should be easy to give a couple dozen examples of laws that these two groups wrote?
If only you were aware of how stupid you sound!
I guess you’re calling my minister stupid. Thanks, brah.
As it is late and my boyfriend will be home any minute, I’ll just leave you with the examples of Prop 8 and Yes on 1.
Good night, toots.
No examples to back up your ridiculous statements?
You’ve proven my point.
I guess you’ve proven that you can’t read.
HA! Right back at you!
Since the Catholics and Mormons team up to try to stop people from marrying, why is it wrong for the United Church of Christ, the Episcopalians, the Unitarian Universalists and the Quakers to support the freedom to marry? Don’t they have the right to support the position they believe is the moral and ethical position?
Yes, the Universalists, after the Quakers, were the second denomination to go on record opposing slavery, and both the Unitarians and Universalists ordained women to the ministry as early as the 1860s or ’70s. Women’s rights advocate Susan B. Anthony, born a Quaker, became a Unitarian when she was an adult because of the Unitarian church’s strong anti-slavery position. American Red Cross founder Clara Barton was a Universalist.
Unitarian minister Rev. James Reeb was murdered by white supremacists in Selma in 1965 when he went there to march with Rev. Martin Luther King’s voting rights drive.
Today the Unitarian Universalists tend to support the right of a woman to control her own reproductive choices; the legal equality of gays and lesbians; programs that are designed to alleviate the problems of poverty; human rights around the world, etc. UUs ordain qualified clergy without regard to their sexual orientation, and they support the freedom to marry.
So according to your doctrine they have to share your theology and ethics in order for them to be ministers. Hmmm… Sounds like the sin of pride again.
Where do you come up with this stuff? “today they are Bible based” …. are you for real.
You don’t read well.
I said, “Today they are less Bible-based, and instead they teach ethical conduct….”
And the Catholic Church has not been used to “promote political causes”? Which denomination “loaned” NOM/Yes on 1 a spokesperson back in 2009?
Most Christians don’t assemble in church to discuss their political agenda. They assemble to worship. I would say that applies to the Catholic Church as well.
In 2009, the Maine Catholic churches passed the plate around explicitly to raise funds to fight the new civil marriage rights extended by the state. That sure seems political to me.
Was there any deception by the Catholic Church? I doubt it. It was upfront about its opposition to SSM. Now going back to my assertion: Were those so-called Universalist “ministers” upfront about their support for SSM when they gave the appearance of representing many churches and Christians in Maine? The answer is no. As I said earlier, they were using the Universalist Church merely to promote their own political agenda. Here I don’t condemn that Church organization, but I do call into question the tactics of some of their local leaders.
So why not keep religion in churches and out of politics and public policy since we are not all Christians and have a different belief system. I get tired of Christians thinking that they are special, that all public policy should be based on their beliefs and that they should get special treatment to inflict their beliefs on the rest of us.
You are right, true Christians are very special because, for one, they carry the shining light of Christ in them. That doesn’t mean however they should leave their principles behind them when voting and discoursing in public. Btw, unless you are coercing someone to accept your beliefs, you are not “inflicting” your beliefs.
Let’s change the word to SHOVE…From what you and others say on this site, most of us associate darkness with your judgmental comments. If you had principals, you would live your own life, love who you want and leave others to live their own lives based on their own beliefs.
If you oppose same-sex marriage then don’t get one and don’t associate with same-sex couples. Pretty simple. Beyond that you have no right to expect others to live by your beliefs.
If you were living by the Bible and Jesus’s words then you would be spearheading a campaign to outlaw divorce since Jesus is 100 million times more clear about how he views divorce then same-sex relationships. Why aren’t you guys doing everything that you can to stop divorce and to meddle into the lives of those who divorce or commit adultery? Where is your outrage there? What efforts have you made to outlaw divorce?
Seems to me divorce is more of a threat on our society and the sanctity of marriage and the family, yet you do nothing. Using your logic, you are in trouble with God for not trying to stop those who are breaking his commandments.
Answer: pick and choose, pick and choose.
I’m sorry you feel offended. This is an issue that obviously gets people emotional. This doesn’t mean however that I am insincere or hateful.
Incidentally, Jesus spoke of divorce in the context of a marriage between a man and a woman, which he believed was the only form of marital arrangement ordained by God. This is made evident from his own reference to Moses and his very words: “At the beginning of creation God made them male and female (not male and male, or female and female); for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and the two shall become one.” (Mark 10: 6-7).
If this is not persuasive, then I urge you consider the following:
Jesus assured the apostles, “He who listens to you listens to me, and he who rejects you rejects me” (Luke 10:16). Jesus promised to guide his Church unto all truth (check out John 16:12-13). Paul, his apostle, condemned homosexuality (Rom 1:24-27; 1Cor 6: 9-10; 1Tim 1:10). Clearly, the God Christians believe in did not ordain the union of two males or two females or any other union other than that between a man a woman.
