I refer you to Tipsy’s thoughts on the recent Supreme Court DOMA decision. He believes that marriage should remain as it’s traditionally been. I have come to a different conclusion. But, I think it’s important to read thoughts such as his because it’s far too easy for proponents of same sex marriage to dismiss opponents as necessarily ignorant and/or hateful. Some certainly are, but not all. And I think it’s important to understand perspectives of those of good will and great intelligence who arrive at different conclusions.
I agree, Doug, although I can’t quite tell if in referring to how his acquaintance(s) with “same sex attraction” have not been treated well is a criticism of LGBT folks trying to “out” them or that effort coming from mean spirited folks on the other side.
I still wish he would come forth and talk about his testimony before the General Assembly in 2007, in which he put forth an expert (and largely correct) legal analysis of SJR-7, a former version of HJR-6, the proposed “Indiana Marriage Protection Amendment”. He emphasized the fact that the prior version would have fully preserved our legislature’s ability to do everything but change the definition of marriage itself, leaving civil unions, domestic partnerships, and related matters fully available. He contrasted that to more severe amendments in other states that denied validity or recognition to such “substantially similar” measures.
With the debate on HJR-6 now going to be coming back in a few months, the question of why the supporters came back with the very language he seemed to feel was an ill-motivated “hasty effort” elsewhere.
I wish he would reconsider his silence on that matter, and contribute to the debate in that respect. But I respect his choice.
Haste again makes waste…my third paragraph should have read: “With the debate on HJR-6 now going to be coming back in a few months, the question of why the supporters came back with the very language he seemed to feel was an ill-motivated “hasty effort” elsewhere needs to be dealt with.”
They need a seven-second delay on the Send button.
One thing I take issue with is his vigorous defense of the referendum process. Just because it is designed to check and balance elected officials and allow citizens to affect change, it is not permission to pass unconstitutional laws.
The citizenry couldn’t pass a law to abridge free speech…
I take issue with the term, “traditional marriage”. Biblical “traditional marriage” includes multiple wives and concubines. The Catholic Church didn’t even get involved in everyday marriages until about the 1400s. “Traditional Marriage” would also involve selling off daughters in exchange for livestock and property. It is just one of those terms being adopted that doesn’t have a basis in history, kind of like changing estate tax to “death tax” in order to gain support from the masses that will never be affected by either.
I don’t understand why people who want to “protect” marriage just don’t get the government out of the marriage business. IMO that’s the issue.
The government should only be able to issue/certify that two people have entered (the equivalent of) a civil union. And, any two consenting adults should be able to get one.
If you want to go to your church or find someone else to solemnize your ceremony and call it “marriage”, so be it.
The answer isn’t more religion in government, it’s less. And this is from someone who goes to church on a weekly basis.
I think you have a good idea for a number of reasons, but if churches were responsible for “marriage” and the state responsible for “civil unions”, a clear separation would serve to maintain boundaries, and as we all know, fences do make for good neighbors in a number of areas. The state has some very good reasons to allow homosexual “marriage” (or civil unions), namely because marriage conveys certain rights and privileges, and that is what the state is about. For churches, marriage is usually a sacrament, something that the state wants no part of, but a marriage is a ceremony that carries special meaning in a church that applies to its members. Churches can and do refuse to marry individuals for a variety of reasons. It’s significant that few people sue because a church refuses to baptize them, but baptism carries no rights and privileges with the state so SCOTUS is not likely to rule on that very soon.
Good comparison to baptism.
I don’t particularly agree with gay marriage, but I have a hard time expressing how it harms me or my marriage.
So – as long as it is two consenting adults, they should be able to go down to the courthouse and get the civil union documents.
And if you want to find a church for a ceremony or an Elvis impersonator to “marry”, hey, more power to you. The state by that point shouldn’t care, no more than they care if you celebrate your wedding by spending three weeks in Tahiti or by going out to Taco Bell.
Heck, I’d go so far to say that I think people should be able to get married in their church and, if they so choose, not become a civil union in the eyes of the state.
That makes a lot of sense to me. That way, “marriage” takes on the meaning of what is important to people and within a community of people who agree on its meaning. “We were married in the XYZ Church” takes on a different meaning from “We were married hanging from a parachute by an Elvis impersonator”. It clarifies and maintains boundaries.
Furthermore, I also like the last statement. If people had more choice in the matter, they might more seriously consider what they are about to do and its consequences, over and above what they will serve at the reception and where they will go for the honeymoon.
By the way, I should have waited another five seconds before sending that last message, eliminating that “but” at the beginning. It was probably a little confusing, but you figured it out.
I have heard of people who get married not because they want to, but it’s apparently a hot mess to have children and property together without being a married couple.
I couldn’t speak to that, perhaps Doug could speak to it.
Furthermore, I’m sure that any minister will tell you that he/she gets fed up with people who simply want to use the church to get married, yet who have no commitment to be part of it. If people could get their “certificate of civil union” and get on with life, that would free up ministers to actually deal with people who agree with the church, are part of it and want to be married as part of that commitment. No hypocrisy, no pretension. It has the potential of cleaning up a lot of messes.
Many other countries separate weddings into civil and religious ceremonies. To be legal, you HAVE to have the civil one, which can be done at the courthouse. Religious ceremony is done for religious purposes only. Strikes me as a good approach.
I agree with you, Joe.
“Government” needs to decide what it’s purpose is. Pushing the Constitution, or pushing some religious agenda. If it is the latter, then we are no different from theocracies in other parts of the world.
That’s a fight within the Republican Party, which I think will fall apart eventually because their current coalition would seem to be at odds.
tipsy’s argument is basically that it doesn’t matter whether his chosen view of marriage is discriminatory because that’s not *why* he’s for it. in other words, if you can find a non-discriminatory pretext for passing discriminatory legislation, then it’s apparently all good in tipsy’s book.
Joe: You might want to Google on Tony Perkins, the head of the American Family Institute, for his latest E-mail in response to the SCOTUS decision. It is all bout God being above everything, including Supreme Court justices. That seems to sum it up pretty much.
I actually challenged Tipsy on that very point, pointing out that numerous societies, including right here in North America, have centuries-old traditions of same sex marriage.
He refused to approve my comment, arguing that since the very narrowly-focused Wikipedia article that apparently comprises the extent of his “research” doesn’t mention it.
Never mind the fact that same-sex marriages involving a third-gendered “two-spirit” individual in Native American societies are well-documented in the peer-reviewed, academic, cultural anthropological literature (indeed, I have two of the best-known recent works on the subject sitting on my desk right now, thanks to an unrelated project I’ve been working on). If it’s not on Wikipedia, it must not be real. Obviously.
So, so much for Doug’s assertion that Tipsy’s position is rooted in anything other than ignorance. Not only does he not know (which is fine in and of itself–it’s not like you spring forth from the womb full of information), he’s not interested in knowing. He seems to have found a source that confirms his biases, and shows no interest in seeking out anything beyond that.
“That very point” being Kilroy’s “[taking] issue with the term ‘traditional marriage.'”
“it’s far too easy for proponents of same sex marriage to dismiss opponents as necessarily ignorant and/or hateful.”
It’s far too easy to dismiss proponents of same-sex “marriage” as feeble, frail, cowardly, socially awkward, ignorant, aberrant, hateful and envious.
“Some certainly are, but not all.”
Agreed.