June 25, 2011

Gay marriage in New York State is "a BFD because a Republican-led State Senate passed this law."

Writes Andrew Sullivan:
Going outside traditional Democratic party lobbies to appeal to those on the other side who are open to our arguments was essential.... Governor Cuomo, by all accounts was magnificent at the politics and Mayor Bloomberg and critical Republicans and Democrats and all factions and groups in the gay movement - even HRC! - pulled together. That the most passionate opponent was a Democrat and the most powerful were Republicans helps scramble the attempt by the Christianist right to coopt conservatism for their reactionary theology.

It's a BFD because it also insists on maximal religious liberty for those who conscientiously oppose marriage equality. A gay rights movement that seeks to restrict any religious freedom is not worthy of the name. And it makes me glad that we largely avoided anything that looks like that strategy, and that last-minute negotiations were flexible enough to strengthen the protections for religious groups, churches, mosques, synagogues and the like. The gay rights movement is about expanding the boundaries of human freedom - and that must include religious freedom if it is to mean anything....
I don't know the details about the religious freedom protection in the bill, but I agree with Sullivan that's extremely important. I put up a quick post last night when the NY vote came in, and I read the comments this morning and saw a lot of fretting about government interference with religion. (For example, what happened to Catholic Charities in Massachusetts.)

160 comments:

Shouting Thomas said...

The goofball left, represented by Sullivan's steroid fueled ravings, is so out of touch with the reality of traditional Christians in America.

I'll live with the legislature's decision.

The Christianist right! Jesus, Sullivan is a moron.

Do you know any practicing evangelicals, Althouse? You must not, if you keep giving credence to morons like Sullivan. He's living in a steroid induced fantasy world. Living on the coast in the middle of the nutjob left doesn't help either.

Ann Althouse said...

"Do you know any practicing evangelicals, Althouse?"

Yes.

MnMark said...

What about the freedom of, say, a wedding photographer who finds homosexual "marriage" repulsive and refuses a homosexual pair's request to photograph their wedding? Will his freedom not to be involved with this abomination be respected? Or any of the other ways people interact besides religion? Will those of us who find this whole homosexual movement to force the rest of us in society to treat it as if it was no different than heterosexuality have our freedom respected?

The pro-homosexual "marriage" group argues that it doesn't hurt anyone else if homosexuals are left alone to "marry". But the goal of the homosexual movement is not to be left alone. It's for society to be changed so that homosexuals can feel like their sexual behavior is just as normal as heterosexual behavior. And that will require that people who find it repulsive and abnormal be compelled to accept it.

This religious exception will be temporary. They will find that a lot of people are claiming a religious reason for wanting nothing to do with homosexual "marriage", and then they will have to get into a whole bunch of legal stuff about when someone is *really* refusing to involve themselves with homosexuals for religious reasons and when it's just because they're an evil bigot whose freedom doesn't need to be respected. And then, when they can, they will scrap the religious exception.

I feel most sorry for the innocent children who will be adopted into these perverted situations and be indoctrinated that they are wrong to feel uncomfortable that they have no mother or no father, that they SHOULD feel happy to have a pair of homosexuals as parent figures instead of what every child wants and needs, which is a mother and father.

Shouting Thomas said...

The gay rights movement is about expanding the boundaries of human freedom...

You see, Althouse, I'd like to believe this, but I don't.

First, I know too many of the people who are behind this political agenda. I live in the midst of them. Expanding the boundaries of human freedom is really not what they are about. Explaining what they are really about would take a book length post, so I'm not going to do it.

Second, tradition exists for a reason. This issue is one humans have confronted for thousands of years. Humans didn't make the decisions they made regarding homosexuals for no reason. The reasons are quite complex, and once again would require a book length post to discuss.

I'll hope that the outcome is expanding the boundaries of human freedom. But, I have my doubts that that is what will actually happen.

Carol said...

The next move for the gay lobby is to convince the American bishops that gay marriage isn't contrary to canon law. Wait for it.

Dad29 said...

The law has an explicit "non-severability" clause. Thus, if ANY part is found un-Constitutional by any competent jurisdiction, the whole law goes *boom*

NYTNewYorker said...

Trumpets Blaring! "Republican Led State Senate"!

We don't have Republicans in New York, we have right wing democrats dressed as Republicans.

It's the only way to get elected in this political cesspool state and it always has been.

Moose said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
rhhardin said...

I'd predict that marriage will take on two meanings.

The original will protect itself by context.

You get a stable word where there's an interest and use for it.

New jokes will be possible.

rhhardin said...

What to wear to the wedding is the first topic.

You have to be so careful with plaids.

Moose said...

For sometime now, I've argued that SSM trivialized marriage. Now I see that marriage is now so trivial as to be open to anyone, anywhere to anything. Pretty much kills that as an "institution".

purplepenquin said...

Everything that MnMark said about gay marriage was already said when interracial marriage was legalized in America. People found (still find?)that to be "repulsive and abnormal." Even today comments (usually whispered) are made about how it isn't proper for children to be "indoctrinated" into thinking that inter-racial marriages are acceptable.

The more things change, the more they stay the same...eh?

Pogo said...

"Fretting"?

Sheesh.

Christopher said...

And we have our first "gays have it as bad as blacks" post.

While it is inevitable that someone will make the comparison I'd been hoping we'd hold off for a bit on comparing the fundamental alteration of a millennia old institution to Jim Crow.

Shouting Thomas said...

@purplepenguin

That entire comment was just your fantasies.

You're talking to the voices in your head.

Here's one of the great ironies of the liberal bullshit. The intellectuals at the top of the liberal heap, which is intellectual Jews, do precisely what liberals always condemn... they tell their children to marry other Jews.

I'm not just making this up in response to the voices in my head.

When I was younger I dated Jewish girls. Their parents, who were always hyper-liberal for everybody else, told their daughters:

Screw around with the gentiles, but don't marry them. Marry a nice Jewish boy.

Skipper50 said...

I suspect the religious freedom "guarantees" in the law will gradually evaporate by court decisions and perhaps legislative amendments over time, and NY will end up like Canada, litigating the criminality of hate crimes by churches.

Pogo said...

New York, needlessly provoking Muslim violence.

MayBee said...

Does the gay rights movement fight for the right to collective bargaining?

Sloanasaurus said...

Its also important that the legislature passed it and not some activist judge. Now the NY legislature has to figure out why so many are unmarried?

boris said...

The people most interested in mondernizing traditional customs seem to be the ones least interested in a diversity of views about what they mean for society.

If there is a downside to replacing the traditional meaning of marriage (other than yet another molehill for pundits to make a mountain out of) it will be young men being less interested in getting married.

Alex said...

I definitely see churches being forced to perform gay marriages. Believe me, it's coming in the name of "stamping out hate".

Michael said...

It is still not marriage.

The state can sanction it, the state can make the Pope perform it, the state can bake and sell wedding cakes, the church can perform ceremonies, the state can throw bridal showers, the state can make the children be bridesmaids and bridegrooms and flower girls and boys. The couple can wear rings and adopt children and hire surrogates. They can join the PTA and coach. They can divorce and sue for alimony. They can bicker and fight.