One more thing: Jesus did in fact permit divorce (separation). The abused spouse may have no other recourse than divorce. I agree with you, divorce is a threat to society and the sanctity of marriage. But God will not stop it, on account of man’s free will to obey or disobey Him. He or she who makes the free choice to love God (“love” that is not freely chosen is not real love) obeys his commandments. He or she who does not obey his commandments does not love God.
I am not in a same-sex marriage, nor do I ever foresee myself in one. If you are not putting as much effort into appealing and outlawing divorce as you are same-sex marriage that you are not doing what God and Jesus expect of you. You cannot condemn and be so outspoken about one and ignore the other. Infidelity/adultery is one of the biggest reasons for divorce and separation.
AND-why don’t you and others with your mentality protest against the millions of people living in the so-called sin…being intimate without being married? Why don’t you get on here and ridicule them day in and day out like you do same-sex couples? If you are living by a literal interpretation of the Bible then you should be spending as much, if not more time making it against the law for people to live together without marriage.
But again, pick and choose, pick and choose.
If you and your words are representative of what it means to be a religious Christian, no matter people are running (no walking) away from Christianity and organized religion.
Bottom line is that your religious views should not be part of social policy since we are free in this country to have our own religious views or none at all.
My conscience is influenced by my religious views. I do not intend to leave it behind when I vote or make my views, religious or otherwise, known. Would you? Besides, I see no contradiction between by religious views and reason. That’s why I almost always appeal to reason when making my views known on issues.
For your info, I am just as opposed to infidelity and adultery as I am to SSM. I can tell you from personal experience infidelity and adultery is hurtful! My kids can tell you the same thing as the entire family was hurt. You don’t need to explain that to me. But there is nothing I can do about that because it is a Constitutionally protected right.
The family breakdown in this country became a serious issue at about the same time people began to promote & accept the idea of consensual $*x. Regrettably I don’t see how we as a society can readily reverse that growing trend of recreational $*x. I could suggest some ways but those are all long term remediations.
It sounds like the old and tired “God made Adam and EVE, not Adam and Steve!!!!”
In any case, these unions you refer to seem to be for purposes of procreation.
Procreation to continue the species is no longer an issue.
And not everyone in a marriage or single, gay or straight, wants to procreate.
Okay Joe, I heard you.
Except for in states where there is same sex marriage or civil unions I have to be opposed to same sex couples adopting children. That’s only because there are not adequate legal protections for the children of same sex couples without official recognition of marriage or civil unions. Children deserve to be ensured the protection of child support, proper custody arrangements and to not be faced with being ripped away from the surviving parent should the other parent die. These are all serious problems that already exist for children with same sex parents in states without same sex marriage. Until the laws are as they should be I don’t think it’s right to bring children into a situation where they don’t have full legal protections.
I understand your concern but it seems a tad Draconian. Kids first need a home. Legal documents can be drawn up (costing $$$) that would pretty closely cover the survivor rights inherent in a $2 marriage license.
Interesting sidebar – the only reason ANY of these legal rights exist is because of a secular, state-sponsored marriage license. A marriage ceremony in a church without the marriage license is little more than a religious ritual and would have -zero- standing in a court of law.
In my case, my partner is the biological father of our 11 year old daughter. So, he has full-custody and full-rights. We do have an agreement in-place that if something should happen to him, he wants me to be her guardian. She also is reaching an age where she can start making some of her preferences known. We have about 9 years and she will be legally on her own, anyway. Still, if marriage were available, a lot of issues would be instantly resolved and fully covered. Right now, it is the “best guess” of our attorney and ourselves.
That said, I would not want to hold up the potential of a loving home for a child based upon the possible lack of proper paperwork. In those case of adoption where no biological parent is present, I do not know, but I would think both adoptive parents would be covered. I have not looked into this. Perhaps, someone else might comment on this legal issue?
There are actually cases where the legal parent has died and the child was taken from the same sex partner and put in state’s custody. There are cases where child support does not get enforced as well. These are very serious issues, in my opinion. It’s part of the reason I feel same sex marriage NEEDS to be legal. Children MUST be protected because they have no legal voice and are vulnerable. That’s my only issue with the subject, and I hope to see it not be an issue anywhere at some point.
Yes, the opposition to same-sex marriage is based on long-held prejudice against people who are perceived to be “different.” Understandably, Mr. Gagnon would rather not admit that his conservative friends are prejudiced. Gagnon wrote an excellent op-ed piece today!
“Most people who oppose it are not bigots, are not homophobic and are not peddlers of hate. The vast majority are just good people who think marriage is between a man and woman.”
