Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!
The Senate votes along party lines to move healthcare reform down the field to the formal debate stage. 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Maine’s vote
One vote that isn’t grabbing headlines as much as the New Jersey and Virginia governors’ races is in Maine today, where voters will decide whether to strike down the state legislature’s decision this year to legalize gay marriage in the state.
The Maine vote is important because it may be the first time gay marriage supporters prevail in a voter referendum on the issue. The polls have been evenly split on the question.
Right now, traditional marriage advocates point to the fact that the majority of citizens still support traditional marriage, and that voters have always opposed court rulings that legalize gay marriage, as exemplified in Prop 8 in California.
The issue is a hot on Twitter right now – gay marriage supporters have one of the top trending topics marked with the hashtag #VoteNoOn1 – voting “no” means you support the legalization of gay marriage.
back to top81 Comments to “Maine’s vote”
If we win, the GLBT Community will take it to court to have a Judge over turn the will of the people
Report comment to moderator
“the will of the people”
This phrase is becoming increasingly odious as used to defend bigotry, mob rule, vigilante justice, or in the case of the Tea Party Cult, the will of a minority of the people!
Report comment to moderator
Agreed. Overruling “the will of the people” is not inherently a negative thing.
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza 11.03.09 AT 12:44 PM
“the will of the people”
This phrase is becoming increasingly odious as used to defend bigotry, mob rule, vigilante justice, or in the case of the Tea Party Cult, the will of a minority of the people!
–
So the will of the people mean to you – bigotry, mob rule, vigilante justice, or in the case of the Tea Party Cult.
Report comment to moderator
You can support “traditional marriage” while still thinking that gay couples deserve it too. No one is ever able to articulate what harm gay marriage will do to our society in any concrete, supportable way, other than giving gay people a more stable legal structure for their relationships…
Oh, wait. That’s the real problem. We can’t have gay people thinking they’re as good as everyone else. Then they might get uppity, and pretty soon it’s a short trip to highways paved with glitter, disco ball traffic lights, and cops in pink uniforms.
/sarcasm
Report comment to moderator
buddyglass 11.03.09 AT 12:46 PM
Agreed. Overruling “the will of the people” is not inherently a negative thing.
–
WHen is it a right not to overrule the will the of people?
When is it ok to overrule the will of the people?
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 11.03.09 AT 1:00 PM
You can support “traditional marriage” while still thinking that gay couples deserve it too. No one is ever able to articulate what harm gay marriage will do to our society in any concrete, supportable way, other than giving gay people a more stable legal structure for their relationships…
Oh, wait. That’s the real problem. We can’t have gay people thinking they’re as good as everyone else. Then they might get uppity, and pretty soon it’s a short trip to highways paved with glitter, disco ball traffic lights, and cops in pink uniforms.
/sarcasm
-
The people have the right to say what marriage should look like. An if they vote down gay marriage it should stand, if they vote for gay marriage it should stand.
As Christian’s God’s Word is clear on the gay marriage issue.
Report comment to moderator
“Gay” people not only deserve the same right to marriage as everybody else, they already have it. What they don’t have is the right to redefine and rename an arrangement recognized and supported by all cultures and civilizations throughout history in an attempt to rehabililtate and normalize their own relationships in the public eye.
In countries in Europe where gay “marriage” has been legalized, the rate of all marriages itself decline steeply. The best safeguard for women and children is the stability of a committed legal marriage between father and mother. The statistics concerning domestic violence, sexual abuse of children, high school truancy, delinquency and later adult crime, poverty, and a myriad of other social problems, show an increased vulnerabilty for children growing up in any other relationship. But if we can create an ersatz “equality” argument between unlike things to force approval of homosexuality, and more children are thereby condemned to squalid lives, why should we care? You have to break eggs to make an omelet, right?
Report comment to moderator
The “will of the people” constitutes “bigotry, mob rule, vigilante justice,” when one disagrees with it, but it is sacrosanct when one agrees with it. The only question that should matter in a court decision to overturn is whether the Constitution, correctly interpreted, supports the overturning.
Report comment to moderator
Actually I should have said requires rather than supports.
Report comment to moderator
Buzzy “The only question that should matter in a court decision to overturn is whether the Constitution, correctly interpreted, supports the overturning”
So what happens if the Courts overrule the will of the people and the people come again and overrule the will of the courts?