It is still not marriage. And all the king's horses and all the king's men will not make it so. And gay people know that.

Alex said...

It is still not marriage.

It is if most people say it's so.

Alex said...

NY is a very blue state. This is not the domino that will cause the rest to fall. IF gay marriage passes in say Ohio, Missouri then the game is up.

Chuck66 said...

There was a late night discussion on your blog about this. Basically the gay crowd here, while very polite, gave a big FU to religous institutions. Saying homosexual rights trumps religous civil rights.

traditionalguy said...

Expanding liberty is a basic pro-life stance, because life in a safe community/family must precede actual liberty. The Gays need that safe community too. The fear among traditional evangelicals has been that in this process of extending the community's protection to gay practices, they are losing a basic liberty to practice a sola scriptura protestant religion in The New world unless they agree to renounce its teachings that Gay practices are not safe for the community. My hope is that all will show forbearance and not allow the new homosexual rights to become a wedge issue. Frankly, the issue was being used as an Anti-Christian standard. Stay tuned.

Jason said...

"How many legs does a dog have, if you call a tail a leg? Four! Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg."

--Abraham Lincoln

edutcher said...

Oh, brother. Andy says it, so it must be true.

NYTNewYourker is right. They bought off 4 RINOs, so it's a BFD.

Get yourself a life, Andy.

boris said...

"It is if most people say it's so"

That's one possibility. Another is that the traditional concept has been bred into the population just as "fetch" was bred into dogs.

Chuck66 said...

Actually interracial marriage have always been accepted by world society. Moses was married to woman of color. In the late 1800 and early 1900s, some racist societies passed many laws restricting African-American rights, including the right to marry a white person. But overall, interracial marriage has not been a problem in the last 3000 years.

Chuck66 said...

Most of us on the right thought the polygamy was the next cause for the left. But early info from big liberal colleges and other progressives show that doing away with genders is next on tbeir agenda. There will be no such thing as men or women. You are what ever you say you are that day, and society will be forced to comply.

Carol_Herman said...

If I had to guess, there's more sex in a gay union than there is in heterosexual ones.

I say this because monogamy is highly overrated.

And, I can remember my mom telling me when I was young, that passion tends to fly the coop after about two years.

Couples really gotta find things other than sexual activity, to keep them united.

And, one of the stupidest mistakes a woman can make is to be married. And, to get jealous if her husband so much as talks to another female.

My dad used to say that when he heard a husband say "honey." Or "deary." It just meant he didn't want to be caught calling out his girlfriend's name.

If marriages worked better, then, perhaps, everyone should get to dabble.

But if you really want to be loved, get a dog.

Pogo said...

Another example of leftists with an intellectually masterful elaboration of a fundamental misconception, consequences be damned.

Alex said...

Carol - you sound awfully bitter.

Phil 3:14 said...

Well I missed the extended thread discussion from last night. I was on a date night with my wife of 31 years.

It was a good discussion with the usual "sides" taken.

And the question regarding the Professor's marriage was an interesting one for me (not because I'm curious about the Professor's personal life.) Because...

-designating your coupling as "married" is progressively less popular
-coupling and child rearing are less and less synonymous with marriage
-with the right to marry will there be a steady growth in same sex marriage or a brief blip in the numbers than a more stagnant trend? This graph from Denmark would suggest that ultimately lesbian couples have a persistent, growing interest in marriage but male homosexual couples, not so much.
-and as I've mentioned before when you go the civil union route (marriage-lite) ultimately many more heterosexual couples chose that arrangement, theoretically created for homosexual couples.

So these items lead me to wonder:
-What is the meaning of marriage beyond what benefit(s) the state endows to it?
-What is the state's interest in coupling and how does that relate to the states interest in procreation and child rearing?
-Why should those who for religious (or other) reasons have a different view of "what makes a marriage" care about what the state says a marriage is?
-Is the demise of marriage (if that's what's slowly happening) good or bad for women? for men? for children?

(PS: And to use ST's phrase, I'm a practicing Evangelical)

boris said...

"What is the state's interest in coupling and how does that relate to the states interest in procreation and child rearing?"

I'd phrase that differently ... What is the people's interest in state sponsorship of coupling,
procreation and child rearing?

Movies and literature, from "The Parent Trap" to "Cinderella" indicate that people in this culture consider being raised by both biological parents to be what children want and what's best for them. It seems reasonable to say that society places some value on that situation.

Fr Martin Fox said...

Purplepenquin said...

Everything that MnMark said about gay marriage was already said when interracial marriage was legalized in America. People found (still find?)that to be "repulsive and abnormal." Even today comments (usually whispered) are made about how it isn't proper for children to be "indoctrinated" into thinking that inter-racial marriages are acceptable.

Gee what a dumb argument.

Marriage isn't a matter of feelings or opinions, it's a concrete thing deriving from human identity.

It is not a religious thing. Before Jesus was born, marriage was male-female. Before Moses saw the burning bush, marriage was male-female. Cultures that never heard of either Jesus or Moses knew this. Marriage is what it is not because any religion says so, but because it arises from human experience.

So the no-gay-marriage answer is not the same as no-mixed-race-marriage.

For one thing, folks who disapproved of mixed-race marriage don't claim that such a marriage is a sham; it's the fact that it really is marriage--i.e., it can, and likely will, yield children--is precisely why they don't like it!

Folks who reject this move do so because it's a sham. Two people of the same sex cannot enter into marriage. Of course, I don't object all that much if people play pretend on their own; but that isn't what's going on here.

hombre said...

But if you really want to be loved, get a dog.

I have a dog and a wife. I much prefer the wife, particularly when she bites me.

Fr Martin Fox said...

The Archbishop of New York made a useful point, seldom made:

What gives the state of New York the right to do this?

It's one thing for the state to regulate something; it's another for it to claim the right to define what that thing is.

Marriage was not invented by government; it would exist even if government did not. But it is necessary to regulate it for good order.

If government has the power to determine what marriage is--which is the power asserted by this action--where does this lead?

Also, doesn't this create a favorable setting for a legal challenge against the law mandating marriage be monogamous?

While legal recognition of marriage as heterosexual is rooted in human nature itself, the legal restraint on multiple partners is not. That actually is a religious value, arising from Christianity. Muslims do not hold to a monogamous definition of marriage, for example.

For those who like to sue, does the state moving from a natural-law understanding of marriage to a positivistic one ("it is whatever we have the votes to say it is"), doesn't this make a constitutional challenge to this purely arbitrary re-definition of marriage much more promising--and justifiable?

Phil 3:14 said...

chuck said:
There was a late night discussion on your blog about this. Basically the gay crowd here, while very polite, gave a big FU to religous institutions. Saying homosexual rights trumps religous civil rights.

I read the entire thread this morning and I didn't see "a big FU" in there. I saw many, gay and otherwise (I'm guessing here folks) applaud the bill. I certainly noted one of our gay regulars, Palladian, having a decidedly different viewpoint.

Phil 3:14 said...

And as for Mr. Sullivan, when one uses the term "Christianist" you lose me from the get go.

traditionalguy said...

