Christian friends of gays and lesbians

[Valerie]

The religious activists who initiated DOMA and Prop 8 in California and many religious right wing posters right here on this board are all saying things like those of us who support equality for all citizens are "fag enablers" who are "endorsing their perverse lifestyle." They speak of justifying discrimination.




" The White House issued a statement stating Obama “has spoken out in opposition to Proposition 8 because it is divisive and discriminatory. He will continue to promote equality for LGBT Americans.” "



Why do you equate the two ???

 

[bodecea]

Well now...that is simply a lie...and we all know what the 10 commandments say about that.

It seem to me that you are the liar in this case.

How many dozens of times have you jumped all over me when I have suggested the idea of civil unions?

Are you claiming that I am wrong when I state that it seems you believe that every church must submit? You have attacked me personally for stating that I believe churches should be free to choose whether or not to marry homosexual couples. I do not see how I can be wrong in that case.

Immie

You have accused me of this: " It seems she believes that every church must submit to accepting gay marriage" ...now PROVE that I have ever said that or tender me your abject apology.

Still waiting.

 

[Madeline]

Not.
...

So EVEN NON-Conservatives, like Obama, do not believe queers should be allowed to marry outside civil unions.

But you dispariage "right wing DOMA folks and their self righteous morality campaign..."

How is Obama's agreement that the civil union is the acceptable solution to gay marriage any different than a "self righteous morality campaign?"

I don't see The President making any moral judgments on the lifestyles of citizens the way the religious activists argue against gays even being entitled to equality at all. The president hasn't called fellow citizens an abomination or a perversion which they claim the government has a right to discriminate against.

If you ask me, Obama can quite fairly be criticized for allowing the defense of DOMA to persist after his election; for not repealing "don't ask, don't tell", and for various other departures from campaign promises made or implied to GLBT people. I doubt Samson and I agree on much, but I bet we agree on this:

There should be no effort made to compromise. To try and advance the rights of GLBT people while coddling those who oppose them will not work. Pick a side and stick to it.

Me (and most christians, it appears), I choose to expand the understanding of fundamental rights to embrace the GLBT community. Obama has tried to straddle the fence too much for my liking, and I find it dishonest.

 

[Valerie]

So EVEN NON-Conservatives, like Obama, do not believe queers should be allowed to marry outside civil unions.

But you dispariage "right wing DOMA folks and their self righteous morality campaign..."

How is Obama's agreement that the civil union is the acceptable solution to gay marriage any different than a "self righteous morality campaign?"

I don't see The President making any moral judgments on the lifestyles of citizens the way the religious activists argue against gays even being entitled to equality at all. The president hasn't called fellow citizens an abomination or a perversion which they claim the government has a right to discriminate against.

If you ask me, Obama can quite fairly be criticized for allowing the defense of DOMA to persist after his election; for not repealing "don't ask, don't tell", and for various other departures from campaign promises made or implied to GLBT people. I doubt Samson and I agree on much, but I bet we agree on this:

There should be no effort made to compromise. To try and advance the rights of GLBT people while coddling those who oppose them will not work. Pick a side and stick to it.

Me (and most christians, it appears), I choose to expand the understanding of fundamental rights to embrace the GLBT community. Obama has tried to straddle the fence too much for my liking, and I find it dishonest.

I think it's just because he is a typical politician who is trying to temper public perception in order to not lose votes.


At least he flat-out stated that he was against Prop 8 and it's mean spirited proponents, and that he intends to continue to fight for equality and against discrimination.

 

[Madeline]

I know, Valerie. But "he could do worse" is cold comfort.

 

[DiveCon]

I really don't see the Civil Union outcome as "separate but equal" providing there would be no real "separation" other than a descriptive word.

At least that way the sensitivities of the self righteous DOMA folks wouldn't be so offended and they could maintain their false sense of moral superiority by clinging to the word Marriage while their fellow citizens, who happen to be gay and who exist in our society with or without their approval, could quietly move on with their lives treated equally under civil marriage laws as provided by the 14th Amendment to the US constitution.


It really amazes me that "conservative" people can't see how they are being bamboozled into arguing against their own best interest here. Freedom and equality under the law is NOT a lifestyle endorsement it is a constitutional obligation to ALL citizens.


Gay people exist in our society. WHO is to judge committed couples of consenting adults? Do we really want the government to measure our "sins" ?

"Conservative" people??

I want to do what Obama wants to do.

Is he conservative for you?