Report comment to moderator
I think eventually all the restrictions in Leviticus will be challenged and over-turned. We’ll be a Jerry Springer show from coast to coast. Men will marry their step moms etc
Report comment to moderator
I think both Maine and Washington state have initiatives on the ballot which would curb state spending to the rate of population plus the inflation rate. Who came up with that nutty formula? Seems a bit arbitrary
Report comment to moderator
Sawgunner – the restriction on marriages has nothing to do with Leviticus.
Report comment to moderator
Excellent post at #8, KEN. Thanks.
If we have “marriage equality” for homosexuals, we then owe it also to polygamists, polyamorists and any other advocates for “marriage equality” between consenting adults in love with each other. Otherwise, we are “bigots” for seeking it for traditionalists and homosexualists, but no one else.
BTW, KEN’s post is better than this one. Read #8.
Report comment to moderator
When it comes to gay marriage or any issue that comes into conflict with God’s Word. Here is two questions we should be asking.
Do we permitted our world view to impact our understand of God Word?
Do we permitted God’s Word to impact our world view?
Report comment to moderator
The original decision was titled: “An Act to Promote Marriage Equality and Affirm Religious Freedom”.
That’s Orwellian. And it is deceptive in its vagueness. Can anyone here provide specifics?
Here is the way the ballot is worded: “”Do you want to reject the new law that lets same-sex couples marry and allows individuals and religious groups to refuse to perform these marriages?”
The ballot question itself is discriminatory. Why on earth can’t same-sex triples marry if they are consienting adults in love with each other. Why no measure for them?
Report comment to moderator
Without marriage equality, loving, committed same-sex triples are not recognized as legally married. Even mixed-sex triples are banned from being considered legally married. They cannot even file taxes jointly, do not have access to health insurance as a family and are not allowed to inherit property at the time of death without the hardship of crushing taxes. Their children are not entitled to all of the rights and protections conferred automatically on a family headed by a married couple. Why such discrimination against triples, when couples get all those benefits and the ONLY difference is just a number?
Report comment to moderator
If this passes, the rights & benefits that same-sex couples already have under Maine’s current state domestic partners law would be maintained. If it passes, children in schools are less likely to be taught that “same-sex marriage” is just the same as traditional marriage (this will probably be taught often anyhow). Most importantly, if it passes, the definition of marriage — union between a man and a woman – would be rightfully preserved.
Report comment to moderator
Roy #6:
There are two ways to answer that question. One is more legal, the other moral. One might wish to overrule the “will of the people” when the people support something patently unconstitutional. From the moral side, one might wish to overrule the “will of the people” when the people support something that causes direct harm to innocents, regardless of its constitutionality.
Report comment to moderator
Ken # 8
“…But the trends of declining marriage rates and births out of wedlock started before gay unions were legalized.
M.V. Lee Badgett, an economist at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and the research director of the Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy at UCLA, wrote a detailed study that examined rates for marriage and birth rates in Scandinavian countries.
“Marriage rates, divorce rates, and nonmarital birth rates have been changing in Scandinavia, Europe, and the United States for the past thirty years,” Badgett writes. “But those changes have occurred in all countries, regardless of whether or not they adopted same-sex partnership laws, and these trends were underway well before the passage of laws that gave same-sex couples rights.”
In, Denmark, Sweden and Norway, same-sex partnerships were legalized in 1989, 1993 and 1994, respectively. Generally speaking, gay partners in these countries have the legal and financial protections of marriage, but they are not allowed to marry in church or adopt children.
The county-level statistics Brownback cites about first-born births are correct, Badgett said, but that trend also started years before the legalization of same-sex unions.
Conservative author Stanley Kurtz is a prominent advocate of the argument that gay marriage hurts heterosexual marriage. Kurtz responded to Badgett’s study by arguing that marriage rates in Scandinavia and other European countries are still declining, and that the legalization of same-sex partnerships “reinforces and intensifies parental cohabitation.”
But even Kurtz acknowledges that the decline began before the legalization of same-sex unions.” (source: politifact)
So basically, your assertion is a lie. But hey, don’t let that little sin stop you.
Report comment to moderator
If it does not pass, then private and public professionals, doctors, psychologists or counselors, who object in good conscience to same-sex marriage can and will face legal problems.
If it passes, faith-based social service organizations may be subject to lose government funding if they refuse same-sex couples any services or benefits. The ONLY service organizations eligible for public funding will soon only be strictly leftist and/or secularist organizations.