Fr Fox...As food for thought, did you see the story where the French government passed a dispensation to legally approve of a dead man's fiance being declared to be his wedded wife, with a ceremony and all of that. That is touching, as is the heart throbs from desperate gay lovers, but can "marriage" be said to take place between a woman and a dead man?

Peter Hoh said...

Churches are currently free to determine whom they will marry. I see nothing that will change this, despite all the hypothetical hand wringing.

The traditional definition of marriage includes the idea of one man, one woman, for life.

Once the "for life" part became optional, subject to the whim of one party to the marriage, marriage was redefined.

More here.

Peter Hoh said...

Fr Martin Fox, by what means did the state determine that divorced persons were free to remarry, contrary to the teachings of your church?

As for the monogamous nature of marriage, I am not aware of any state that requires married couples to be monogamous.

Church doctrine and natural law are not the same as civil law, and haven't been for a long time.

Peter Hoh said...

Fr Martin Fox, according to you, can two people, previously married to other people, enter into a real marriage?

If I were to divorce my wife and marry my mistress, would my second marriage count as a real marriage?

Trooper York said...

The religious protections will be repealed.

If you don't think so you are fooling yourself.

Titus said...

I had that same "Read My Lips" shirt that the guy in Long Time Companion had on in the video Sullivan linked.

I wore it home to Wisconsin once and my mother was mortified.

I never wore it again.

I purchased it in Ptown and thought it was so cool. Sad.

Kirby Olson said...

Love is endlessly elastic. "I love these shoes!"

"Then why don't you marry them!"

"I can't get them to say, 'I do.'"

The manufacturer can work on that.

Fr Martin Fox said...

Traditionalguy said...

Fr Fox...As food for thought, did you see the story where the French government passed a dispensation to legally approve of a dead man's fiance being declared to be his wedded wife, with a ceremony and all of that. That is touching, as is the heart throbs from desperate gay lovers, but can "marriage" be said to take place between a woman and a dead man?

I did see that; weird.

I can, however, see a kernel of a valid point beneath all that weirdness, and it would be this: not that someone can legally marry a corpse; but that someone could seek recognition of a marriage having been real in the past, but not publicly recognized.

ic said...

Wait till Obama slam a $200,000 per person or $250,000 per married couple "millionaire" tax on their incomes.

Phil 3:14 said...

Peter;
from the Fukayama piece:
people will return to religion not necessarily because they accept the truth of revelation but precisely because the absence of community and the transience of social ties in the secular world make them hungry for ritual and cultural tradition. They will help the poor or their neighbors not necessarily because doctrine tells them they must but rather because they want to serve their communities and find that faith-based organizations are the most effective means of doing so. They will repeat ancient prayers and re-enact age-old rituals not because they believe that they were handed down by God but rather because they want their children to have the proper values, and because they want to enjoy the comfort and the sense of shared experience that ritual brings. In this sense they will not be taking religion seriously on its own terms but will use religion as a language with which to express their moral beliefs.

Reminds me of this

And as sung by Jon Foreman

(and all of this discussion re: what the laws says vs what God's word says puts these passages from Paul into focus.

This is hard work AND its more than ritual and good deeds)

Fr Martin Fox said...

Peter Hoh said...

Fr Martin Fox, by what means did the state determine that divorced persons were free to remarry, contrary to the teachings of your church?

I don't recall asking the state to match its regulation of marriage to all the teachings of my church. Can you cite where I said such a thing?

I said very pointedly that marriage is a union of a man and a woman as matter of universal human experience. If there were no Catholic Church, if 100% of all human beings agreed that God did not exist, because we'd somehow proved that absolutely...then nothing in my assertion about what marriage is would be undermined. I have not made the argument as a matter of religious truth.

Peter Hoh said...

Fr Martin Fox, according to you, can two people, previously married to other people, enter into a real marriage?

If I were to divorce my wife and marry my mistress, would my second marriage count as a real marriage?


Are you asking me if it's a "real" marriage under natural law or under church law?

Michael said...

Alex: "It is still not marriage."

"It is if most people say it's so"

We can all agree that water is dry. We can write it in the code, change the meaning in every book ever written, abolish the word wet from use, strike it from the dictionaries. But water will be wet and gay marriage will not be marriage.

I am not, by the way, opposed to whatever it is they are doing or hoping to do and they can call it whatever it pleases them to call it and be given whatever rights inure to those men and women who choose to marry. But it will not be marriage.

Alex said...

If you do not have full buy-in to gay marriage and all that other associated stuff you will not be loved by your fashionable liberal neighbors.

Bender said...

Michael --

We have reached that sad point where a large number subscribe to the notion that "reality" may be decreed by arbitrary vote.

But, although there are no doubt many sheep who will mindlessly follow, for those of us who are not sheep, far from gaining societal respect for "same-sex marriage" or "gays" in general, all that is accomplished by actions such as these is to further destroy any vestiges of respect for government that remain.

Fr Martin Fox said...

Bender:

and, if I may add to your point, this only leads to greater conflict between factions in society.

My own brother is one who terms it "bigotry" to say that marriage is a union of man and woman. That was the sentiment expressed by Rep. Barney Franks; it will be expressed by many others in years to come.

This is a path to conflict.

Alex said...

Soon we'll have Canadian/European style "hate speech" laws that will make it illegal to express support for traditional marriage. Next step after that - internment. Gas chambers to follow. Don't tell me I didn't warn ya.

Alex said...

On one hand I can't stand anti-gay bigotry that emanates from right-wing Evangelical circles. On the other, the left-wing gay agenda is not about getting freedom, but about destroying traditional families.

Surely sane people can see this. Surely sane people will scream - STOP THIS.

Alex said...

Take Lady Gaga. Her stated purpose is to convert everyone to gay-dom. She cherishes gays endlessly in her songs and has not one positive thing to say about heterosexuals. FUck she's even stated that there's a gay man inside her just waiting to "bust out". This is America's #1 pop culture icon. Think about that.

Trooper York said...

It is a rule that every Moby has to be a dick?

Alex said...

Also I'd expect gay couples to get priority in adoptions now. After all, it's only fair to redress past discrimination and who cares about the kids anyways? I'm sure growing up with 2 daddies is perfectly "normal".

Trooper York said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
SukieTawdry said...

It's a BFD because it also insists on maximal religious liberty for those who conscientiously oppose marriage equality. A gay rights movement that seeks to restrict any religious freedom is not worthy of the name.

No doubt the Morman activists on behalf of Prop. 8 in California will be surprised to hear this.

Bender said...

The hyperbole is unnecessary.

But there will be plenty of people, indeed there is now, who would play the modern-day Thomas Cromwell, all too happy to institute a persecution against people of good conscience. What these tyrants fail to understand, though, is that not a few of us have the institutional memory of Thomas More, John Fisher, et al.

Trooper York said...

Somehow I don't know if want to rely on the slender reed of Andrew Sullivan's idea of religious tolerance to ensure the protection of religious freedom. Just sayn'

Trooper York said...

I simply don't believe him. Period.

Bender said...

So I have a question for all those who believe in this "law" of "same-sex marriage."

Since you profess to be so pro-marriage, do you now support the vigorous enforcement of adultery laws against those married gays who cheat on their "spouses"?