I’m sorry, but I simply don’t agree with this sentiment. I think the reality is the vast majority of people who think marriage is between a man and woman, use their chosen religious beliefs to validate their homophobia. The biggest offender in this regard is Newt Gingrich. This man is a serial adulterer, has been married three times, yet he has the audacity to be the spokesman for the sanctity of marriage. I have yet to hear anyone make a rational argument that supports Newt Gingrich’s right to marry three times (or more), and deny that same right to gay citizens.
“My support is not based on the concept of “rights.” State recognition of marriage — for heterosexuals or homosexuals — is not a right.”
Actually, the Supreme Court has made it clear a number of times that marriage is a civil right. So much so, that murderers that will never be released from prison have the right to get married. That’s how fundamental marriage is.
Aside from these quibbles, I appreciate your support for marriage equality.
That is a point that I was pondering. The Supreme Court did make such a reference about marriage being a right for the people in the Loving Vs Virginia case in 1967.
Matt-how do you respond to such statements made by the Supreme Court?
The question of marriage and civil rights in the Loving case was not about state recognition of marriage, but rather of criminal penalties levied against interracial couples who were married in any way – religious or civil.
In other words, if say Virginia (the state in question in Loving) didn’t even have state marriage recognition, it still would have been illegal for black and white couples to get married in a church, for instance. Indeed at that point it was illegal for them to even have sex.
The question at issue with the Loving case was whether the state could make it illegal under penalty of fine/jail/etc for interracial couples to marry. That is a VERY different question than whether or not the state recognizes the civil marriage of any couple or not.
Let me put it to you this way: it is not illegal for gay couples to get married. They have commitment ceremonies all the time, and there are even some relatively progressive churches that marry gay couples within their church. The state of Maine is not allowed to deny those people the right to do that… they can’t make it illegal for that progressive church to marry a couple… yet they CAN set the parameters for what level of recognition the state affords for civil marriages recognized by the state.
I know that is kind of complicated, but the issues involved in Loving when the court decision cited marriage as a civil right are very much different from state recognition of marriage.
I got the first interview with Governor LePage (then Mayor) when he decided to run, and in that interview he suggested the state should get out of the marriage business altogether and just let churches/communities handle it. Nothing wrong with that… the state can set whatever rules about its own recognition of marriage – including MY marriage – that it wants.
My argument in this column is that the state should EXTEND the definition, even if it doesn’t actually have to. That’s the case all proponents should make.
I see. It IS rather complicated. Thanks for taking the time to reply!
Joe, what Matthew just explained to you concerning the right to marry is exactly what I explained to you and other posters a couple of days ago. Yet you were all incredulous! Tell me, why should you now believe Matthew Gagnon when you and your like-minded friends dismissed my comment? I’ll tell you why? You all know from which side of the issue I come from. So why should folks like myself pay any heed to what you and your supporters say? The truth of the matter is that we care, we care for people like you and for all families. To me the issue concerns what type of family structures the state should legally endorse. It has nothing to do with “equal rights”, a point where Matthew seems to agree with me. More precisely, as I’ve explained earlier, it has everything to do with the rights of children and future generations of children that Matthew does not discuss since apparently it does not infringe “on his rights in any way.” To set the record straight, Matthew in no way represents conservative thought.
I am not sure that you have stated what Mr. Gagnon has said in his opinion piece. Exactly what point of his did you make several days ago?
His views represent traditional Conservative views, not the views of those who have hijacked the Republican party. The Moral Majority does not represent the real Red states.
Yes, I agree. His views represent mostly traditional conservative values. Where he departs from these values is on the concept of marriage that conservatives hold dear, one involving a contract between a man and a women. Traditional conservative views represent those of both the Republican and Democrat party of JFK and before. Joe, I don’t know how old you are, but I can tell you that I’ve seen both parties stray from conservative views, particularly the Democrat party. That’s mainly the reason why I left that party more than two decades ago. What we have witnessed in recent years in the Republican party is a reassertion of those values from which party leaders were drifting away. It is not being hijacked. The Republican Party plank remains relatively unchanged.
To answer your question, two days ago many posters asserted that civil marriage was a basic civil right affirmed by the Supreme court. Since therefore it is a right, according to them, it must be extended to gay couples. The problem with that argument, I countered, is that the court’s decision was solely based on the concept of traditional marriage involving inter-racial couples, not SS couples as it clearly stated.
No, Matt, you are wrong. The laws of VIrginia at the time made marriage between a white person and a black person a NULLITY. Loving v. Virginia was indeed about a state’s recognition of marriage. The US Supreme Court framed the issue thusly:
“Whether a statutory scheme adopted by the State of Virginia TO PREVENT marriage between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.” The holding of the Court limited the Commonwealth of VA’s ability to define marriage: “Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry or not to marry, a person of another race RESIDES WITH THE INVIDIVUAL and CANNOT be infringed by the state.” Thus, the Commonwealth of VA was EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN from NOT recognizing the class of marriages that were interracial.