I'm talking about the right wing DOMA folks and their self righteous morality campaign against treating their fellow citizens equally.

i'm a conservative that is against the DOMA

changing things to civil unions treats everyone as equals
the government gets totally out of the "marriage" business

 

[Madeline]

DiveCon, what do you mean "get government out of the marriage business"?

 

[DiveCon]

DiveCon, what do you mean "get government out of the marriage business"?

they wont have anything to do with the legally stripped religious marriage
they will issues civil union contracts only
marriage will be just a religious or personal ceremony

 

[Madeline]

Religious ceremonies have meaning to religious people. If you are Catholic, no matter how often you recite your vows in front of a judge, you are not married in the eyes of the Church unless you have performed the Sacrament of Marriage. (Other faiths may have less restrictive views.)

I fail to see what gains can be made by introducing thousands of new laws just so we can henceforth refer to marriage as a civil union....and what the hell that has to do with gay marriage or Christian friends of GLBT people.

Are you suggesting that religious leaders no longer be state-certified to perform weddings?

 

[DiveCon]

Religious ceremonies have meaning to religious people. If you are Catholic, no matter how often you recite your vows in front of a judge, you are not married in the eyes of the Church unless you have performed the Sacrament of Marriage. (Other faiths may have less restrictive views.)

I fail to see what gains can be made by introducing thousands of new laws just so we can henceforth refer to marriage as a civil union....and what the hell that has to do with gay marriage or Christian friends of GLBT people.

Are you suggesting that religious leaders no longer be state-certified to perform weddings?

EXACTLY
religion and state should not touch

and mostly because the state wouldnt be certifying "weddings" but civil unions

 

[Madeline]

Okay, then. And what would be the benefit to decertifying priest, rabbis and pastors from performing weddings? What enhancement to our society would be derived from forcing everyone to get married (again, or for the only time) at the courthouse?

 

[DiveCon]

Okay, then. And what would be the benefit to decertifying priest, rabbis and pastors from performing weddings? What enhancement to our society would be derived from forcing everyone to get married (again, or for the only time) at the courthouse?

it would not change things already done
you can not change law retroactively
the only thing is it would change the terminology so everyone would be treated equal by the state
and the religious ceremony would still be there for those that want it

 

[bodecea]

So EVEN NON-Conservatives, like Obama, do not believe queers should be allowed to marry outside civil unions.

But you dispariage "right wing DOMA folks and their self righteous morality campaign..."

How is Obama's agreement that the civil union is the acceptable solution to gay marriage any different than a "self righteous morality campaign?"

I don't see The President making any moral judgments on the lifestyles of citizens the way the religious activists argue against gays even being entitled to equality at all. The president hasn't called fellow citizens an abomination or a perversion which they claim the government has a right to discriminate against.

If you ask me, Obama can quite fairly be criticized for allowing the defense of DOMA to persist after his election; for not repealing "don't ask, don't tell", and for various other departures from campaign promises made or implied to GLBT people. I doubt Samson and I agree on much, but I bet we agree on this:

There should be no effort made to compromise. To try and advance the rights of GLBT people while coddling those who oppose them will not work. Pick a side and stick to it.

Me (and most christians, it appears), I choose to expand the understanding of fundamental rights to embrace the GLBT community. Obama has tried to straddle the fence too much for my liking, and I find it dishonest.

He IS being taken to task for that, you know.

 

[Madeline]

I guess I can't see how that changes things any, DiveCon. I'm all for separation of church and state, but what advantage is there is forcing people who want religious ceremonies to repeat their vows at the courthouse?

 

[DiveCon]

I guess I can't see how that changes things any, DiveCon. I'm all for separation of church and state, but what advantage is there is forcing people who want religious ceremonies to repeat their vows at the courthouse?

except no one would be FORCING anyone

 

[Madeline]

So you feel there's a big unmet need for religious wedding ceremonies that lack legal recognition as marriages?

 

[DiveCon]

So you feel there's a big unmet need for religious wedding ceremonies that lack legal recognition as marriages?

 

[Valerie]

So you feel there's a big unmet need for religious wedding ceremonies that lack legal recognition as marriages?

Don't hurt your head! I think I get what you mean.



I've posted this same info in a few different threads but maybe it will help here too.

DEFINITIONS

It is important to note at the outset the distinction in the types of marriages that exist in the United States and throughout the world, namely civil marriage and religious marriage. In addition, there are significant legal distinctions among civil marriage, civil union, and domestic partnership, although these terms are often incorrectly used interchangeably.

