Comments

1
Sorry, but that email struck me as pretentious. This person in no way was actually considering voting for same-sex marriage. The letter is a pretense. The red flag was the whole "attacking Christians" thing. It's not libertarians spreading the lie that the Liberals want to force churches to do anything. It's always been the religious right and their media.
2
i would prefer if churches paid taxes.

nicely written, btw.
3
The "Catholics refuse to marry straight people all the time" argument is not just a rhetorical device. A friend of mine, a lifelong Catholic, married for the first time at 40. Her fiance was divorced, so the church refused to marry them -- sad, because she really wanted to be married in the church.
4
This is a common smoke and mirrors argument that I consistently deal with, especially in Utah when they talk about why the Mormons were right about aggressively funding Prop 8.

You see, Blacks were unable to hold the priesthood in the Mormon church, and then the government stepped in and said "If you keep that shit up, we will revoke your tax exempt status."

And so the church now allows blacks to hold the priesthood. They fear the government will do the same thing about gay marriage. In fact, it was one of the major reasons so many Mormons supported Prop 8. I was told, "I would've supported same sex marriage if it didn't force the LDS church to allow gays to temple marry."

They make this argument and then wonder why I'm so mean to them...you know, by calling them bigots at times.
5
Yeah, the message of this letter, very clearly, was, "You see? Totally rational people who had orginally planned on supporting marriage equality can--simply through the power of deductive reasoning and without negative input from fundamentalists--arrive at the conclusion that to support marriage equality would mean stripping the churches of their rights. Therefore it's simply not worth it to indulge your 'lifestyle choice.'"

You sly, anti-gay dog, you.
6
My parents couldn't be married in a Catholic church or Catholic ceremony because my father had been previously divorced. They got married somewhere else. Saying that legalizing gay marriage will force religious groups into betraying their principles or in any way erode religious liberty is a giant straw man.

Also, as Dan mentions, there are churches--Christian and otherwise--that marry gay couples in ceremonies that are recognized by the congregation, if not by the government. Several of them are operating in my town, in a very red state. So essentially, the state is saying we recognize SOME Christian denominations but not others---now remind me whose right's are in danger?
8
That's what really gets my goat about religion. They are never satisfied to tell their followers what to do, they think they can tell everyone else what to do. Don't like gay marriage? Don't get one. Don't like abortion? Don't get one. Nobody's forcing you to. But that's never enough for them.
7
Something so sweet about a polite response to a moronic question. I think that Emmy's got someone in a good mood...
9
dan i haven't read your answer, but 5 years ago i asked a good friend who is an episcoplian minister ( i'm a baptist ) to bless and offciate our union. he told me he wasn't sure he could, he wasn't sure where his church stood on the issue, he might not be allowed he told me that he would love to take that journey with me , but he didn't know where he would end up. he thought he might be in danger of losing his rural parrish. he told me a great deal of things.. and they were all about him. nothing about blessing our journey. never offered so much as a prayer for us. at the end of his long lists of misgivings and doubts, i told him' no i've changed my mind. thanks, but 'no i don't have an affinity for your difficult moral and spiritual dilemma.' i then found another altar, another church - all pilgrim's christian church on the corner of broadway and republican- and another reverend.. it was a beautiful day.
oh .. and my priest friend managed to attend he was very very embarrassed that he had stood at the wrong side of what was so what was now so obviously right for us.
10
We had to just through hoops to get married in our church even though we were both registered members.

But I agreed with the church; want to get married in a beautiful building? Ours is available. Are you ONLY using this building because it's beautiful but otherwise has no meaning to you? Then no.

Do people really think that every nearly church is forced by law to perform ceremonies for them?
11
What @2 said.
Churches should pay taxes.
12
@1 -- I think you might be underestimating the sheer dumbness of a lot of people whose hearts are in the right place but whose minds aren't very developed (see comment 4). They're like "but my church told me they'll be forced to perform gay marriages, and if my church said it, it must be true, right?"

