Kathleen Parker warns: gay marriage means the end of SoCas

The BBQ Pit
41

I’ve had my fill, thanks.

(snip)

I couldn’t agree with you more and the state’s views on gay marriage are none of the church’s business either. Let a church marry whom they want. Go nuts. Let’s just make sure that none of the marriages are recognized by the government tho. It’s the church’s ceremony, let them wrestle in the blood of christ and then play “Who wants a voluntary crucifixtion” for all I care. They’re consenting adults, let 'em enjoy their life. The problem comes in, where the government is allowing church marriages to be recognized at the government level. To me, that constitutes entanglement of church and state and that’s unacceptable.

42

Maybe I am wrong, but last time I checked, the founding documents of this nation were pretty unambiguous in saying that all citizens are created equal and have the right to live their lives without the heavy hand of government slapping them around simply because of who they love. Since marriage is no longer a completely religious act, like it was back before the signing of the constitiution, and is indeed a civil institution that grants well over 1000 special rights to those in a marriage, why should it be denied to a sizable minority?

Here in Oregon we are about to enjoy a summer and fall of vicious and some very bigoted TV ads as the people who want to deny gay folks the right to marry the one they love that right. What is scarey is that there are reports that many of the folks who signed the petition to get this on the ballot were coerced into doing so by either peer pressure or threats by at least one religious charity to stop providing food baskets to those who refuse to sign. That last act seemed about as unchristian an act as I had ever heard of. How can a person in good concience tell someone who is hungry that they can either sign a petition to strip the rights granted to all citizens from a minority, or they can walk away to starve.

I really do have to wonder what Jesus would think if he saw his name and teachings being used to torture, humiliate, and degrade those people who do not behave like certain of his followers think they should.

43

Okay, St. Pauler, let’s just go with a scenario:

I am gay, and I want to marry my boyfriend. Okay, so far, not a scenario, but the truth. But stick with me.

I live in a state where gay marriage is legal. I don’t, but I can dream.

I go to a church, say, St. Bob’s House o’ Jesus, and ask to be married there. They say “no, we don’t recognize gay marriage, and do not perform such services.”

Have I been harmed? Because you can’t morally require the state to compel someone to action (or inaction) unless there is harm to another person involved.

And, no, I haven’t been harmed, unless you can show me how I’ve been harmed. At most, I’ve been inconvenienced, because I have to walk an extra block to get to St. Harvey Milk’s Churchorama and get hitched there. But you know what? I’d rather get hitched there, anyway, because I know I’m supported and welcomed there.

No one in this country has the right to impose their values on other people. The same protections that should prevent Billy Baptist from swining a Bible and using it to prevent me and my boyfriend from getting married MUST also prevent me and my boyfriend from brandishing a lawsuit and forcing Billy’s Baptist Bungalow to open its doors to a wedding ceremony it considers profane and sinful.

Freedom isn’t to be doled out only to those who have the “right” opinions, or those who forsake their religious tradition for whatever the general consensus of secular society might be. You either have liberty for everyone, or you’ll eventually have liberty for no one.

If you can show me cause for a charge of harm to be levelled against those religions which are not going to welcome gay nuptials into their chapel, please, make your case.

Otherwise, liberty trumps propriety, and even morality, every time.

44

That’s not only a load of horse-hockey, it’s a counter-productive load of horse-hockey. You can’t steamroll religious organizations into acting contrary to their traditional inclinations.

Trying to force ministers to perform marriages that they have doctrinal objections to is kicking against the pricks. Even talking about such a backwards idea only serves to create more vociferous opposition to progress.

If you’re trying to get a party of people to the summit of a mountain, but one 500lb behemoth with the IQ of a bag of rocks wants to stand still, you don’t try to drag the schmuck. Everyone will get so tired and bruised in the effort that they’ll be too spent to do any actual climbing. Leave him in the dust. He’ll either start to feel isolated and hurry to catch up, or he won’t. No reason the rest of us should miss the view.