Alex said...

“Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!”-Isaiah 5:20

That's for all those who think they can redefine terms to suit their whims. God has a very long memory.

Alex said...

Bender - the whole thing's a farce. Marriage is between a man and a woman, PERIOD. The fact we are even having this discussion pisses me off to no end. Since when did we let the freak-show take over our national conversation?

Alex said...

Divine judgment by Yahweh was then passed upon Sodom and Gomorrah along with two other neighboring cities that were completely consumed by fire and brimstone. Neighboring Zoar was the only city to be spared during that day of judgment.[Deut.29:23][Gen.10:19]

My guess is Zoar practiced traditional values and were thusly spared by God's wrath.

Alex said...

The question we must ask ourselves - does society have standards or not? Tell me why we should abandon 1000s of years of tradition? What is the compelling reason?

Chuck66 said...

Alex, I am on your side, but unfortunatly I believe the battle is half way lost. I think now we have to get defensive and protect our institutions and businesses and churches.

The gay crowd has pledged to destroy anyone and anything that doesn't 100% go along with them.

It's going to get nasty.

Peter Hoh said...

Fr Martin Fox, with regard to the New York law, we are talking about civil marriage. The state is not interested in defining what counts as marriage for your church or any other church, any more than the state is interested in determining who is fit to receive communion.

If the argument against same-sex marriage is ground in doctrine, it seems fair to ask that those same standards be applied to remarriage after divorce.

You wrote: "Two people of the same sex cannot enter into marriage."

If you are relying on church doctrine for that statement, then it is also true that two people, at least one of whom has previously divorced a spouse, cannot enter into marriage.

Alex said...

Chuck - The thing is I'm not religious, but the prospect of churches being forced to conduct gay marriages is patently offensive to me. I believe in 100% freedom of association, but I know the left doesn't. But one doesn't need to be religious to understand that marriage is a covenant between a man & woman. No amount of attempted redefinition will change that.

woof said...

The gay crowd has pledged to destroy anyone and anything that doesn't 100% go along with them.

Link ?

Alex said...

The state is not interested in defining what counts as marriage for your church or any other church, any more than the state is interested in determining who is fit to receive communion.

Why not? According to Civil Rights law you are not allowed to discriminate in a public institution like a church. In effect, this will be the official destruction of American religion.

Chuck66 said...

We already have the Boy Scouts banned from public property in many places. At what point does the gay crowd try to get the Catholic church's tax exempt status removed?

Most pro-gay marriage straight people I know are also vicious anti-Catholic bigots, so it only seems natural that this will be their next step.

Alex said...

Lady Gaga wishes everyone was gay

Remember she's the #1 pop culture icon that all the teens listen to. That means 80-90% of current teens are 100% on-board with the radical gay agenda.

Fr Martin Fox said...

Peter Hoh said...

Fr Martin Fox, with regard to the New York law, we are talking about civil marriage. The state is not interested in defining what counts as marriage for your church or any other church, any more than the state is interested in determining who is fit to receive communion.

I've posted twice that I am not making any argument from religious doctrine. If you're not going to respond to the actual points I made--but instead to the points you prefer I made, so they fit your intended replies, then you don't really need me, you can just post the comments you wish I'd make, then respond to those.

If you are interested in responding to what I actually said, it's still available up-thread.

Chuck66 said...

Woof, go to the thread last night. I linked to several cases. A few..

The Indianapolis bakery
The Illinois bed and breakfast
The Albuquerque photgrapher
Catholic Charities
Boy Scouts in California
And there are many more.

Peter Hoh said...

I wrote: If I were to divorce my wife and marry my mistress, would my second marriage count as a real marriage?

Fr Martin Fox: Are you asking me if it's a "real" marriage under natural law or under church law?

By the same standards you applied above when you declared that two people of the same sex can not enter into marriage.

Chuck66 said...

Oh, here is one. There is only on college in Minnesota (that I know of) that doesn't have a pro-gay program. A small religous school outside of New Ulm.

Will the homosexuals allow us to have one post-2ndary school out of....say 25, in the state? Hope. They have declared Jihad on it.

woof said...

Woof, go to the thread last night. I linked to several cases. A few..

Destroy is pretty much hyperbole.

Chuck66 said...

The gay crowd has invented a new civil right....gay marriage. And said that if the Catholic church doesn't suddenly throw out its 2,000 year definition of marriage, they will declare war on the church.

Chuck66 said...

woof....working to cause a small businesswoman to loose her business and therefore her livihood isn't destory?

Fr Martin Fox said...

Peter Hoh said...

I wrote: If I were to divorce my wife and marry my mistress, would my second marriage count as a real marriage?

Fr Martin Fox: Are you asking me if it's a "real" marriage under natural law or under church law?

By the same standards you applied above when you declared that two people of the same sex can not enter into marriage.


OK, then you mean marriage as a natural reality. I am not an expert on natural law; however, I don't believe anyone would argue that under natural law, marriage is either essentially monogamous, nor is it essentially immutable. So, a natural marriage can include more than two parties, and it can be dissolved.

And I think you knew that without asking, so while you're selectively ignoring my points, while attempting to confuse marriage as a natural reality and marriage as a religious rite, I'm growing skeptical about your motives.

Bender said...

Peter Hoh --

I see you are engaged in another obtuse practice of attempted "gotcha" today.

Do you really fail to understand the differences between a man and a woman? the differences betwween a man-woman union and a man-man union or a woman-woman union?

Maybe you do.

Peter Hoh said...

Alex, no church is currently required to marry anyone. This will not change. It has not changed in Massachusetts. It has not changed in Vermont. Churches are not places subject to the laws that govern public accommodation, or however that term is properly phrased.

You would agree that discrimination on religious or racial grounds is illegal, correct?

I suspect that there are still churches/ministers that would refuse to marry an interracial couple. Can you point to any examples of such churches/ministers being forced to perform a marriage?

I am certain that there are many churches and ministers who would refuse to marry an interfaith couple. Can you point to any examples of such churches/ministers being forced to perform a marriage?

woof said...

Next step after that - internment. Gas chambers to follow. Don't tell me I didn't warn ya.

As a Jew and a gay, I find that comment pretty disgusting.

Peter Hoh said...

Bender, when the "for life" part was made optional, marriage was redefined away from its traditional roots.

This is connected to the emergence of same-sex marriage.

Bender said...

Do you really fail to comprehend the difference between "for life" and "male and female"?

I'm telling you, it really is folly to try to reason with one who has given over to delusional beliefs. It is throwing reason away.

Peter Hoh said...

Fr Martin Fox, you are certainly free to hold and espouse the belief that marriage is exclusively something between a man and a woman.

The legislatures of New York and Vermont have determined, that as a matter of civil law, marriage is open to same-sex couples.

I realize that there is a fuzzy mix of church and state when it comes to marriage. We Americans have accepted that.

It is possible to have a church marriage that isn't recognized by the state, and it's possible to have a civil marriage that isn't recognized by the church.

This has not been a problem when marriage was limited to opposite-sex couples. I don't see how it suddenly becomes a problem when the state allows same-sex couples to marry.

Chuck66 said...