You are misunderstanding virtually everything written there. If those people got married in a church, and never applied for a marriage license with the state, what they did was still illegal, according to Virginia. It was also a crime – Loving and his wife were actually ARRESTED, and they were arrested for getting their marriage in the District of Columbia.
It was about denying access *in totality*, not just with state recognition by Virginia… it criminalized inter-racial marriage… so in other words to use a modern correlary, it would be like Virginia criminalizing (not just failing to recognize, but actually CRIMINALIZING) gay marriages from Massachusetts.
Let me put it more simply: The state of Virginia failing to recognize legally a gay marriage performed in a Unitarian Universalist church is not a violation of the civil rights of a gay couple. The state of Virginia using the force of law to criminally punish that gay couple for getting married in the Unitarian church *IS* a violation of their civil rights.
What the state decides marriage should be should be virtually irrelevant. I mean, legally, it has to be… because no matter what the definition is, marriage has to have some kind of definition… it has to have some kind of limitation, otherwise it isn’t anything at all.
By its very nature marriage has to be restrictive… it does not allow polygamist relationships to access the institution, for instance… it has to have a definition, and that definition will grant the privileged to some people and it will deny it from others. So really, what the state decides it is shouldn’t matter… it can define what it wants to recognize until it is blue in the face. Once it starts criminally punishing people for entering into a union… then it has violated civil rights. Lack of recognition is not a punishment.
None the less… it is my argument that the state should extend the definition, and that is what this column was about.
Matt, I think we should meet for a cuppa coffee and you bring your copy of the decision, and I’ll bring mine, and let’s go over the decision together. The decision of the US Supreme Court clearly references VA’s “statutory scheme” including their civil statutes that made interracial a NULLITY. It was not a matter of VA failing to RECOGNIZE the marriage, they declared it NULL AND VOID. ALL of those statutes, not just the ones criminalizing interracial marriage, were deemed unconstitutional.
My closing sentence in my previous post was taking directly from the decision.
But once again, it was about the criminality of interracial marriage… the nullity was only one part of it, and that tied into everything they were talking about.
Look, it is pretty simple: marriage – in terms of the government definition/recognition of it – has to have a defined scope, or it wouldn’t exist… it has to have defined
parameters, whatever we decide those
parameters are. Whatever we choose for those parameters, *somebody* is denied access to it… if we extend it to homosexual couples but don’t open it up to multi-partner marriages, we are still restricting it from that group.
So at some point we have to accept the fact that creating a government institution like marriage has to have *SOME* kind of restriction/definition… literally everything the government does has one, so that we know who can use it and who can’t.
There is something very different between criminalizing a marriage, and simply setting parameters for access at the *state* level.
I think more people should be making my argument in this column – which is that we can set whatever parameters we want (because it is the only logically consistent position), but that we SHOULD extend the definition.
Matt-I am very glad to read this. You knew me as the token gay in the college republicans back in the day. Back then and still today, too many people equate Republicans and Conservatives with being bigots and haters, especially on campus. It’s unfortunate that the actions of some color the entire group.
Thanks for writing this. I’ll pass it around on FC!
Excellent column, Mr. Gagnon. Would that more conservatives of any stripe will come to the same constrcutive opinion. Harsh words (and worse) have been flung on both sides of the issue. If I had any doubts on the issue, I was equally if not more offended by the blindered, ill-informed, stereotypic, and rigidly dogmatic statements by many of those in opposition to same sex marriage. This convinced me that I did not want to be associated with the antis. I’d like to think that harsh statements form supporters was in frustration and anger for the misstatements and even falsehoods coming from the antis.
All this from a hetero, independent, Christian grandfather in a long term, happy, single marriage (to my best friend).
I try hard to maintain the high ground. I understand the anger and frustration that others feel when they hear people calling us perverted, defective, and diseased. I understand the anger they feel when we’re told that we’re going to Hell. I understand the rage they feel when they read in the comments here that we should just crawl into a hole and die.
It’s very hard, sometimes, to remain calm and not devolve into a war of words when confronted with this hate. It’s hard for some of us, when confronted with such hate, to realize that not ALL people opposed to same-sex marriage feel the same way about us.
I know that some people only have an issue with the word while others think we should just go back into the closet and never come out again. I hope that this time around more of us will be able to listen to the opposition before jumping to conclusions.
Have to be honest, that was one of the things that started pushing me in the other direction. I so reviled the left’s characterizations of the right… but then I watched SOME on the right pushing such bile that it equally turned me off, and I just decided to say “F it” at come up with my own legit rationale for my stance on the issue… when I did, I found that I supported gay marriage. I don’t view any of it as a big deal.
Excellent article that articulates exactly my conservative viewpoint on gay marriage. (Except for one very small grammatical point — it’s the yoke of government, not the yolk of government…and I only point it out because I am an OCD writer). Great job Matthew and I hope it resonates with more libertarian conservative types.
