You may not hate the individuals , but it would indicate that you hate the idea that they might have equal rights. Is one worse than the other?
You're different, twhy. I know you hate the 'sin' and not the 'sinner.' I have a pretty gigantic problem with considering homosexuality a sin and actually think it's one of the most dangerous forms of bigotry that still enjoys wide acceptance, but I know it's not malicious on your part. As it was when your church universally disdained interracial marriage, I have hope that'll turn around eventually there like it is everywhere else.
They do have equal rights. I cannot marry a man. The law as written would leave the issue of civil unions up to the states. My take, but not in my words... AT LAW One Man, One Woman The case for preserving the definition of marriage. BY ROBERT P. GEORGE Friday, November 28, 2003 12:01 a.m. EST Last week, in its ruling in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts by a vote of 4-3 struck down that state's marriage law as "failing to meet the rational basis test for either due process or equal protection." The court gave the Legislature 180 days to revise the law in line with the judges' redefinition of marriage as "the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others." If the Legislature fails within that time frame to direct Massachusetts public officials to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, the court will do it for them. The ruling has major flaws. First, the judges invented a right of "same-sex marriage" found nowhere in the text, logic or historical understanding of the state constitution. In so doing, they usurped the authority of the people's elected representatives. Second, they ignored the philosophical and social reasons that have, for millennia, provided the "rational basis" for understanding marriage as the covenantal commitment of a man and a woman. Chief among these are the nature of marriage as a "one-flesh union" of sexually complementary spouses, and its value in ensuring that most children are reared with a biological mother and father bound to each other in a covenant shaped by moral obligations of fidelity and exclusivity. Third, having radically redefined marriage to remove the requirement of sexual complementarity that links marriage as an institution to procreation and helps to provide its intelligible moral structure, the judges failed to provide any "rational basis" for their declaration that marriage should be closed ("to the exclusion of all others"), even if spouses happen to prefer an "open" marriage; nor did they offer any reason for treating marriage as intrinsically limited to two persons. These are the Achilles' heel of the movement for "same-sex marriage." No advocate has been able to identify a principled moral basis for the requirements of fidelity and exclusivity in marriage as they wish to redefine the institution. What next? Following the lead of Hawaii and Alaska, whose courts tried to impose "same-sex marriage" on those states a few years ago, the citizens of Massachusetts could amend their constitution to define marriage as union of man and woman. The trouble is that in a state so liberal, an amendment to overturn Goodridge may not be politically feasible. In any event, it will be a long, hard slog; and an amendment could not go into effect until 2006, by when there will be hundreds of Massachusetts "same-sex marriages." And in the meantime, the movement to redefine marriage will initiate litigation throughout the country seeking recognition of Massachusetts "same-sex marriages." The U.S. Constitution requires states to give "full faith and credit" to the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state." Activists will invoke this principle to demand that West Virginia, for example, recognize Massachusetts marriages--even those that could not lawfully have been contracted in West Virginia. In this way, they will try to use a one-vote victory in Massachusetts to redefine marriage for the entire nation. In the end, the matter will go to the Supreme Court. That's good news for the redefiners. In Lawrence v. Texas, the justices struck down a state law prohibiting homosexual sodomy in a ruling so broad as to, in the words of dissenting Justice Antonin Scalia, "dismantle the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned." Having in mind the combination of the Massachusetts court's decision in Goodridge and the Supreme Court's ruling in Lawrence, President Bush has vowed to do "whatever is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage" as the union of one man and one woman. What is necessary? Anyone who is alert to the signals being sent by the Supreme Court knows that a federal legislative approach, such as a beefed up Defense of Marriage Act, is doomed. A majority of justices have made clear that they share the view, common in elite circles, that traditional standards of sexual morality are outmoded, and distinctions of any kind between heterosexual and homosexual conduct are rooted in animus and amount to bigotry. They will strike down any legislative act by which Congress seeks to preserve the traditional understanding of marriage or uphold the authority of states to do so. That leaves but one option: amending the Constitution. The process is daunting, and it requires votes of two-thirds of both houses of Congress followed by ratification by three-quarters (i.e., 38) of the states. Is there any hope that an amendment could succeed? Yes. The best evidence is that no serious Democratic presidential contender is willing to support "same-sex marriage." Messrs. Kerry, Lieberman, Gephardt, Clark, Edwards--even Dean--say they favor "civil unions," but oppose redefining marriage to include same-sex partners. They know that most Americans understand marriage as the union of a man and a woman and want this understanding preserved in their law. To do "whatever is necessary" to preserve it, President Bush will have to lead the fight for a federal marriage amendment. Supporters agree that it should define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. There are differences of opinion, however, on whether an amendment should forbid states from enacting civil unions or domestic partnerships. To forbid such arrangements, some contend, would be to trample on principles of federalism. To fail to forbid them, others reply, would be to protect marriage in name, but not in substance. An amendment that did not prohibit civil unions or domestic partnerships would be merely symbolic. It is important to protect the substance of marriage, but a sound amendment need not, however, forbid