Peter H, first thank you for a civil conversation. If this debate was on a MSM site, it would be nothing but nasty name calling.

But....at some point the left will go after church's. Get their tax exempt status pulled. Ban them from holding functions on public property.

Fr Martin Fox said...

Bender:

Unfortunately for Mr. Hoh, I'm choosing not to follow the script and make my arguments based on divine revelation.

And as far as the state persecuting churches that don't cooperate with same-sex "marriages," here are some possible avenues:

1. Military chaplains are told to soft-pedal what their religion may say against homosexual behavior. The argument will be just what's been made in these threads: you give up civil rights to belong to the military, same for chaplains.

2. Military chaplains will be expected to officiate at same-sex marriages "in a pinch."

3. Religious organizations that provide gyms or halls for wedding receptions will be targeted as "discriminating" if they don't allow same-sex couples to rent the hall.

4. Someone will ask the state to disqualify clergy from having a license to perform marriages if they don't perform same-sex marriages. The argument will be, they can still perform marriages in their churches, but the state won't give them a license, and the marriages they officiate at will not be legally recognized. The sort of people who seek to outlaw circumcision are likely to think this is a swell thing to do.

5. Schools will, sooner or later, re-tool their discussion of "marriage" and "family" to reflect this sort of legislation; such that those who insist that all the legislatures and judges in the world can't redefine what marriage and family are, become either quaint eccentrics or else "Christianist" zealots who must be confronted. Either way, it's a not-so-subtle sort of social engineering.

Alex said...

Peter Hoh - do you think for one second that the radical gays are not going to try and break the churches? Honestly - they are never satisfied. No "live and let live" policy from their end. They will never stop until organized religion is either destroyed or re-made in the gay image.

Chuck66 said...

The Christian tradition has allowed interracial marriages for 2,000 years. How does that apply to the recently invented right to gay marriage?

Peter Hoh said...

Bender, of course there's a difference between "for life" and "man-woman." I said there was a connection between one redefinition and the other. I did not say that they were equivalent.

Read Fukuyama.


Prior to the Great Disruption, all Western societies had in place a complex series of formal and informal laws, rules, norms, and obligations to protect mothers and children by limiting the freedom of fathers to simply ditch one family and start another. Today many people have come to think of marriage as a kind of public celebration of a sexual and emotional union between two adults, which is why gay marriage has become a possibility in the United States and other developed countries.

Fr Martin Fox said...

Mr Hoh:

Since you are pointedly not engaging what I'm actually saying, but rather attempting to make different points, and hoping I can be a helpful foil, please refrain from giving the impression that any of your points are actually rebuttals to mine. I'd prefer not to be your straw man, thanks.

Peter Hoh said...

Fr Martin Fox, I'm not insisting that you argue from doctrine. I asked for clarification.

Alex said...

Today many people have come to think of marriage as a kind of public celebration of a sexual and emotional union between two adults

This. 99% of the gay-marriage supporters think of marriage in this way. It's not a covenant at all, but exhibitionism.

Peter Hoh said...

Alex, it's an across-the-board attitude change not limited to those who support same-sex marriage. This alternative view of marriage has been established in our laws.

It used to be that states (at least some of them) had laws that prohibited someone from remarrying after divorce. Some states limited it to cases of divorce involving adultery.

That is, if a spouse committed adultery, and that was grounds for the divorce, he or she would be prohibited from remarriage so long as their former spouse was alive.

Some states explicitly forbid the adulterous spouse from marrying the affair partner.

The states dropped these laws in the 20th century, along with laws that prohibited adultery.

This is behind my argument that marriage has already been redefined.

Fr Martin Fox said...

Peter Hoh said...

Fr Martin Fox, I'm not insisting that you argue from doctrine. I asked for clarification.

I was very clear. You brought up my church's doctrine--I never did. Your request for "clarification" suggests my posts have raised a doubt about the premises I was arguing from (despite saying, repeatedly, that I'm not basing it on church doctrine).

Feel free to post any of my comments you believe are lacking in clarity on this precise point.

Chuck66 said...

Pete H, you kind of proved our point. We are saying there is no relation between southern states bans on interracial marriage during the first 2/3 of the 20th century, but you say this is identical.

So then you admit that your side will prosecute churches that don't allow gay marriage in the same way you prosecute a business or organization that bans Blacks.

Case closed. We win. You admit what your side has planned next.

Peter Hoh said...

Chuck, I said no such thing.

Alex said...

Peter H - simple question. Should churches have the right to discriminate who they will marry or not?

Alex said...

Gaga revealed that she is often questioned why she dedicates herself to "gayspeak" and "how gay" she is, to which, she told the audience: "Why is this question, why is this issue so important? My answer is: I am a child of diversity, I am one with my generation, I feel a moral obligation as a woman, or a man, to exercise my revolutionary potential and make the world a better place."

You see admitting this whole thing is about a REVOLUTION to overturn the existing order of things.

Peter Hoh said...

Fr Martin Fox, your 10:33 comment seems to go back and forth between relying on natural law and doctrine.

While legal recognition of marriage as heterosexual is rooted in human nature itself, the legal restraint on multiple partners is not. That actually is a religious value, arising from Christianity.

Yes, you have clarified that your declaration that two people of the same sex cannot enter into marriage is based on natural law.

Thank you. You might note that once you clarified that point, I have not persisted in asking you questions based on doctrine.

Peter Hoh said...

Alex, yes, churches should retain the right they currently enjoy to determine which couples they will marry.

Alex said...

Peter - then you realize that view renders you a hateful bigot in the eyes of the radical left.

Chuck66 said...

Peter, so my question is....the supporters of gay marriage use that arguement all the time....the gay marriage is a civil right. If you oppose it, then it is no different then if you lived in South in 1940 and opposed interracial marriage.

So if A is true, the gay-marriage is a basic civil right that is no different then interracial marriage, then why wouldn't the liberals prosecute churches who refuse to do gay marriages in the same way they would go after a church that refused to allow an African-American to marry a white or Hispanic?

Not trying to do "gotch-ya". This is a serious question because those of us who support traditional marraige all think that this is the next step for your side.

Chuck66 said...

Peter, you exactly make my point. In the eyes of the liberal left, you support bigotry and discrimination. It's as though you support Jim Crow.

I appreciate you taking a slightly moderate view, but if you are truthfull, than you are in the minorty for those who support allow gay marriage.

Peter Hoh said...

Chuck, that some people who favor a policy make certain arguments doesn't mean that everyone who favors the same policy endorses the same argument.

I have asked for any examples of anyone taking legal action against a church or minister for refusing to marry a couple, based on race or religion.

I am not aware of any such cases.

Fred4Pres said...

It passed the right way. And that is a BFD. No judicial imposition. Good for them.

Florists in the Village and Chelsea should do well. New Paltz and Fire Island too.

Alex said...

Where does Gaga get off anyways. She talk the big talk about "inclusivity", but in fact hers in an exclusive club for gays & freaks. Nobody else need apply.

Alex said...

The gay lobby talks about tolerance alot. But are they tolerant of heterosexuals? I don't sense that. What I'm feeling is a lot of hatred directed my way.

somefeller said...