I like my yokes broken over toast…you?
It’s the only way I’ll take a yoke!
Maybe not the first time Matt’s had egg on his face? :^)
Interesting sidebar: I made an omelet for breakfast this morning.
Did you: A.) put ketchup on it? B.) put sriracha sauce on it? C.) I hope you put sriracha sauce on it. D.) sriracha is amazing.
Bravo.
A very reasoned argument…
Interestingly, the government will gladly take the tax money from the gay community, but the access to services that the government provides does not equal that of straight citizens. I am a libertarian conservative and a catholic, just as my friend Mr. Gagnon; and I just cannot see the merit of opposition to gay marriage based upon religious reasons or otherwise. It is a personal choice made by individuals that has absolutely nothing to do with anyone but the couple involved.
According to the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” That is something that we as conservatives clutch tightly to our hearts as a fundamental definition as to what it means to be an American. The key to that statement is that these rights that were endowed by the Creator are unalienable (which means “not to be separated, given away or taken away”). The gay community has the same rights as the straight community to marry by virtue of their citizenship in the U.S., and as Matthew accurately pointed out: this should be a conservation position.
Thank you Matthew, I too am a libertarian and wish that the Republican party would embrace equal treatment for gay citizens and eliminate this wedge issue the Democrats enjoy.
Why is no Maine paper covering the recent decision by Georgia to keep barakmobama off the ballot? Please, BDN be a newspaper!!! Not a corporate mouthpiece like the PPH and kj,
Off topic.
However, can you cite your reference? From what I see, “birthers” are trying to keep him off the ballot. There was no ruling during Thursday’s hearing so he has not been removed. How about you back up your facts when you make these baseless accusations? http://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-government/no-obama-in-court-1318908.html
Indeed I misread the article this a.m.. My apologies.
However, baseless? Hardly. It isn’t settled yet and Obama was found in contempt of court.
And this certainly should be covered by the BDN.
I know what it’s like to be reading too early in the a.m., especially with only one cup of coffee in my system!
Yes, I must say baseless. The issue of him being qualified to be president has been settled. His birth certificate was released a while ago.
not so sure????
“Corsi and other skeptics were unconvinced by the move however, claiming that the document is a forgery created using modern computer techniques and has numerous discrepancies with a genuine 1961 birth certificate created by a typewriter.Corsi has also presented evidence that the supposed social security number contained on the document was never issued to Obama and in fact belonged to an individual in Connecticut.”from http://www.infowars.com/obama-accused-of-contempt-of-court-in-birther-hearing/
I find it interesting that the commenters who regularly appear to comment negatively on other articles on this issue are nowhere to be seen here.
A well-reasoned opinion piece with thoughtful replies and these people say nothing. Are they not reading? Or have they nothing to say?
On another note-“It’s Time.” Check out this clip from Australia: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TBd-UCwVAY&
The article certainly has some interesting points. However, the very same arguments used to re-define marriage, could be used to support polygamy, bestiality, mother – son, father – daughter, brother – sister, etc. Could they not? I mean no disrespect, but I think you get my point. For these reasons, I’m not sure ridding ourselves of thousands of years of traditional marriage will have a positive impact on our society. Don’t get me wrong and I mean no disrespect to the gay community, but I believe they presently have the same legal rights with civil unions. If not, then let’s go to work on improving civil unions, so they do indeed have the same rights as heterosexual married couples. As for the word marriage, let’s leave it for one man and one woman.
I don’t believe those arguments could be used to include bestiality, polygamy or incest. I don’t know of any sane advocacy group that would fight for animal rights in the bedroom, for instance; as well as the fact that an animal does not have equal rights nor are they classified as taxpaying citizens of America. Polygamy is more than just multiple wives to one husband. In a free society, there are serious issues with women’s rights and the psyche of the children dealing with the role of the parent: i.e. one dominant male with several women who act as deputy spouses; let alone the domestic abuse implications. And incest…well there are obviously serious genetic implications there. I hope this addresses your concerns in a thoughtful manner.
Perhaps you could use the same arguments, but they would not make the same case because we are not talking about polygamy, bestiality, or incestous relationships. By your logic, the very fact that we sanction marriage at all leads to discussions about who can marry whom.
And what is “traditional marriage”? Would that be all those man and woman unions that are severed by divorce? Infidelity? Open marriage?
Traditional marriage was one man and as many women as he could afford.
I have heard this concern often and I have to say that it really is a separate issue. Should the time ever come where there are enough signatures to bring the issue of allowing men to have sex with animals of mothers to marry their sons, then it should be addressed at that time.
Civil unions have been tried and they don’t work: http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm
You ask,” the very same arguments used to re-define marriage, could be used to support polygamy, bestiality, mother – son, father – daughter, brother – sister, etc. Could they not?”