(Not to mention the people who use this stance as a beard for "I hate gay people and will never support gay marriage because it's gay.")
13
I don't see how anyone can fail to understand the simplest argument: Denying ME the right to a same-sex marriage because YOU are Catholic is like a Jewish person denying YOU the right to a ham sandwich. How would you like that? You wouldn't. (So shut the fuck up.)
14
"Altar" is often used colloquially* to mean the place or even just time of marriage. I have used it myself when referring to non-religious weddings.

It might also help to know that a mandate telling a religion what they must** do is certainly unconstitutional. We on the left understand that as much as those on the right. No intelligent liberal would want to include something so clearly unconstitutional in a law he or she was crafting because we would want to law to stand. Writing laws that are wholly or partially unconstitutional on their face is not a winning strategy and we know it.

* I can't believe I spelled that correctly on the first try

** This is as distinct from forbidding certain practices on otherwise neutral grounds. This is how polygamy got outlawed and how Rastafarians are denied their pot. This area of the law doesn't make just tons of sense though.

I am a lawyer who took a class on religious freedom in law school with a lawyer who practiced in the field and it doesn't make a lot of sense to me either. It has a lot in common with pornography law in that judges would just as soon stay away from it and definitions are squishy and hard to pin down.

What you can count on though is that no judge is going to mandate the content of a religious ritual and any judge who sees a law which tries to mandate the content of a religious ritual will strike it down. Legislators know this and those who are serious about their laws actually accomplishing something aren't going to tangle with this reality.
15
I am going to steal that right/rite distinction. Love it.
16
Concern troll is very concerned... and Dan fell for it. But good response, Dan.
17
my parents were refused a Catholic marriage. Dad was no Catholic, mother was from a Catholic family (her adopted family), but she was not an active member, aslo mother was pregnant, and she had a kid as a teen that was put up for adoption.
18
I absolutely LOVE the pork and martini comparison. Thanks for that, Dan!
19
Shorter answer: "to stand at the alter" is a common idiom in American English that means "to get married."
20

Washington House Rep Joe Fain (R-47) added wording to the WA ME bill saying that religious groups would not be "forced" to change their beliefs about who and how people marry.

This helped kick it over with the needed votes for passage.
21
even if some disagree with my lifestyle choices?

Really? Were back to "it's a choice" again?

22
There have been a couple of recent, well-publicized incidences of churches disapproving of straight relationships on the basis of race and if I'm not mistaken, their positions were reprehensible, but not against the law. Churches that refuse to marry same-sex couples will surely be increasingly tagged as intolerant, and there may be societal consequences, but not legal ones.
23
And given some of your unfortunate rants, Dan, and knowing how this game is played, I suddenly realized legalizing same-sex marriage will create a legal wedge for people like you to attack churches directly rather than taking this new right and using it to create happiness in your own life.
Uh ... I'm going to call it a fake, though it's a good one, trying to squeeze in the desire to vote in favour with the exception of this teensy problem that turns out to be a huge one, based on the sudden pearl clutching fears despite knowing the protections that are written into the law regarding not being forced to marry anyone, opposite or same sex.

Well, that, and those unfortunate words "lifestyle choices". Anyone who would still use those two words in this century and decade is not a supporter, just a practising pretender.
24
So this is like a Santorum-libertarian then? Or a Huckabee-libertarian?
Because only by protecting government-subsidized institutions from individuals can we safeguard liberty.
25
Excellent answer on Dan's part. Just one more point: when interracial marriages were declared constitutionally protected in Loving v. Virginia, were churches forced to perform them? The answer, of course, is no. To this day, churches are free to refuse to perform interracial marriages--very, very few actually do refuse, of course, but they still legally could. So it's all the more absurd to think that same-sex marriages would ever be required.
26
I’ve always found the “choice” argument from religious folk strange, since the argument is that its OK to discriminate as long as the reason is something some person chooses, because while its very true that no one chooses to be Gay, a person DOES choose their religion, so in short being Gay is not a lifestyle choice, but being Catholic (or Moslem, Hindu, or what have you) is…
27
Every word in her speech was carefully chosen. [...]. But she said something to the effect of “stand before the altar with whomever we love.”