Chuck66 says: So if A is true, the gay-marriage is a basic civil right that is no different then interracial marriage, then why wouldn't the liberals prosecute churches who refuse to do gay marriages in the same way they would go after a church that refused to allow an African-American to marry a white or Hispanic?

Can you please provide some examples of churches being prosecuted or sued for civil rights violations because they refused to perform marriages that violated their religious customs? If a church refused to perform interracial marriages (or for that matter, interfaith marriages, marriages by divorced people, etc.), it has every legal right to do so, and that would be the case with gay marriage. Now, it's likely that churches that refuse to recognize gay marriage will be criticized by many supporters of gay marriage, but that's called free speech and isn't prosecution or persecution.

Alex said...

somefeller - it's true that churches currently have the right to discriminate. But I sense from the radical gay left that are NOT happy about that at all, and are going to pursue legal action. Remember Lady Gaga has already stated that she's engaged in a revolutionary activity in support of gays.

somefeller said...

I appreciate you taking a slightly moderate view, but if you are truthfull, than you are in the minorty for those who support allow gay marriage.

Do you have any support for this contention? Has there been polling done of gay marriage supporters in which the issue of civil marriage has been separated from religious marriage, and in which most supporters of gay civil marriage have supported forcing religious institutions to recognize such marriages? If so, I'll stand corrected on this point but I suspect Peter Hoh (and I, for that matter) am not in the minority of gay civil marriage supporters on the issue of the right of religious institutions to set their own theological marriage rules.

Alex said...

Lady Gaga leads anti-Church offensive

From a site called "queering the church". Draw your own conclusions. Yuck.

Bender said...

How soon before some modern-day Act-Up, Rainbow Sash, types descend upon St. Patrick's Cathedral and raise a ruckus, doing their own version of the disturbances at the Wisconsin Capitol?

They've done it in the past -- with the acquiescence of city government -- they will continue to do it in the future.

Chuck66 said...

I don't know of any churches that discriminate based on race.

But you must get my point. We've already had homosexuals protesting inside churches during services. St Patricks in NYC city and St Paul Cathedral in St Paul, Minnesota.

Chuck66 said...

The best way to prove my point would be to get back here when more attacks on Christian (but never Muslim) churches start.

Peter Hoh said...

Alex, you are pushing that hypothetical pretty hard.

Unless you can provide something more solid than imaginary activists who will stop at nothing, your claim that they gays will go after churches and force them to perform gay marriages is just a hypothetical.

Feminists haven't been able to get the Catholic Church to budge on the issue of the male-only priesthood, have they? Is it for lack of extreme feminist activists?

Alex said...

Feminists haven't been able to get the Catholic Church to budge on the issue of the male-only priesthood, have they? Is it for lack of extreme feminist activists?

It seems to me that gays are #1 on the left-wing totem poll these days and will stop at nothing to destroy the Church. Once they've got churches forced to perform gay marriages, then forcing women priests is next.

Oh and the Dems are pushing the Equal Rights Amendment again...

Peter Hoh said...

Bender @2:45, yes, there are always going to be some extremists. Most of them don't represent anything other than their desperate quest for attention.

As I pointed out last night, the Westboro Baptist church continues to "raise a ruckus" . . . "with the acquiescence of city government."

somefeller said...

I don't know of any churches that discriminate based on race. But you must get my point. We've already had homosexuals protesting inside churches during services. St Patricks in NYC city and St Paul Cathedral in St Paul, Minnesota.

So in other words, you don't have any examples of prosecutions of or lawsuits against churches that refuse to perform marriages that violate their religious customs. And I wasn't just talking about interracial marriage, I mentioned other possibilities (interfaith, prior divorce).

And while I'm not a fan of people coming to do protests at churches, such protests are (as long as they don't break other laws like trespass, etc.) as much a part of the First Amendment as the religious freedom of churches to decide whose marriages they will recognize.

Chuck66 said...

Westboro Baptist Church....6 members. This weekend in Mpls...400,000 gays decend on the town for gayfest.

We can discuss all day, but look at the Boy Scouts. They do great work in Detroit with at-risk African-American youths. But the liberals there stilled declared war on them.

Mass.....the state said they have banned the Boy Scouts from payroll deduction charitable giving.

Duluth Minnesota....a hard core Demcorat town...United Way banned the Boy Scouts from getting any funds.

How can any of you deny that the secular left wouldn't love to use this as a way to attack Christian (but never Muslim) churhes?

Chuck66 said...

One last thing before I head out....Madison is the epi-center of anti-Christian bigotry in the upper midwest. Let's sit back and see what the American United for the Separation of Church and State have to say. Last I heard they were in Eau Claire trying to end a prayer simple (and really meaningless) at city council meetings. I'm sure those bigots are getting hard nips now thinking about what they can do next. But never against Muslims.

somefeller said...

Westboro Baptist Church....6 members. This weekend in Mpls...400,000 gays decend on the town for gayfest.

So gays are more common than members of the MBC. That's a good thing.

We can discuss all day, but look at the Boy Scouts. They do great work in Detroit with at-risk African-American youths. But the liberals there stilled declared war on them.

And yet the Boy Scouts still exist and do the work they want to do.

Mass.....the state said they have banned the Boy Scouts from payroll deduction charitable giving.

So the state made a decision that a particular group shouldn't get the benefit of its financial support. The horror.

Duluth Minnesota....a hard core Demcorat town...United Way banned the Boy Scouts from getting any funds.

So the free people of a community (or an organization, your unlinked example wasn't clear if this was a municipal or corporate decision) decided that a particular group shouldn't get the benefit of its financial support. More horror.

How can any of you deny that the secular left wouldn't love to use this as a way to attack Christian (but never Muslim) churhes?

Some on the secular left might, but they aren't the majority (and I'm waiting for those poll numbers I asked for Chuck) or from what I've seen even in the mix. After all, the NY law took great pains to explicitly state that there were religious exemptions to the statute, exemptions that already are clear under standard First Amendment jurisprudence. And the Muslim thing is a red herring, as Muslims are a tiny and largely poltically irrelevant minority in this country. (The Muslim vote isn't one that swings elections anywhere outside of Dearborn, Michigan.) If you're going to protest a religious group, you're generally going to protest the ones that have real influence in the electorate.

Face it Chuck, you and people like you who claim gay civil marriage will lead to churches being forced to perform gay marriages have nothing to support your contention. Zip, zero, nada. Just hand-waving and (perhaps willful) confusion about the difference between civil and religious marriage in this country.

somefeller said...

One last thing before I head out....Madison is the epi-center of anti-Christian bigotry in the upper midwest. Let's sit back and see what the American United for the Separation of Church and State have to say. Last I heard they were in Eau Claire trying to end a prayer simple (and really meaningless) at city council meetings. I'm sure those bigots are getting hard nips now thinking about what they can do next. But never against Muslims.

More argument by assertion, red herrings and confusion of different issues. Newsflash - a government city council meeting, and religious activity that is or isn't allowed there, is different from religious activity in a church. Like I said, zip, zero, nada. And when you come back, please share with us some examples of the things Peter and I have asked you for, and that you still have failed to provide.

Peter Hoh said...

