Comments on: [politics] More on religious objection to gay marriage

By: Jay Lake: [links] Link salad slogs into another work week

Jay Lake: [links] Link salad slogs into another work week — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 16:20:04 +0000

[...] marriage discussions here [ jlake.com | LiveJournal ] and here [ jlake.com | LiveJournal ] — Some (mostly) civil discourse in comments, including good stuff I need to [...]

By: Links for 7th September 2009 | Velcro City Tourist Board

Links for 7th September 2009 | Velcro City Tourist Board — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 00:04:38 +0000

[...] More on religious objection to gay marriage [...]

By: steve

steve — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 15:50:24 +0000

In all that I have heard seen or read none have given a single legal reason to not allow same sex marriage. There is not a single law that requires that a person be of a religion or a part of any religion or of any religious belief of any kind before being allowed to marry (usa laws all state laws). There is not a single law that requires a person to marry in a church, There is no law requiring or forbidding a person from divorcing because of religion (that is a personal choice)

There is no law requiring a person be of the same religion before marrying.
To do so (requiring a religion) would be a direct violation of the consitutional intent of seperation of church and state.
It is fine if a person believes in a God, to some it is a faith or a hope and in some ways it may comfort them.
It is fine if a person does not believe in a God.
When a belief is used in ways to hide a bigotry or to excuse an intolerence it is no longer a faith.
Marriage is not and never has been a holy union it is a loving union. Calling it a holy union is the culture of those whom call it so, if in calling it that it unites two in a spirital way then it is their personal union.
It has never been a requirement. People unite themselves in spirital ways that have nothing to do with any god belief or lack of a God belief.
There is no legal agrument that would justify a discrimination nor is there a legal agrument that can be made to justify a bigotry.
Religion is not the problem, religion is the weapon of choice used by the only real enemy that has existed for too long.
That enemy has been responsible for more hate,child abuse,family distruction,torture and rape then any to of ever existed.
Its name is bigotry.

By: Cora

Cora — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 02:01:15 +0000

I agree with you that it’s not a government’s business how its citizens organize their personal lives. I have issues with marriage in general, because the institution of (straight) marriage has been used as a system to oppress women for millennia. And most of the legal mechanisms oppressing married women were removed less than forty years ago, sometimes less (in my country, marital rape only became a crime in 2004). So personally, I would prefer a system which would allow a person to confer the useful benefits of marriage (Green cards or equivalent documents for partners of natural citizens, visitation and medical decision making rights, adoption rights, the right not to bear witness against one’s partner, etc…) to a person/persons of one’s choosing without having to go through a quasi-religious ceremony. Meanwhile, those who wish to have the ceremony are free to do so, but should not get privileged legal treatment because of it.

However, there is not a chance in hell that my or any other government will cease to recognize marriage as a civil institution. Hence, extending marriage as a civil institution to gay couples is the second best solution. And indeed, legal recognition of same-sex partnerships (called not marriage to pacify a handful of fundies, some of whom unfortunately have political power) has been available in my country for a couple of years now, supported by the majority of the population.

By: Jaws

Jaws — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 23:28:52 +0000

One problem that I’ve noticed with theocracy worldwide is an inability to distinguish between “tolerate views of a different religious/nonreligious origin” and “agree with views of a different religious/nonreligious origin.” In this respect, I suppose that I — unlike Jay — qualify as a “hater” of some kind: I won’t tolerate this kind of intolerance. That way lies Belfast; and Jerusalem; and Mumbai; and, for that matter, Soweto.

And, as I read hkneale’s comments, that’s exactly the problem he has: That Jay’s views do not privilege the intrusion of a particular set of religious views into secular governance. The question that I always ask that at least derails the argument is this: Are you willing to enshrine Leviticus in secular law? (It never stops the argument, and occasionally someone says “Absolutely! I’m an ultraorthodox Jew!”, but it at least exposes the argument as being one about not tolerance, but imposed orthodoxy.)

By: Matt H

Matt H — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 17:13:57 +0000

Wrote a blog on this topic a while back. In summary, “…my position is that “gay marriage” is a contradiction in terms. Marriage is a religious institution as defined by the various religions. The concept of a government recognizing a marriage is a holdover from the days when the vast majority of citizens in the U.S. held similar beliefs about marriage and there was no issue. These circumstances have changed, and I see the concept of governments recognizing marriages as a separation of church and state issue. Marriage should be in the realm of religions. Governments should recognize civil unions only, for taxation and legal purposes. Marriages can be a form of civil union, but not all civil unions must be marriages. So long as the government is involved in religiously charged issues this will only get worse…”

By: Gus Gallows

Gus Gallows — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 13:15:50 +0000

I would like to comment as a Christian and say only this:

“Thou shalt not judge”. This is a message that many Christians seem to overlook. It is not our place to judge anyone. It is very clear in the bible that this is a No-No. We are to build our own relationship with God, raise our families in conjunction with our belief’s to the best of our abilities, and hold ourselves accountable. Anyone outside of that is completely beyond our scope. We should accept them as having made their own decisions in life and let them be. Let the laws of the land rule the masses, let our own religious belief’s rule the individual. Simple. If the world’s religions and non-religions could come to that simple aggreement, imagine what a world this could be to live in.

Ok, off my soapbox.