45

WHAT. THE. FUCK?
Spectrum, PLEASE show me where I say that it HARMS anyone! I’ve asked you before and I’m continuing to ask you since you kept replying to me that I’m saying that it does. Otherwise, STFU.

46

Yup, you’re right.

QUOTE=Larry Mudd]Trying to force ministers to perform marriages that they have doctrinal objections to is kicking against the pricks.
[/QUOTE]

I’m preferring to remove the church’s power to legally marry someone in the eyes of the government, failing that, the church should be sued for not performing the marriage should someone choose to do so.

47

Then perhaps you don’t understand the concept of freedom and rights. If there is no harm then there is no justification for punishing religious organizations by their moral and sacramental standards.

You want the government to strips religions of their ability to marry those who conform to their sacramental requirements SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU DON’T LIKE THEIR DOCTRINES REGARDING MARRIAGE.

That is just as bad as the religious fanatics who want to ban gay marriage for the exact same reason.

Please stop trying to fight for my rights. All you’re doing is helping my enemies.

48

Perhaps you don’t understand the concept of literacy and reading comprehension as you seem to be having fun twisting and misreading my words.

Yup, can’t play by the rules, can’t join the game. Sorry, bye-bye.

:rolleyes:

You’re always welcome to enjoy “your” rights. There are other gay people around that feel the same as my gay ass. And before you get all high and mighty, lest not forget that you’re getting pitted for the exact same shit that you’re accusing me of. Funny, ain’t it?

49

From everything you post, it sounds like you want to strip any church that won’t marry gays, no matter how that may sit with the church doctrinally, of their ability to marry anyone. Correct?

What, that all religions should be bullied into marrying gays, lest they lose their ability to marry anyone? I hope there aren’t that many evil gay people in this world.

The irony is not lost on me. But I’m standing up for liberty and freedom. What are you standing for here?

50

Gaah. I am sure as Hell not going to defend a church’s holding of doctrine that I believe is sinful in and of itself, i.e., the hatefulness shown towards gay people. However, my point has nothing to do with that.

If a Catholic priest were the only person authorized to perform marriages, then not only gay people but divorced people would be SOL, and that would be a point at which lawsuits and gathering up pitchforks and torches to march would be in order.

But the fact of the matter is that you can get a wide variety of people authorized to officiate over weddings to conduct marriages, including judges, JPs, ministers of any religious faith and some folks who are not clergy but belong to churches without professional clergy – IIRC, any adult Quaker can conduct a wedding, town clerks in some states, etc. (A complete list of who’s authorized somewhere in 50 states, 10 provinces, and the UK, the six Australian states, and NZ, would probably be astounding to see.)

Given that, it seems only fair to allow for the religious scruples of a given clergyman or his denominational standards to have a say in who marries under his presidence and in his church building.

As for letting clergy perform legal marriages giving some official credence or endorsement to their religion, it’s purely a convenience since most believers wish to contract both a civilly valid marriage and one in conformance with their beliefs, so why not authorize one person to unify the two covenants into a single ceremony? It’s no more an endorsement of Catholicism, or Methodism, or whatever belief system you care to name, than authorizing him to sell fishing licenses is a state endorsement of Joe’s Bait and Tackle. It’s a convenience, that’s all.

51

No, I’d prefer that if churches refuse to marry gays based on their “principles” then they can be sued, otherwise, yes, strip them ALL of their rights to marry and have it recognized by the state.

Evil? Wow, sounds like someone’s taking their soundbites from the big W.

Yes. I can’t stand for liberty, freedom, and freedom of church from state, and gay rights at the same time. Surely those ideals are dichotomous. Maybe if I pledge allegiance to the flag I can get some of those points you’re handing out. :rolleyes: Your lame accusatory tones are just that. Lame.

52

Yes, and if Joe’s Bait and Tackle refused to give out fishing licenses to gays or blacks or any other protected class, that would be ok because it was just a convenience and we can get our fishing licenses elsewhere?

53

Sued on what grounds? You can’t sue someone unless you can show harm. What is the harm?