No, they could not.
Gay people are only asking for the same freedom I already have (I’ve been married to the same woman for 32 years). I have the freedom to marry the adult I love. Gays are asking for that same freedom — the freedom to marry the adult person they love.
I don’t have the freedom to marry a dog, and I don’t have the freedom to marry a child, and gays don’t want that, either. They are only asking to be treated under the law the same way I am treated, and to have the same freedom I already have.
Another adult can give informed consent. A dog cannot. And gays aren’t asking for “bestiality.” They are only asking to be treated equally under the law, to be treated exactly as I am already treated.
We have redefined marriage many times. In the Bible, Jacob had two wives and two concubines; King David had fourteen wives; King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines. When Jesus went to the wedding in Cana there was no marriage license and no wedding ceremony, just a big party. There were no church weddings until the 1500s. In American slavery, slaves were forbidden to marry (so slave owners could break up families more easily). Until recently it was illegal for a black person to marry a white person. We’ve re-defined marriage many times before.
You speak of civil unions, a separate institution that is supposed to be equal, but really isn’t. We tried that in the American South when we had separate bathrooms for “coloreds” and “whites.” It was called “Separate But Equal” but it was never equal, because even if the bathrooms were identical the implication was that black people weren’t good enough to use the “white only” bathrooms. Once again we are telling one group of people — this time it is gays — that they are not good enough to be treated equally under the law.
But what is the “Ideal” family? Is not the ideal family between a male and female? Have cultures all around the world been wrong for thousands of years?
Under the law, everyone is indeed treated equally. Everyone has the same right to marry, the partner simply needs to be of the opposite sex. I’m having difficulty seeing discrimination because the law applies to everyone equally. Gay people are asking for the freedom to marry someone of the same sex and that is where the moral controversy begins.
We need to be careful how we use the word freedom because it could be used to justify almost anything. What we are talking about is abolishing the unique traditional unity between one man and one woman. If marriage is allowed for same sex couples, then the specialty of heterosexual marriage is severely diluted.
Some base their belief simply on religious grounds, others base their belief on moral grounds and others base their belief on traditional grounds. At the end of the day it is a moral decision and needs to be respected on both sides of the aisle. As Mr. Gagnon clearly states, those of us who support traditional marriage are not haters nor are we bigots. The whole push to stereotype the traditional marriage supporters as haters and bigots is very counterproductive and does not win over the hearts and minds.
Good grief.
“You can have any color you want as long as it’s black!”
The difference is that the opposite-sex person that a straight person will marry is likely to be the love of his or her life.
If I had to marry a woman, there’d be love there, I hope. A love like one would have for his sister only.
It’s unfortunate that your idea of me having the same exact rights that you have totally ignores the concept of love.
Also-is the “specialty” of marriage already not diluted by the actions of straight people themselves? It sounds as if it’s okay for ANYTHING to happen with marriage as long as it’s between a man and a woman. 72 hour marriage, sham marriages, marriages for social standing, etc.-ALL okay! Just don’t be in love with a dude, if you’re a guy, and want to marry him.
You do know, right, that many straight people have secure and wonderful marriages that aren’t affected by any else’s relationship?
No, the “ideal” family is two people who love and respect one another. You might prefer the idea that a man and a woman make up the ideal family FOR YOU. And likewise, I am madly in love with the same woman I’ve been married to for 32 (nearly 33) years. But that’s MY ideal family. My gay friends, who aren’t the least bit attracted to women, would not be “ideal” if they had to marry someone they didn’t love and weren’t attracted to.
Conservatives use the word “freedom” all the time, and our Founding Fathers spoke regularly of “liberty.” Yes, I am not free to shout fire in a crowed theater when there is no fire. But letting my gay neighbors have the same freedom that my wife and I already have does not hurt me at all. How does it harm you if someone else gets the same freedom you already have?
That is your opinion of the ideal family and I do respect your opinion. I simply do not agree with it. Nonetheless, I support civil unions and believe you should also have the same legal rights as heterosexual married couples. My opinion is the ideal family consists of one man and one woman who
also love each other. According to the laws of nature, the pieces fit
with opposite sex couples and unnatural sperm banks are not needed to create offspring. We can
legalize marriage in all 50 states, but that still does not create
equality, because gay couples still cannot naturally reproduce, so how can you ever truly be equal? Nature simply will not allow it.
I would also like to remind you that President Obama also only supports traditional marriage between one man and one woman, so I don’t think it’s completely accurate to always place conservatives and liberals in opposite camps on this issue. The family unit is the foundation of our society and in my opinion, re-defining the ideal family unit to include gay couples adds no value to our society, but does pose significant risks because the Pandora’s box has been opened. What next?