Chuck, I'm gonna guess that at least half of those attending Pride events in Minneapolis are straight. But even if all of them were gay, what's your point? Is their behavior remotely like that of WBC?

Peter Hoh said...

The Boy Scouts are not a church.

For what it's worth, I think the effort to restrict funds and public space for the Boy Scouts is misguided.

Trooper York said...

There is no doubt that the next step is some sort of penalty or attack to any church, synaqouge or mosque that because of their religious doctrines or beliefs will preclude their accepting same sex marriage as one of their sacremental functions.

If you say that won't happen you have not been paying attention.

I don't believe for a moment that the people who are saying that will never happen would ever stand in the way of sanctions against someone like the Mormons or the Catholic church or the Orthordox Jews.

The only ones who will be exempt are the Muslims because they are afraid of them.

somefeller said...

Trooper, those are just assertions without any basis in fact. It's already been stated above what the basic Constitutional precepts are (thankfully) with regard to the ability of the state to force churches to perform marriages that violate their religious precepts, or more precisely the lack thereof. No one has been able to come up with examples of churches being forced to do that in other contexts, so how would that be the case in this context? And if the concern is that gays may start asking churches to change their rules to allow for gay marriage, well that's just free speech and isn't something that one can reasonably call oppression, unless there is some heretofore unknown right for a church to not be criticized or petitioned.

somefeller said...

And Trooper, I'm not insulting or attacking you, I'm saying you are afraid of something that is as likely to occur as the re-institution of slavery in the United States. While there are many debates regarding what's constitutional or not among lawyers and judges, I think stating that religious institutions have the right to perform their own religious practices (as long as those practices don't involve human sacrifice or other obviously harmful activities) under the First Amendment is as uncontroversial a concept as you can get.

Trooper York said...

Somefeller...
No one has been able to come up with examples of churches being forced to do that in other contexts, so how would that be the case in this context?"

Not true. As I understand it the practice of polygamy by the Mormon Church was stopped by the government. I believe the practice of female circumcision is also banned in many jurisdictions by the government. The use of ganja as a sacrament by the Rastafarians is also against the law as I understand.
I may be mistaken but I believe that all of these things have happened in the past.

Now you might think all of these governmental regulations of religious practices are perfectly appropriate but that doesn't change the fact that the government has gone in and stopped the sacramental function of several different faiths.

What makes you think that they will treat other faiths any different if enough pressure is brought on the politically correct legislature?

Trooper York said...

And somefeller I don't regard anything you say as an attack.

Unlike those who feel that if a religion does not give them everything they want is "attacking" them.

I have faith. I have no faith in politicans and the government standing firm for religious freedom.

That's not how it works now.

somefeller said...

Trooper, your points are well-taken, but I think there's a pretty big difference between the state saying that you can't get a religious exemption for doing things that are otherwise criminal acts (bigamy, drug use, mutilation) and the state saying that a religion must perform and recognize a particular activity like marriage. And if such a power existed, surely it would have come up by now in some context like interracial or interfaith marriages. Granted, there thankfully aren't many churches that forbid the former (and I'm not equating the latter with the former), but that would have come up by now. But I'd agree - it's good to be vigilant in protecting one's rights, however it's also not good to be worrying about phantom threats.

Trooper York said...

Laws change. What is illegal in one era is fine in another. And what was accepted practice becomes actionable later in view of the changes wrought by political correctness.

The first thing that will be thrown under the bus in unpopular relgious practices that seem "weird" or not acceptable to the current standards of the majority.

I don't think the imposition of such rules on conservative religions is a phanton menace. I know you do. I hope you are right.
I don't think so.

Trooper York said...

If you need an example just look at the mass arrests of the splinter Morman sects on charges of child abuse.

Wasn't that an example of the government cracking down on a religious practive that it felt was "illegal" or in fact "criminal."

How did that work out?

Peter Friedman said...

The Catholic Church would not marry me and my wife because I am divorced. My temple's rabbis would not marry us because we would not promise to raise our children Jewish.

This happens all the time. It will not change even if all the lawsuits in the world are brought. It's ludicrous to think otherwise if you know anything about constitutional law (and regardless of how ruthless you think the "radical gays" might be).

Bender said...

There are other ways of grossly violating fundamental religious freedoms than making a church perform a nonsensical ceremony.

Merely requiring them to acknowledge as true that which is, at best, a legal fiction, attempting to force churches to say "yes, Bob is married to Ted," even if they were "married" by the state, under the pain of some legal penalty, is such a gross violation and is all but assured.

Fr Martin Fox said...

Peter Friedman said...

The Catholic Church would not marry me and my wife because I am divorced. My temple's rabbis would not marry us because we would not promise to raise our children Jewish.

This happens all the time. It will not change even if all the lawsuits in the world are brought. It's ludicrous to think otherwise if you know anything about constitutional law (and regardless of how ruthless you think the "radical gays" might be).


Of course you may be right. But here's the thing; you're arguing, it seems, that it won't happen because nobody's ever tried it before--and that's an odd argument to make in relation to laws redefining marriage!

Also, ceding your point about the probability of a lawsuit working, doesn't address two related questions. First, will there be attacks directed against the Catholic Church, purely out of bile and outrage? And the answer is, there already been, so it's not hypothetical at all. Second, will someone try a legal strategy not tried before? And the answer is, of course they will--happens all the time.

I've already thought of one: seeking to strip non-compliant clergy from qualifying for licenses to officiate at weddings. The argument will be, fine, let the bigots celebrate their bigoted religious rites, but without any state sanction.

Bender said...

And whether someone would actually be successful in forcing some church to "marry" persons of the same sex, against the will and good conscience of those in that church, is rather beside the point, isn't it?

Merely engaging them in the warfare is the point. Merely weighing them down with frivolous allegations and litigation is the point.

Bender said...

I see Fr. Fox beat me to the punch.

Trooper York said...

"It's ludicrous to think otherwise if you know anything about constitutional law"

What makes you think they will have any respect for the constitution? I am sure there is a
penumbra or something that they find in there. And the tactic will not be that they will force any religion to do any paticular practice...instead they will elinimate the tax exemption or impose some other penalty or punishment unless they play ball.

Why did you think they put those "religious" exemptions or safeguards or amendments in there?

They put them in so they can take them out later. That's how it works.

Trooper York said...

Bender might have hit it right on the head.

They could very easily pass a law that states that if you won't marry everybody you can't marry anbody. That's fair right?

If you want to be married in a "proper" legal manner you must be married by the state. Ministers, rabbi's, priests and Iman's will not be able to perform legally binding marriages only their arcane and bigoted rites that will not have the force of law.

Yes that sounds about right.

Say around 2040 or so.

Palladian said...

I've said it many times, but it bears repeating: the ONLY logical, sensible and rational way out of this mess is for the State to completely remove itself from the institution of marriage. That we've navigated ourselves into ridiculous arguments about the will of deities and natural rights and separate-but-equal doctrine is proof enough that the government has no business regulating and licensing a romantic and/or religious ceremonial.

There should be no such thing as civil marriage, save for some sort of neutral contractual agreement that may be voluntarily entered into by parties at their own discretion.