If this passes, refusal by a faith-based school or other organization to offer housing or hire someone in an open and avowed same sex relationship as an employee could lead to lawsuits. It represents a loos of freedom of conscience and it brings more politicians and lawyers into the realm of control over our lives and moral decisions.
Report comment to moderator
Why do some homosexuals want their “unions” to be called a “marriage” while others (Rachel Maddow, Tammy Bruce) do not?
Report comment to moderator
buddyglass 11.03.09 AT 2:28 PM
If I am understand you right – WHen is it a right not to overrule the will the of people? When is it ok to overrule the will of the people? – Your answer is one is moral and the other legal?
Report comment to moderator
#14 The Levitical injunction against man lying with a man as with a woman is one of the fundamental moral laws bequeathed to us by Israel.
If we pick and choose which Levitical moral guidelines we will reject or accept, then yes eventually you’ll have calls for the legalization of bestiality, “consensal” incest etc.
A culture will descend into the moral cesspool which surrounded Israel.
Report comment to moderator
DUNCAN at #21, “So basically, your assertion is a lie.
This is another example of a baseless and disrespectful accusation from an advocate of change! Nothing Duncan wrote rendered or proved Ken’s post a “lie.” His accusation was unfair and unkind. Much of what is said on this thread is opinion and interpretation. I agree with Ken. But Duncan, can you possibly try to be respectful in disagreement?
Report comment to moderator
Sawgunner – I understand what you are saying for the Christian yes, but not for society.
Report comment to moderator
Joel;
Ken wrote “In countries in Europe where gay “marriage” has been legalized, the rate of all marriages itself decline steeply.”
That itself is incorrect. I can take a pretty educated guess as to where he got the information, but it is quite simply a lie. And to repeat it, is basically lying is it not?
As to children living in squalor, I can only point to my own daughters. Our eldest was sexually abused by her mother’s 3rd husband, and our youngest, when I asked her what she remembered her parents saying to her most often, yelled “go get me my f-ing smokes!”
So certainly both of these girls would be better off in the holy wedded bliss that their parents created, right?
Report comment to moderator
DUNCAN, Scandinavian countries also have a longstanding policy of registering opposite-sex domestic partnerships, another disincentive for marriage. I believe this qualfies them for social welfare benefits.
Report comment to moderator
NANA, you are correct, and the trend for the decline of formalized marriages in the Scandinavian countries was well established long before the legalization of same-sex marriages.
Report comment to moderator
Duncan – being abused by one’s stepfather is not a very convincing argument against traditional marriage. Also, the fact that some marriages are bad has nothing to do with the definition of marriage. If a ball point pen factory starts producing a higher percentage of defective pens, does that mean we can now hold up a pencil and accurately say, “this is a ball-point pen”?
Report comment to moderator
Via http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZjVlZTE2OTk1ZTRkMThhZGFjMmUyMzIzZGI4MDViNzU=
‘Radio ads in Maine are highlighting a story that helps make clear the stakes in the marriage battle there. A complaint has recently been filed with the Maine Department of Professional and Financial Regulation alleging that a high-school guidance counselor who appeared in an ad for the gay-marriage repeal effort “does not have the right as a licensed social worker to make public comments that can endanger or promote discrimination.” The counselor will now have to respond to the complaint in writing and the department will, at some point, issue a determination.
‘As if it’s not enough to repudiate society’s most child-centered institution, marriage between a man and a woman, many proponents of redefining marriage are willing to repudiate the principle of free debate. Pretty high stakes.’
Report comment to moderator
David L. – if the ad was for gay marriage this person would not be in trouble.
Report comment to moderator
The Corner has some interesting info on this:
So let’s review: Having outspent the opposition 2–1, and with impressive on-the-ground infrastructure, today’s contest over marriage remains within the margin of error, and even tilting towards traditional marriage.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YzMzN2FjODQ4Yzk1OWZmYjE1YmYwMDA4NDY2MzM5Njk=
Report comment to moderator
Even if traditional marriage wins. The GLBT Community will run to courts to have a judge reward them the victory. At the same time, the GLBT Community will be targeting those who supported traditional marriage business and churches for attacks. An it will not be reported as hate crime.
Report comment to moderator
Duncan,
In my understanding, Ken is correct in saying that “In countries in Europe where gay “marriage” has been legalized, the rate of all marriages itself decline steeply.”