Couldn't the letter writer have recorded her words more carefully? "to the effect of" is somewhat nebulous here.
28
@26, except Jews, Jews don't choose their religion. They have it guilted deeply into them from birth. :D
29
@26 - It depends on whether we're talking about belief or observance. One certainly chooses what one observes or practices, but I'm not particularly convinced that one chooses what one "believes" so far as we take the word "believe" to mean "to hold a posit to be true," which is how it's typically defined in philosophy. I cannot "choose" to believe that I am made of cheese; in the same way, one who sees the universe as created--or, conversely, one who sees the universe as arising solely through undirected natural processes--does not choose that belief, though she certainly may choose how she is to act (or not act) in light of that belief, or what epistemic threads he will follow from that hypothesis.

For all that, I think arguments from choice represent a (perhaps subconscious) dodge, a way of avoiding admitting, even to oneself, that one is simply attempting to legislate according to subjective moral findings, which are, themselves, borne of personal revulsion and merely justified by religious doctrine in which one holds non-chosen belief and to which one offers fully volitional active fealty.
31
@9: as someone who has seen pictures of riz and rob's wedding, it was indeed a beautiful day, and totally loaded with love. they married at a church that has been performing commitment ceremonies since 1992 and belongs to a denomination that was the first to ordain gay and lesbian ministers.
32
Why aren't churches taxed? If they were non-profits that used all their money on charitable works, that might make sense. As it stands, they use their money to influence legislation, buy property and invest. I should start a church.
33
Wow. A legit question from someone who's actually thinking about the issue. It's a good day for faith in humanity.

It's as it should be: Religious institutions should have full discretion over what religious rituals to perform.
34
Three words: for fucks sake.
36
@4
I can’t tell - do YOU believe this claim of the tax exempt status revocation threat?

Just as this LW seems to be fishing for arguments to, say, prepare election rebuttals or use the statements later in political propaganda, I imagine that this “LDS being strong-armed by the feds” claim is a myth used to justify the church’s involvement, and position, in political battles like Prop 8.

Try clearing the smoke, instead of resorting to ad hominem attacks. As already noted, the case in point: interracial, heterosexual couples with a legal right to marry regularly are denied ceremonies in churches – as recent as this year – not just in the south – and with no governmental interference.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=96577&…

Ask: Where is there credible evidence of this previous federal threat? Why would the LDS church abandon a court fight to solidify its religious position and freedom of beliefs – when there was nothing more to lose and everything to gain? If the feds’ purported demand was legal and that effective, why don’t women have equal positioning in the LDS (or catholic) church?

I target this because there is a significant LDS population in Eastern Washington. It’s hard to believe that it will be idle on R74, especially when it has a member in the presidential race.

@Mr. Savage, very well played.
37
Because my mother was Catholic and my father Protestant, they were refused a Catholic Church wedding.

And in order for my mother not to be thrown out of the church herself, my father had to sign a contract stipulating that any children would be raised Catholic.

Granted, this was over 60 years ago, but interesting that not much has changed since.
38
This would all be much clearer if the state didn't deputize religious clergy to sign marriage licenses. Other countries (godless European ones, granted) do not allow clergy to officiate for state (civil) marriages. You get a religious ceremony at a church; you get a marriage license at a government office, who signs the thing and records it.
Simple. But never in the USA.
39
I think this could be a concern troll, but I also think a lot of people who are uncomfortable with same-sex marriage are looking for reasons to vote against it that confirm their discomfort without being hateful. It's important to explain why those reasons don't make sense so that they have to make a direct choice to be hateful or tolerant. Put in those terms, without a weasely out, and many people will do the right thing who wouldn't otherwise.

I'd also like to add my two cents on Catholic policies toward opposite-sex marriage. My grandmother had an early first marriage and divorced before any children were born. The Catholic Church refused to acknowledge her divorce much less any future marriage. So she married my Lutheran-but-actually agnostic grandfather, and my Dad ended up being an altar boy at St. Mark's Episcopal Church in Seattle.
40
Don't worry, none of us want to get married in a church that doesn't accept us. You're safe.
41
I'm with the people who are questioning this letter's sincerity.