Marriage, as a tool for secular social engineering, as some busybody right-wingers would have it, is a failure, and has been a failure in that regard since the advent of no-fault divorce. If "marriage" is the ancient, primal and immutable spiritual and constitutional principle of mankind that religious/social conservative types have made it out to be, why are they so afraid that it cannot stand on its own, without the power of the secular government to enforce and define it? If "marriage" is so primal and powerful, it will thrive as a purely religious/romantic institution, unfettered and unhindered by State regulation.

Death to civil marriage, straight, gay or otherwise. Long live the institution of marriage.

Michael said...

Oh, you can be sure that this new "marriage" will be required to be performed by the churches. The traditional churches would be better off to institute a name change, a re-branding if you will, of the marriage sacrament, because it is a sacrament and the state and the gay community cannot perform a sacrament and they are not qualified to participate in this particular one. So, name change. But the newly named sacrament, as always, is available only to confirm and bless the union of a man and a woman.

Alex said...

I've said it many times, but it bears repeating: the ONLY logical, sensible and rational way out of this mess is for the State to completely remove itself from the institution of marriage.

You know that the radical gay left will overreach and seek to interfere with heterosexual marriage. The general public will get so fed up that ALL marriage will be de-coupled from government sanction. After that, there will be registered partnerships for legalities.

Peter Hoh said...

Palladian, outside of extreme libertarians, I think there would be very little support for the idea that the government should get out of the business of licensing and recognizing marriage.

Alex said...

Peter - why would Evangelical Christians continue to support a debased civil marriage institution? Wouldn't they want to say "the fuck with it" already?

Peter Hoh said...

Okay, Alex. Show me the evangelicals who are championing this idea that the government should get out of the marriage business.

Not some guy with a blog. Someone in a leadership position in an evangelical church or church body.

Peter Friedman said...

I think the Catholic Church can stand up to whatever pathetic and frivolous lawsuits might be brought from the "radical gays" you seem to dread like zombies approaching your cabin in the woods.

And the Church can stand up to demonstrations too. The Nazis have the constitutional right to march in uniform and full fascist regalia through Jewish neighborhoods.

As to the constitutional frivolousness of any claim that clergy will be forced to perform same sex marriages, I'm not going to bother with any exhaustive research here, but here's something I found in about 30 seconds, from Bollard v. California Province of the Society of Jesus, 196 F.3d 940, 945046 (3d Cir. 1999) [what follows is all quotation]:

The Free Exercise Clause of the United States Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]." U.S. Const. amend. I. The Free Exercise Clause restricts the government's ability to intrude into ecclesiastical matters or to interfere with a church's governance of its own affairs. See, e.g., Kedroff v. St. Nicholas Cathedral of the Russian Orthodox Church in North America, 344 U.S. 94, 116, 97 L. Ed. 120, 73 S. Ct. 143 (1952) (explaining that the Free Exercise Clause protects the power of religious organizations "to decide for themselves, free from state interference, matters of church government as well as those of faith and doctrine"); see also Kreshik v. St. Nicholas Cathedral of the Russian Orthodox Church of North America, 363 U.S. 190, 191, 4 L. Ed. 2d 1140, 80 S. Ct. 1037 (1960) (per curiam) (forbidding the courts as well as the legislature from interfering with Free Exercise rights). . . .

A secular court may not, for example, adjudicate matters that necessarily require it to decide among competing interpretations of church doctrine, or other matters of an essentially ecclesiastical nature, even if they also touch upon secular rights. See, e.g., Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich, 426 U.S. 696, 713, 49 L. Ed. 2d 151, 96 S. Ct. 2372 (1976) (reversing the Illinois Supreme Court's determinations regarding several matters of internal church governance, because "religious controversies are not the proper subject of civil court inquiry"); Presbyterian Church v. Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull Memorial Presbyterian Church, 393 U.S. 440, 449, 21 L. Ed. 2d 658, 89 S. Ct. 601 (1969) [**10] (explaining that "First Amendment values are plainly jeopardized when church property litigation is made to turn on the resolution by civil courts of controversies over religious doctrine and practice"); Kedroff, 344 U.S. at 115 (prohibiting judicial resolution of the question of which church patriarch was entitled to use St. Nicholas Cathedral because it is "strictly a matter of ecclesiastical government"); Gonzalez v. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila, 280 U.S. 1, 16, 74 L. Ed. 131, 50 S. Ct. 5 (1929) (holding that a secular court may not decide competing claims to a chaplaincy, because "the appointment is a canonical act, [and] it is the function of the church authorities to determine what the essential qualifications of a chaplain are and whether the candidate possesses them"); Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 679, 729, 20 L. Ed. 666 (1871) ("It is of the essence of these religious unions, and of their right to establish tribunals for the decision of questions arising among themselves, that those decisions should be binding in all cases of ecclesiastical cognizance, subject only to such appeals as the organism itself provides for.").

Palladian said...

"Palladian, outside of extreme libertarians, I think there would be very little support for the idea that the government should get out of the business of licensing and recognizing marriage."

I didn't say it would be practical or popular. I said it was the correct solution.

Alex said...

Okay, Alex. Show me the evangelicals who are championing this idea that the government should get out of the marriage business.

It's only because they still believe this war can be won against the radical left, but they're wrong. More then 50% of Americans support gay civil marriage. Evangelicals are on the wrong side of history.

n.n said...

How fun. Deviant behaviors, which do not increase the fitness of our species, are being normalized. Well, coupled with the sacrifice of human life (i.e., abortion), this confirms that the viability of our species is not the goal.

Has anyone else noticed the progressive lag in procreation?

We should enjoy instant gratification for as long as it lasts. That seems to be a growing ambition and priority.

I wonder how the evolutionists reconcile the normalization of a deviant behavior with our prime directive to increase the viability of our species. Either our genes have been severely mutatated or people's perception of reality is being manipulated.

n.n said...

It is also quite odd that any individual of dignity would voluntarily choose to be defined by their behavior. It's akin to defining people by their skin color. Maybe old insights were meant to be ignored and legacies employed as a wedge.

Amartel said...

This is the way to go about it. Not candyassing around in court, not stacking the culture deck. Pass the law like it's supposed to be passed, and without infringing on other peoples' rights.

GentleSkeptic said...

Here's what I find very telling.

One of the most popular (and ridiculous) "arguments" against SSM has been, for a while now, the idea that the gays want to "redefine marriage for all of us."

And yet, in the days since its passage in NY, I've seen an abundance of comments like this one, from Michael:

"I am not, by the way, opposed to whatever it is they are doing or hoping to do and they can call it whatever it pleases them to call it and be given whatever rights inure to those men and women who choose to marry. But it will not be marriage."

…and this one, from Bender:

"We have reached that sad point where a large number subscribe to the notion that "reality" may be decreed by arbitrary vote."

…and this one from Alex:

"Bender - the whole thing's a farce. Marriage is between a man and a woman, PERIOD."

Kind of gives the lie to that stupid argument, doesn't it? I mean, If the people aren't that easily fooled, what was all the fuss about? Clearly folks can define and understand marriage in any number of ways. They just wanted to make damn sure that what those gays are doing never be recognized as marriage… by ANYONE, not everyone.