Civil Marriage and Religious Marriage

Civil marriage is a legal status established through a license issued by a state government. Such status grants legal rights to, and imposes legal obligations on, the 2 married partners.

Depending on the faith, religious marriage is considered to be a liturgical rite, a sacrament, or a solemnization of the uniting of 2 persons and is recognized by the hierarchy and adherents of that religious group. The hierarchy, clergy, and in some cases members of religious organizations, establish their own criteria and rules for who may marry within their assemblies. They are not bound by statutory definitions of marriage. Civil government entities in the United States have no authority over a religious organization's autonomy.

In the United States, couples may choose to marry in a civil ceremony, a religious ceremony, or both. In the United States, state governments grant priests, rabbis, clerics, ministers, and other clergy presiding over a religious marriage the authority of the state to endorse the marriage license and establish a civil marriage. Certain public officials in the United States, such as judges, justices of the peace, and others, also have the authority to establish civil marriage.

By contrast, in many European countries and elsewhere in the world, religious officials have no authority to establish civil marriages. If couples in these countries wish to participate in the marriage ceremony of a faith tradition, religious ceremonies are often held once a civil ceremony has taken place. However, a marriage is considered legal only by means of issuance and endorsement of a marriage license by civil authorities.

Because clergy in the United States are vested with the authority of the government for purposes of civil marriage, many people are not aware of the distinction between civil and religious marriage and assume that the 2 are inextricably linked. However, the following analysis presumes this distinction. It addresses issues related to civil marriage, leaving issues of religious marriage to religious organizations and individuals.

Civil Union

A civil union is a legal mechanism, sanctioned by civil authority, intended to grant same-gender couples legal status somewhat similar to civil marriage. In the United States, civil unions have been established only in Vermont and Connecticut. In these states, same-gender couples are granted the same state-level rights, benefits, and protections as those granted to heterosexual married couples. No other states recognize civil unions. As such, same-gender couples considered to be legally united in either of those states are treated as single individuals when they cross into other states.

Unlike the national governments of some foreign countries, the US federal government does not recognize civil unions. As a result, >1000 federal rights, benefits, and protections are not made available to same-gender couples joined by civil union in the United States.

Domestic Partnership

A domestic partnership is a relationship between 2 individuals, often but not necessarily of the same gender, who live together and mutually support one another as spouses but who are not legally joined in a civil marriage or a civil union. Some same-gender couples enter into domestic partnership agreements to create legally enforceable contracts involving property, finances, inheritance, and/or health care. Domestic partnerships do not reach the same legal threshold as civil unions or civil marriages and, accordingly, do not afford couples the rights, benefits, and protections of civil marriage.

The Effects of Marriage, Civil Union, and Domestic Partnership Laws on the Health and Well-being of Children -- Pawelski et al. 118 (1): 349 -- Pediatrics[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

[Madeline]

Valerie, I do understand there are different means by which parties may create legal duties and rights between themselves. What I cannot understand if DiveCon's POV: what benefit flows from depriving religious officiants of the ability to solemnize a wedding for civil, as well as religious, purposes?

BTW, I don't know that you have the European system down accurately. It does not comport with my grasp of the marriage rite in the UK, at least. But that's not really my point.

My point is, why would such a system be better?

 

[Immanuel]

Immie, that is never going to happen. Stop worrying about false fears....gay marriage will not detract from any preacher's or religion's right to refuse to marry two homosexuals.

And thankfully, many faiths already do stand ready, willing and able to perform such marriages for those who want a religious service.

The problem is that this battle is not just about gay marriage, it is about making homosexuality into a protected class and once that step is taken the next step to be taken will be to require all churches to marry homosexuals because of the legal benefits associated with marriage.

That is why I find it so important to take the civil practice out of the realm of religion. It is not that I have a problem with homosexuals receiving all the benefits of marriage nor do I have a problem with any church that desires to marry GLBT couples. But that is up to the church, not SCOTUS.

If you don't think this can happen, then you may not have heard about this case:

Christian Photographer Refused Gay Wedding, Lost Lawsuit | Scott Fillmer :: Truth, Tech, Testimony, and Art

In January 2008 Elane, a freelance photographer who owns Elane Photography, refused to shoot a gay wedding between two woman and was later sued by Vanessa Willock for discrimination against a person’s sexual orientation. Elane has now lost the lawsuit and is appealing the ruling by the New Mexico State Human Rights Commission.

What I want to ask Bodecca, is why is she so opposed to all civil weddings being "civil unions" rather than marriages? What is wrong with getting the State out of religious affairs?

Immie