I'm having a hard time believing that this person was alllllll set to vote in favor of gay marriage in Washington State, except then Michelle Obama used the words "stand before the altar" and SUDDENLY they therefore realized that R-74 is nothing more than a nefarious plan by the gays to FORCE churches to do their queer bidding!!

Even if I accept the existence of people too stupid to realize that there exist religions other than homophobic sects of Christianity, the premise of this letter is still unrealistic.

I think this is just another run-of-the-mill homophobe making a feeble attempt to goad Dan into "admitting" that he thinks churches should be forced to marry gays.
42
Don’t like Catholic stands on birth control? Enroll at one of their colleges then go after them to change their rules for you instead of picking a college that agrees with you.


This is pretty clearly bullshit. Students will go to the best college that will admit them. There's no conspiracy to destroy the Catholic church.

What a fucking fraud.
43
My mom's family was Episcopalian and my dad's family was Catholic. The Catholic priest refused to marry them unless mom converted. Mom refused, so they ended up getting married in the Episcopal church, which caused a huge rift in the family.

This kind of thing is actually quite common. I can think of several friends and relatives who were refused by one church or another, and had to change plans for where they got married.

R-74 only changes the laws for a civil marriage license. The churches will be free to continue to set whatever kind of rules they want for their church's religious marriage ceremonies, no matter how ridiculous I might think they are. Just as they have for centuries.
44
By the way, not only divorced-not-annulled Catholic, or "living in sin" Catholics (i.e. anything that might cause "scandel"), but this is also a big issue for Jewish people. They are more open-minded in Seattle, where Jewish people are such a minority, but a friend of mine (from Seattle) who now lives in New York City, marrying a Jewish man, would not get married by the groom's regular rabbi. They basically did the "rent-a-rabbi" option.
45
I can think of a number of words to describe a question coming from someone who has given the issue so much deep thought, cared enough to write about it at some length, and who knew and used the appropriate title of reference, but which could have been answered by actually reading the language on which people will be voting. Neither "legitimate" or "sincere" makes the short list. But, as Mr Savage has said more than once, even a complete fake will be real to someone. And doubtless there are people being taken in or confused by the rhetoric of the anti-equality side. Well played with regard to tone.

But does one really want the support of such a delicate flower whose entire vote can be overturned because a national figure on the other side of the continent uses a single word which gives DF such an attack of the vapours? Such a person would likely require such cosseting and hand-holding right up to Election Day that one could get half a dozen votes or more with the same expenditure of effort. I'd likely have been tempted to tell DF that, if the issue weren't settled convincingly, that abstaining would be quite sufficient.
46
Worth mentioning: because we're born everywhere across all cultures, many religions / sects do have contingents of folks raised in that tradition who disagree with the leadership about scriptural interpretation. There are gay (and straight!) Muslims who are fighting within that religion for a more inclusive view just as there are gay (and straight!) Catholics who believe that being gay and finding love are not a sin. These discussions usually happen in a different forum than the national debate about specific marriage / employment rights.
47
@23 I will probably be attacked for this, but here goes. I do NOT belive that being gay or straight or bi is a choice. I am bi, I never got a choice. My husband is bi, no choice there either. My mother is straight, I am fairly sure she never chose, ditto one daughter, my son. My youngest daughter is a lesbian and I KNOW she didn't get a choice. Who would choose that at 12 which is when she came out.