Gays and lesbians have the right to marry. What is being asked is to radically redefine marriage for our entire society. Thousands of laws already on the books would need to be changed. And my biggest concern of all is how this issue interfaces with Religious Freedom, our first right. This is not the no-brainer cut and dried issue the same sex marriage supporters want to make it out to be. It is very complicated.
After the state became involved in the institution of marriage, it by very definition secularized the institution… would involve the establishment clause otherwise.
The state recognizing gay unions does not interfere with religious freedom. The state forcing religious institutions to define marriage how the state defines it *is* interference. That isn’t what is at issue here.
You are correct. the ballot question would let all the churches and synagogues do whatever they want as far as the freedom to marry is concerned.
No, thousands of laws would not have to be changed. Just change one law — give gays and lesbians the same right to marry that my wife and I already have. Leave the rest of the laws alone. Don’t have two categories of marriage. “Marriage” should mean marriage. Married people should all be the same under the law.
As for the churches, the proposed ballot question leaves the churches alone. it says that no church or religious organization should have to perform any ceremony they don’t want to perform. No one’s religious freedom is violated in any way. Let those churches that believe in the freedom to marry do what they want, and those churches that are opposed to the freedom to marry can do what they want.
I think that marriage is between a male and a female. This belief is based upon one thing and one thing only. Children need to have strong male and female influences in thier lives as they are raised. This influence needs to be daily and for more then a few minutes. I think the impact of single parent households are making its impact noted on this society ( see recent BDN article on gangs). The article fails to mention this aspect of marriage relationships. As a gay, middle aged man raised in a single parent household, I have aspect (s) of that type of child raising that face me every single day. I don’t believe this aspect of the issue has been included in this article.
That is more of an argument for not letting gay couples adopt than it is for denying gay couples get married.
Your child rearing point evaporates when you are talking about a gay couple simply living their lives together.
And as much as I agree with you about what is best for children (two role models)… we don’t make single parenthood illegal just because it is less advantageous for the child… the current occupant of the White House came from such a family… good thing it wasn’t illegal…
I am a gay middle-aged man and I was raised in a single parent household as well. I know people who were also raised in various other family situations. I really don’t think it matter if a child is raised in one way over another.
What, exactly, is the appeal for this ideal of one-man-one-woman? Are there roles that each person fulfills that the child needs to see? Are these roles really gender specific? I think people assume that a one-woman-one-man family would be the ideal when many times it really isn’t ideal at all. Fighting, philandering, abuse, absence-all sorts of negative things can be present in this supposedly ideal family as it can with a gay family. And, just as there are fantastic well-adjusted straight families, there are similar gay families.
It IS a slippery slope when the idea of only one perfect family type is presented as the way it should be. You might want to read the testimony of the experts supporting SSM during the prop 8 trial.
Traditional marriage was one man and as many women as he could afford.
I happen to be the product of a single parent. I bet I turned out better than I would have if my mother had remained in her dysfunctional marriage with a philandering husband. Role models are found in unexpected places.
I happen to have been married once, and we just celebrated 20 years. My husband is also the product of a single parent home. My point is that there is more to a person’s success in life than having two parents of opposite gender. I think a gay couple can raise kids just as well as a straight couple. Why? Because they are people who care.
As a sidebar–one thing that is interesting in the gay marriage debate is the legal issues it raises over federal law vs. state law vs interstate law. And what happens when a gay couple divorces in today’s mish mash of laws regarding marriage and child custody? There is still a lot of work to be done on this issue, even after it passes the upcoming referendum.
One thing that most people forget when it comes to gay parenting is that just about all gay parents WANT that child. There are seldom accidental pregnancies in gay relationships. Every single gay parent I know has wanted his or her child and some of them have had to fight to be the parent.
These children are loved and wanted.
I shouldn’t have to say that I am not implying that all children in all straight parent families or single parent families are unwanted or unloved but I feel that because some people purposely twist statements or pretend to misunderstand, I’ll include that statement.
“I think that marriage is between a male and a female. This belief is based upon one thing and one thing only. Children need to have strong male and female influences in their lives as they are raised.”
First of all, since procreation has NEVER been a requirement to getting married, why are you applying special rules to gay couples that don’t apply to straight ones? Only around 20% of gay couples are raising children. So according to your logic, 80% of gay couples should be able to marry since children aren’t involved, right? — And what about straight senior citizens? They aren’t raising children, therefore there is no reason for them to marry either, correct? You can add infertile couples to the list as well.
If you’re insisting that children be raised by a male and female, then you should be supporting a ban on divorce, and straight couples shouldn’t be able to put their children up for adoption. Those are the ONLY things that rip families apart, and destroy your utopian child rearing scenario. I have yet to hear a GOP candidate support either of those solutions to keep children with their parents. Know why? It would impact straight people’s lives. Simple as that. But scapegoating gay people is a lot easier, because it doesn’t have any effect on them personally; and they don’t have to take any responsibility for their own actions. Pretty neat, huh?