states from enacting certain forms of domestic partnership. It need only ensure that laws do not treat nonmarital sexual relationships as if they were marital by making such relationships the basis for allocating benefits. An amendment protecting the substance of marriage would ensure that neither the federal government nor the states may predicate benefits, privileges, rights or immunities on the existence, recognition or presumption of nonmarital sexual relationships. In other words, domestic partnerships, if states elect to have them, should be nondiscriminatory and inclusive. They should be available to people based on needs, not on sex. The law certainly should not discriminate in favor of those unmarried people who are in sexual relationships over those with the same needs who, though committed to caring for each other, are not sexual partners. Widowed sisters living together and looking after each other, or an unmarried adult son taking care of his elderly father, may have the need for domestic partner benefits such as hospital visitation privileges and insurance rights. A constitutionally sound domestic partnership law would not discriminate against such people by excluding them from eligibility simply because their relationships are not sexual--just as a nondiscriminatory and inclusive law would not undermine marriage by treating unmarried sexual partners as if they were married. Mr. George is professor of jurisprudence at Princeton. http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004356
I didn't say it was a decree. I said it was widely disdained. Are you prepared to say your church hasn't adopted more tolerant positions over time? I want to be clear here: I am and always have been respectful of religious beliefs. My only opposition to any religion is when it seeks to oppress people. I am gratified that, in almost every case, church (and temple and mosque) sponsored bigotry fades with time. I am fully confident the church will follow society in general in moving away from positions that oppress gay people as well. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm an optimist like that.
Actually they don't have equal rights. You are allowed to marry who want to marry and who you love. Homosexuals are denied that right. That logic was the same used to try and exclude interracial marriages.
I mean I don't get the claim you are making here...widely are you saying the clegy had said things about it, or are you saying lay people had problems with it. Seems like the latter would be more accurate, but not even close to what the church would hold true. And I don't see how the church is oppressing gay people here...Does it oppress 2 non-Catholics because it won't let them have a church wedding? I
I'm not sure what church you are a member of, but Southern Baptists clergy have had much to say about it. I don't doubt there are other churches that have as well. On the good side there are churches that have never fallen in line with that doctorine, so it isn't an all churches were on the wrong side kind of thing.
Roman Catholic. Do you pay attention in here much? I just read my above edit and I really chopped the gramma' in there to pieces.
really? not to totally derail the thread, but it seems to me mosque ordained bigotry, particularly with regards to women and homosexuals,is on the rise in much of the world, if not the U.S.
twhy: I don't think it would oppress non-Catholics if the Catholic Church refused to marry them. I do think it would oppress them if the Church lobbied the government to see that no one was allowed to marry them. I think you'd agree with that. I'm backing off my stuff about interracial marriage. It was a bad analogy, since opposition to it was never official and certainly was never as open as opposition to gay marriage is. Also, the only evidence I can present is anecdotal. I can't say for certain that even a particular church refused to marry interracial couples prior to the civil rights movement, though I feel certain it was discouraged. On Saturday I had drinks with a senior citizen actor who's performing in my next play. He was a Catholic priest from 1965-67, here in Pittsburgh, before he realized there were too many positions he couldn't possible abide (birth control being a sin for a woman he had in confession who had five children and whose husband already worked three jobs; homosexuality; etc.). He told me about a time several priests in his parish sat around watching a college basketball tournament and how they repeatedly referred to the players as n*****s until he kicked off the TV and told him he wouldn't tolerate it. I'm backing off my previous stuff because I know that racism was never an official church position (like bigotry against gays is). My point though was that that sort of language, that sort of intolerant attitude against a group of people simply due to their race is no longer acceptable even in private church settings (like that 1960s TV room). Again, I am hopeful the same will one day be true of institutionalized bigotry against gays and lesbians.
Well only a certain portion of those mosques. The largest Muslim nation in the world had a female muslim for President. The Profit's own wife was a successful business woman.
I agree with you and I think it's disgusting. That was one of the exceptions I had in mind when I said most.
There are definitely areas of the world where rights have gone backwards for women. I agree wholeheartedly with any oppression of women from any religion, but I just wanted to let it be known that it's not all Muslims who have this attitude.
Certainly not and that's one of the few examples of a time that I would oppose a person's religion. The Church's opposition to gay marriage (and protection of child molesters) is another.
agreed. but i do wish we could have a frank discussion about how islam is practiced in much of the world (the "islam, a religion of peace?" arguement) w/o getting derailed by dem/rep politics. i've not known many muslims, although i know a few professors of islam, but i think they way the religion is practiced in most of the world, and tolerated by the rest, is truly shameful. Hakeem represents the exception, not the standard.
I agree, basso. I wish we could have those discussions without politics poisoning the well too. I think that the trend in all religions, though it comes from lay people before leadership, is good. Where it isn't, I steadfastly oppose the influence religion has. That's so in Islam, where a great deal of the language is mysoginist and homophobic, and it's so in Christianity where a great deal of the source language is the same.