That said, "lifestyle" is a choice. Straight people can "choose" to marry or stay single. They can "choose" to marry someone they are sexually attracted to and love, or they can "choose" to marry someone they do not love, or are not sexually attracted to. Gay people can "choose" to stay single, or they can choose to marry someone of the opposite gender who they are not sexually attracted to. What they CANNOT do in most states is "choose" to marry somone of the same gender whom they are actually attracted to. And that is WRONG. Just plain wrong.
48
A real libertarian would vote for the ideology and not worry about how it would be misused. If the writer is pro-gun or anti-regulation, this is a really hypocritical question to ask.
49
I agree with #2. Churches should pay taxes. THey ARE engaging in the political. And to some extent I understand that they have to. But they should be a part of the solution here and not just big hoppers of money.
50
@49 what do you mean by "big hoppers or money"?
51
@49 what do you mean by "big hoppers of money"?
52
How's this for Catholic wedding rules?
My father, who is not a Catholic and never went to church of any kind, has been married TWICE in a Catholic church.
My mother was raised Catholic, so that's how he got through the first time. The second time, God appears to have overlooked how he cheated on wife #1 with wife #2 while wife #1 was dying of cancer. But since wife #1 had died, the Catholics welcomed him back to be married with them a second time.
Talk about getting away with a technicality.
53
@36 sorry it took me so long to notice this. No I don't believe the threat is real because it's difference circumstances.

The LDS church has gone on record to say that the threats of losing their tax exempt status had nothing to do with the coincidental timing of them allowing blacks to hold the priesthood.

The underlying part there is that the church HAD been threatened with the loss of their tax exempt status.

The comparisons we make to this civil rights issue makes people believe it will happen again. It won't. I tell people it won't, but that's what they think. Sorry if I was unclear.
54
Different* dammit
55
@9: I don't know what your Episcopalian priest's friend's situation is, but as a pastor's kid I'm inclined to give ministers the benefit of the doubt if they feel that their denomination wouldn't let them perform a same-sex wedding. It's not because they insufficiently support you or don't respect you but because it's literally their JOB on the line here, and I do think that's asking quite a lot in this tough economy.

One thing that I think that people don't really understand about the way churches run is that, at least with a lot of Protestant denominations, it's not the pastor who has the power to control his or her church; the pastor is employed by the congregation and, as such, they have a lot of power to take away the pastor's livelihood (in the form of his/her job) if the pastor preaches things they don't like. My dad tried to get jobs at more liberal, affirming churches where he could say what he wanted and didn't; he's stuck with this one, and he knows if he were as adamant about his pro-choice, pro-gay-rights views as he is away from the church, he wouldn't have his job anymore. All he can do is make small inroads, and look for a better job that allows him to be more open and honest about what he believes. Meanwhile, my parents are both working multiple jobs to make ends meet, and the church salary he gets is a big part of what has prevented them from such things as losing their house.

I know that, in the event that I marry another woman (because I'm bisexual), he'd happily perform the wedding; I think that's quite a lot to ask him to do for just about anybody else, though. (And luckily, I'm only 22 and not in a committed relationship of any sort right now, so it's not something that's likely to happen in the near future.) I think if my parents are not forced into homelessness by the terrible economic situation where they used to live (and are still trying to sell their house), it would mean more for their ability to support gay rights in the future than if they risk it all on one wedding.
56
ETA: And for the record, I'm personally an agnostic, so while I'd want my dad to perform the ceremony it probably wouldn't be a religious one at his church (a thing he's fine with, as he's always been respectful of my agnosticism - he's, in fact, much happier with it than with my younger sister's conservative fundamentalism, but that's a story for another time). So I don't know whether the congregation would have to know about it and it would affect his job anyway.
57
Anyway, on the main topic: I agree with everyone saying LW's a concern troll. The way he comes up with all these "issues" from one Michelle Obama speech quote sounds way more like someone doing the talking points for an anti-gay org would come up with, than a conclusion any reasonable human being would reach on their own from that quote - which anyone with the reading comprehension level of a fifth-grader would know is an idiom, not a literal statement of how things will happen. Sheesh.

But I don't think it's necessarily bad that Dan responded to it. While most of them probably wouldn't be as stupid as this LW's fake persona, there are people out there who honestly think that forcing churches to marry gays is a real risk of legalizing same-sex marriage, and it's good to have Dan lay down the law on why that's bullshit. As he's said before in responses to fakes, it's not bad to respond to one if it's a question that a real person might have, too.
58
"I can think of a number of words to describe a question coming from someone who has given the issue so much deep thought, cared enough to write about it at some length, and who knew and used the appropriate title of reference, but which could have been answered by actually reading the language on which people will be voting. Neither 'legitimate' or 'sincere' makes the short list."