So I disagree with you. But I do not call you a liar. Statistics and how they are counted are subject to all sorts of twists and various figures do NOT mean that either side is lying.
Ken is also correct with regard to the consequences and conditions of children being raised in alternative family contexts, generally speaking. Anecdotal examples can be quite irrelevant.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy #27,
Are we not called to be salt and light? Light casts out darkness. Salt is a preservative which prevents things from rotting.
Report comment to moderator
#5: I thought we’d been there already? It was called the 70s?
Report comment to moderator
Sawgunner 11.03.09 AT 4:12 PM
Pastor Roy #27,
Are we not called to be salt and light? Light casts out darkness. Salt is a preservative which prevents things from rotting
–
We are called to the light. As we live for Christ in a dark an fallen world our light is to shine bright.
I do not understand what this has to do with gay marriage?
Report comment to moderator
Joel;
Let’s give Ken the benefit of the doubt and say that he neglected to include the information that the advent of same-sex marriage in the Scandinavian countries mentioned had no effect whatsoever on the rate of decline in traditional marriage. And let’s also assume, that given the full information, he certainly wouldn’t allude to placing blame on the legalization of same sex marriage for the decline in traditional marriage.
As well, there is not a single credible study that has shown that children raised in alternative family contexts, which I take it to mean households headed by same sex partners, develop from an intelligence, emotional or socialization standpoint in any way differently than those children raised in traditional family contexts, generally speaking.
From an anecdotal standpoint, I believe that our daughters have had much better lives with my husband and I, than with their biological mother, and wherever their biological fathers may be.
Your beliefs however, may differ.
Report comment to moderator
If gay couples get married, will they be required to pay the same taxes?
As heterosexual couples seem to be marrying less and co-habitating more, will we have a turnaround where only homosexual couples are the ones getting married?
Report comment to moderator
DUNCAN,
You take KEN however you wish, my friend, but he does NOT need any benefit of doubt from me. He makes perfect sense. The effects of same-sex marriage have many effects, visible and hidden, shrot-term and long-term, cultural and spiritual, and so on. I do not rely of biased statistics or social studies to tell us what to think.
And social decline comes from all sorts of reasons beyond and including the realm of distorted definitions of marriage.
Report comment to moderator
#24:
No, I’m saying those are two reasons why “one” might wish to overrule the will of the people.
If I’m a judge, or legislator, etc. and “the people” want X, but I know X is illegal, unconstitutional, etc. then I may oppose X despite it being “the will of the people”.
If I’m an individual citizen and I deem Y to be directly harmful to innocents, but Y is “the will of the people”, then I may work to criminalize Y despite it being otherwise constitutional.
Report comment to moderator
If citizens don’t like their states’ provisioins for initiative/referndum/proposition votes, they can change that, too. These types of ballot questions were instituted by “progressives” who thought legislatures had too much power.
Report comment to moderator
#4 –
The “will of the people” nearly always means the will of SOME of the people imposed over and against the will of other people.
As used originally, it meant democracy against British monarchy – fine.
As used today, it typically means the effort by right-wing extremists to regain political power they lost in the last election to the will of other people.
But conservatives always selectively invoke majority prerogative, even when they don’t have it. The “silent majority” is neither!
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza, where was “will of the people” used to mean decmocracy against Britixh monarchy?
Report comment to moderator
ooops – British
Report comment to moderator
Do you really think that religious organizations will have to accept employees with same sex spouses (#22)? If an employer has a problem with their employee being married to someone of the same sex, then obviously they have a problem with the employee’s sexuality. Apparently you’re not aware that most, if not all, of the 21 states that have gay anti-discrimination laws have exemptions for religious institutions. So rest assured, there’s no slippery slope here. Your church will, in all likelihood, be able to continue discriminating against gays for, at the very minimum, the rest of your natural life.
Report comment to moderator
kwatson – all it will take is for a gay couple to walk into a church and ask to use the building and the pastor to say no. Then the fight is on again.
Report comment to moderator
JOEL MARK;
As I said sir, your beliefs may differ.
Cheers, and have a pleasant day.
Report comment to moderator
#46 – “We the people” ~ “will of the people” – both misused in the same context by the Tea Party crowd.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t know why Maine is getting all the attention, though I do have a brother who lives in Maine. At the moment, I am very interested in what happens in regard to the “domestic partnership” ballot measure in Washington state.
The returns should start coming in pretty soon. I hope you will abide by the law, whatever it turns out to be.