By the way, I was raised by a male and female, and I’m sorry to say that they sucked at parenting. Just because someone is straight is not a guarantee that they will be a suitable parent. Considering that half of all pregnancies are accidental, most straight couples are ill-prepared to be parents.
This is the best column that Mr. Gagnon has yet written, and I hope it is widely read and appreciated. It would be wonderful if other Maine Republicans, not least our two US Senators, supported the next referendum. But don’t count on it.
A quick note to give a heartfelt thanks to Matthew Gagnon for participating in the comments here– I think it has resulted in a much more civil discussion than happens on other articles on this emotionally charged topic. I would love to see more contributors participate in the discussions their words create.
Thank you. I appreciate it. I enjoy using my columns as a way to START a conversation, not just drop the mic and walk away…
Yes, the first time I saw you replying to coments about your columns, I thought “he already had his say in the newspaper, he should stay out of the discussion.” But I was wrong. I’m glad you start thoughtful discussions and participate in a rational and reasonable way. Bravo!
Thanks penzance…
Yes, it’s refreshing to be able to continue the dialogue with the writer.
Also, I’m glad that we can comment and discuss this piece using Disqus and not Facebook…!
As one who has volunteered in the campaigns of both Barry Goldwater and Barry Obama, I commend your consistancy in this matter. Sen. Goldwater’s 1993 comment “You don’t need to be ‘straight’ to fight and die for your country” (often mis-stated as “I don’t care if a soldier is ‘straight’, as long as he can shoot straight.”) is the logical conservative position.
Civil rights are obvious and should never, ever be subjected to the vagaries of referenda and votes. What is right for one is right for all. Get religion out of the equation and it is a fair and just decision.
Please, this birther stuff is a dead horse that has been dead for ages and is starting to stink up the place. Really, get over it already.
Frankly, if the RNC puts forth Newt, or if Romney gets it and Ron Paul runs a 3rd party, the President will win another term.
Mr. Gagnon. You have not yet been advised as to how same sex marriage has the power to peel Religious Freedom off the Bill of Rights. Don’t brush that off. If I’m right on that… it’s a big deal and we better know what we’re doing or we may fall victim to unintentional consequences.
Please elaborate.
I’d love to hear this one. Please. By all means, how does it peel religious freedom off the BOR?
catholic employers forced to pay for & extend insurance, medical and any other benefits someone uses the issue for.
A person sued for not providing certain services if they do not wish to due to religious beliefsBill of rights says a person is free to practice the religion of choice without gov intrusion this issue presents an opportunity to infringe on religious belief or practice.The wording about clergy and ceremonies is too weak
I’ll chime in, too. Yes, by all means, please explain to what you are referring. I have seen some headlines about how SSM will “deny religious freedom.” I am not making the connection there. Could you explain that, and the Bill of Rights issue. It’s all a bit foggy.
When we freed the slaves, we limited religious freedom to hold slaves– and yes, that was indeed one of the complaints southerners had to justify their status quo.
You are free to practice your religion, but I would like to be free to have civil marriage. Your freedom to practice your religion ends where my rights begin, as has been established previously in the courts.
Once again we embark on the unthinkable in Maine. We put the civil rights of a minority up for a vote by the majority who already enjoy all benefits marriage provides. This is against what America is supposed to stand for. We are a constitutional democracy. The constitution is where we define basic human rights, not at the ballot box. When did the white majority vote to abolish slavery? They did not. If we waited for a popular mandate, we would still have slavery and segregation today. Still, we have continued to fight for equality through the ballot box and suffered defeats along the way.
In time, the persecution of gay and lesbian people that keeps us from being able to enjoy all that our nation offers will end. There is no place for religion in this debate, as we are a secular nation of laws. Any attempt to place a religious frame on this issue is against every founding principle we have.
Let us finally live up to the ideals our country espouses and, at least in Maine, provide for liberty to make to most fundamental human choices, who we marry. It is just one small step in the way of progress. Our childrens generation will not understand what took us so long to do the right thing.
Yes, unfortunately it’s up to a vote this time. Our current governor, even if there were a supportive legislature, would never sign the bill. Waiting for a supportive governor bumps the issue to post-2014. And that’s assuming the legislature is supportive. The courts are another avenue, but I understand that the courts are not sympathetic.
The opposition keeps going on about how it’s THEIR right to vote on MY relationship. So, our only option at this time is to play that game. I don’t like it, but it seems more possible now than ever before.
The benefit of the positive outcome is that this should silence them once and for all. At least the ones who demand the right to vote on it. It won’t silence those who oppose on religious grounds and it won’t silence those who think we’ve voted on this 17 times before so we shouldn’t be voting on it again. But it will be done and one more state that has it will help when Prop 8 gets to the Supreme Court-IF it ever does. That’s happening unreasonably slow over there…
god say NAY