Yeah, I agree wholeheartedly. In my time canvassing and phone-banking for various political causes and candidates, I've met plenty of the sort of swing voters whose votes can turn on one stupid misconception, or quotation taken out of context. The fact that he even knows the name of the proposed legislation gives him away as a fake from the outset, because the people who can be convinced by such shallow, easily-disprovable bullshit never think (or care enough) to do that even that much research.
59
Really? People really puzzle me. I read this and it the church forcing this on me, if I want to marry a the same sex so what. How does that affect you. Its not about the church its not about gay people its about God. And its so sad because you can see that a lot of people on here seem to be pretty smart. But don't mistake smarts for wisdom. The ten commandments where given so the we can see our sin. But when Jesus came we didn't live by those anymore. We lived by faith and the living God and the blood of His Son. Now we live in faith. So its scary to see a paster here bragging about how foolish he is. He of all people should know to live by faith mean we don't live I. Sin or we are no lo get slave to it. To talk as if it is good is just trying to justify your acts in the world which means nothing in heaven. Do you really thin there will be guys on guys and woman on woman in Gods heaven? Then you go to church and pretend to be a man of God. Lol funny. Sounds like you playing church. And does anyone remember the story of Sodom and how God took his anger out on them? Anybody remember Lot the first caveman. He was a caveman because he built his treasures here on earth. Kinda like all I here here. Now all of you people here who thinks its ok to marry same sex do you know the story of Cain and Able? Cain's offering was refused? Why? We really don't know but whatever it was God gave him a chance to make it right, but he instead didn't believe he needed corrected which turn into something way worse. Hey why don't you come to my house and crap on my couch. Oh its not bothering me? When your actions destroy my home?? How does this not affect me, my children, my family, You meenAmerica is my home and its my comfort too? So if you reading this you know right from wrong in your heart. Earthly pleasures will pass and you will be granted access or denied. If you truly think its ok and you think its cool kissing another guy in public take your actions to a remote island. There you can do as you please and don't have to worry about people telling you what to do and when it rains fire on you you can continue telling your gay lo we how much you love them in hell.
60
Really? People really puzzle me. I read this and it's the church forcing this on me, if I want to marry a the same sex so what. How does that affect you. Its not about the church its not about gay people its about God. And its so sad because you can see that a lot of people on here seem to be pretty smart. But don't mistake smarts for wisdom.

The ten commandments where given so that we can see our sin. But when Jesus came we didn't live by those anymore. We lived by faith and the living God and the blood of His Son. Now we live in faith. So its scary to see a paster here bragging about how foolish he is. He of all people should know to live by faith mean we don't live in Sin or we are no longer slave to sin. To talk as if it is good is just trying to justify your acts in the world which means nothing in heaven.

Do you really think there will be guys on guys and woman on woman in Gods Kingdom? (On earth as it is in heaven)Then you go to church and pretend to be a man of God??? This is a serious matter. If anyone here can quote one passage in the bible where it says its ok to have same sex marriage or same sex, sex I will gladly acknowledge it. But to me and a lot others it Sounds like many gay people are playing church.

You can't call yourself a true disciple if you don't follow Jesus. And so many people forget that a Christian is supposed to be exactly that, a disciple. Believe me I'm not saying I'm better then anyone here I fall short from the standards of Jesus. But its grace that we are saved, and through that grace we must repent. As man, woman and a nation.

What would Jesus say to Peter if he was trying to marry Paul? Sounds crazy huh? And does anyone remember the story of Sodom and how God took his anger out on them? Anybody remember Lot the first caveman. He was a caveman because he built his treasures here on earth. Kinda like all I hear here. Now all of you people here who thinks its ok to marry same sex do you know the story of Cain and Able? Cain's offering was refused? Why? We really don't know. But whatever it was, God gave him a chance to make it right, but he instead didn't believe he needed corrected which turn into something way worse.