How am I harmed by not being married by a Catholic priest? How am I harmed when I can instead be married by any of a plethora of other folks? The local conservative and moderate Christian churches refusing to marry me to my boyfriend does not, in any way, hinder my ability to get married to him. So where’s the harm? Where’s the justification for the brash and dramatic step you seem to want to take?

54

Sure you can. The thing is, you aren’t.

55

Religions are protected in a manner that regular businesses are not, because you cannot ask a religion to do that which violates the religion’s tenets. Such a notion injures the very foundation of separation between church and state, freedom of religion and the basic concept of liberty.

None of which seem to matter one bit to you.

56

Hell, I was involved in pitting spectrum over there, and now I feel like I’ve stepped into Bizzaro World. If I haven’t, then either I’m seeing a side of spectrum I’ve ignored before, or he’s acting much fairer than before.

Either way, I like it, and I retract what I said before about your lacking nuance in your arguments, spectrum.

Either a church has to marry everyone eligible that applies, or they don’t. Currently, it’s clearly “don’t.” Churches can discriminate on whatever basis they want, AFAIK: the Christian Identity fuckers don’t have to marry black people to one another, a synagogue doesn’t have to marry a Jew to a non-Jew, the Unitarians don’t have to marry two Republicans together, and Jerry Falwell doesn’t have to marry atheists.

You, stpaul, are suggesting a massive change to that. A totally unrealistic change to that.

If this is really a wolf-in-sheep’s clothing proposal–if you’re really proposing that church marriages be totally divorced from civil marriages–then I’m actually with you. I’ve got a mild preference to get the state out of the marriage business entirely, leave marriage the sole province of the private sector, and instead have the state issue civil unions for everybody. But that ain’t gonna happen anytime soon, and you know it and I know it.

We could also do the same thing, only use the word “marriage” instead of “civil union” for what the state does, and remove the power from anyone not connected to the state to perform state marriages. That’d be fine, but I suspect it’d be both clunky and politically unpopular.

The main point is, though, that there’s no need for this. That’s why people keep harping on the harm question: if nobody’s being hurt by the current state of affairs, what’s the impetus to change it?

Daniel

57

Maybe it’s the fact that churches are indeed businesses and should be treated by the government as such. If the fanciful world of Dungeons and Dragons can be taxed, religions should be too. YMMV, of course.

58

I don’t often use the term “fucking moron”, even in the Pit, because it’s usually not helpful. But here we’ve got a set of Fucking Moron bookends; Kathleen Parker at one end, and StPauler in the other. Of course, we don’t have Kathleen Parker posting here to defend her views, but I’ve got a hunch she’d be just as impervious to logic as her distorted twin at the other end of the spectrum. (Sorry for mixing metaphors.)

Is it possible that we have a new champion to take Lekatt’s place (although with a different bugbear)?

59

Okay, anyone who equates religions with Dungeons and Dragons is so violently biased against the very notion of religion that nothing productive can come from this discussion.

I just hope how much damage you do to the cause of gay rights by giving substance to the fears of the right wing – providing them with evidence that there are gays who want to use gay rights to overturn the entire order of society. You’re just making equality that much harder to achieve.

I want liberty for everyone. Freedom should extend as far as possible, in all directions, so long as no one is harmed. I’d think a member of a persecuted minority would be the first to sign on to such a notion. I guess not.

You don’t want equality. You want revenge.

60

I totally agree with that part , Daniel. I think all of this would be resolved if marriage was stricken from the books and replaced by the secular “civil unions”. I’m also opining that any authority to marry by churches per the states be removed should the churches refuse to marry based on protected classes.

Who’s hurt by this? Who’s harmed by this? Sorry if I don’t want to give any legal powers to a bigoted organization. If a state makes it legal for gay people to marry and it has authorized its churches to marry, then, in my opinion, the churches become employees for the public for the purpose of marriage and as such have to abide by the legal duties not to discriminate based on classes regardless of their “convictions”. If they can’t, then they shouldn’t have the power to create these legal proceedings for anyone. Back to the question, “who’s hurt by this?” My answer, whoever’s hurt by discrimination when it’s allowed by anyone with said legal authority.