Hey why don't you come to my house and crap on my couch. Oh its not bothering me? When your actions destroy my home?? How does this not affect me, my children, my family, You mean America is my home and its my comfort too? You mean when God takes his anger out on our nation it has nothing to do with you and our many sins? You mean high gas prices, a weak dollar, weak school system, people killing our kids at school, at the movies, in the mall. You mean people flying planes into our buildings and more guns and drugs flooding our streets then any other country isn't a sign that the one and only living God is not angry. And what you do don't affect me?

So if you reading this repent you know right from wrong in your heart. True Christians love you either way. But love is not love without truth, discipline brotherhood. I could not call my self a Christian and not tell you what God loves. Earthly pleasures will pass and you will be granted access or denied.

But if your heart is hard and you are unwilling to hear or If you truly think its ok to have sex with the same sex then please, take your actions to a remote island. We will call it Sin Island. There you can do as you please and don't have to worry about people telling you what to do, or how to do it. And when it rains fire it will affect Sin Island not the great Nation built on Godly principles. God please forgive them for there sin for they know not what they do.
61
In Hawaii, churches are forced to have same sex weddings. No particular person is forced to perform the weddings, however, they have to allow it in their church. So you see, the argument is over. Churches can and will be forced.

http://www.nomblog.com/17555/
62
What's this I hear? Homosexual marriage is the new proposal? 135 years with Jefferson’s Establishment Clause and this is the extent of our social advancements? How far have we advanced from the separation of church and state with the institution of marriage (which is just as much a personal interpretation of a relationship as any religion)? Have we not yet realized the proposed "solution" will only PERPETUATE the complication it aims to eliminate? Assuming of course, the underlying motive (conscious or not) is aimed at extending an aspect of freedom to all, rather than affording it to some. An admirable utilitarian solution-which requires the humility of both sides of the disagreement-would be to petition for marriage as a government recognized (nay! regulated) institution to be abandoned altogether: a solution for dispute, documented back to the reign of King Solomon (see 1 Kings 3:16-28).

The purported dispute between religion and civil liberty would vanish if marriage as an institution was nullified; moreover, taxation would be made simpler. Disappointment would be less frequent, since those who happen to be consistently involved in a romantic relationship would no longer feel the pressure to enter into a legally binding engagement. And the genuine will be able to prove their love through faithfulness.

While the advocates for heterosexual marriage have bought into the dogma that there is an intrinsic value beyond the interpretation of relationships, the advocates for homosexual marriage are irritated by the problem of unequal treatment (and rightfully so). Nevertheless, the heterosexual advocates (those who would wish to distinguish themselves as "Moral/Righteous") have have fooled the rest into thinking the American institution of marriage is a genuine problem.
63
What's this I hear? Homosexual marriage is the new proposal? 135 years with Jefferson’s Establishment Clause and this is the extent of our social advancements? How far have we advanced from the separation of church and state with the institution of marriage (which is just as much a personal interpretation of a relationship as any religion)? Have we not yet realized the proposed "solution" will only PERPETUATE the complication it aims to eliminate? Assuming of course, the underlying motive (conscious or not) is aimed at extending an aspect of freedom to all, rather than affording it to some. An admirable utilitarian solution-which requires the humility of both sides of the disagreement-would be to petition for marriage as a government recognized (nay! regulated) institution to be abandoned altogether: a solution for dispute, documented back to the reign of King Solomon (see 1 Kings 3:16-28).

The purported dispute between religion and civil liberty would vanish if marriage as an institution was nullified; moreover, taxation would be made simpler. Disappointment would be less frequent, since those who happen to be consistently involved in a romantic relationship would no longer feel the pressure to enter into a legally binding engagement. And the genuine will be able to prove their love through faithfulness.

While the advocates for heterosexual marriage have bought into the dogma that there is an intrinsic value beyond the interpretation of relationships, the advocates for homosexual marriage are irritated by the problem of unequal treatment (and rightfully so). Nevertheless, the heterosexual advocates (those who would wish to distinguish themselves as "Moral/Righteous") have have fooled the rest into thinking the American institution of marriage is a genuine problem.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.