However, you can whine as much as you want. I think the right to whine is in the Bill of Rights somewhere.
Report comment to moderator
This sort of agressive political activism to force an immoral agenda will NEVER ever stop. There will never come a time when homosexualists will be content. Every gain made by homosexualists is a greater incentive to push anther envelope down our throats. This has been the case for 30 years.
Remember what they even tried to do to the Boy Scouts.
Policies that respect the conscience and the freedom of others will soon melt in the face of accusations of “bigotry” and “hate-crimes” legislation.
Not just churches, but many faith-based organizations, like adoption agencies will continue to be drummed out of existence and far less good will be done for needy children.
Doctors will continue to lose their jobs for refusing, in good conscience, certain surgeries or procedures.
Justices of the Peace will be fired for refusing to betray their own moral convictions.
Landlords will continue to be sued. Employers will continue to be exploited and oppressed by pressure to betray their conscience, maybe not this year in explicit terms, but in the years to follow.
We Christians have a moral disagreement with homosexual activists and leftists. It’s dishonest and cruel and vicious to portray a legitimate moral conviction disagreement as “bigotry.” But this will continue.
Report comment to moderator
Joel says: We Christians have a moral disagreement with homosexual activists and leftists. It’s dishonest and cruel and vicious to portray a legitimate moral conviction disagreement as “bigotry.” But this will continue.
Spoken like a true anti-integrationist, anti-miscegationist, anti-suffrage individual, with identical rhetoric dusted off for a new millenium.
Want quotes? Loving v. VA, Lincoln’s biography, and Susan B. Anthony’s biography. The opposition to all of these societal advances took precisely the same form, without a jot or tittle of difference despite the passage of time.
Joel? The dinosaurs are extinct.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1,
There is zero corelation between matters related to racial respect & integratfreedom and the sexual politics of homosexualists today. No corelation at all.
Again and again and again and again, leftists resort to presumptive disrespect when disagreeing with people. We have a difference in moral conviction, okay. The other issues you raised, Thomas, are irrelevant to my views regarding sexual politics and the sacredness and integrity of marriage. You have drawn an illegitimate comparison to attempt to poison the well.
___________
Report comment to moderator
Joel, I just disagree with you. Words such as “homosexualists” are just as disrespectful as the terms you complain about.
I don’t believe you know know any more about whether there is a God than I do. You don’t know any more about what this supposed God wants then I do. You just speak very loudly and assertively to try and impress people that you have such knowledge.
The people you dismiss as “homosexualitst” are ordinary people, a mixture of good and bad, like Christians and Muslims and atheists. You dismiss in a disrespectful way those who do not hold your religious beliefs. You want respect, complain about not getting it, but seem to have difficulty showing it to others.
Your time is passing.
Report comment to moderator
Ken: “Gay” people not only deserve the same right to marriage as everybody else, they already have it. What they don’t have is the right to redefine and rename an arrangement recognized and supported by all cultures and civilizations throughout history in an attempt to rehabililtate and normalize their own relationships in the public eye.
I wouldn’t overstate it if I were you. “All cultures and civilizations throughout history” have included polygamous marriages, ployandrous marriages, arranged marriages, marriages of teenagers, common-law marriages, politically-motivated marriages and variety of other things you would probably not support if you thought about them specifically.
What most opponents of gay marriage mean by “traditional marriage” is the tradition of American marriage for the past century or two.
Report comment to moderator
Nana: Why do some homosexuals want their “unions” to be called a “marriage” while others (Rachel Maddow, Tammy Bruce) do not?
Why do some heterosexuals want to get married and others prefer to remain unmarried? Different people want different things.
What are you trying to insinuate with the question?
Report comment to moderator
Nana: Spinoza, where was “will of the people” used to mean decmocracy against Britixh monarchy?
Ummm … did you not study American history? Spinoza is referring to the guiding principle of the American Revolution, that the will of the people should guide the nation, not the decrees of an unelected monarch.
Of course, one of the things the will of the people has put into place over the course of our history is the principle that minorities should be as free as the majority, even when a majority of voters might feel otherwise. It took a Civil War, a century of turmoil and finally some activist judges to get full civil rights for blacks, but it happened.
The “will of the people” is not the final word on such issues, although it does count for far more in our system than it did in the monarchy.
Report comment to moderator
Ummm…Steve, I simply wanted to know from what context Spinoza had taken the “quote.” As you see, his response didn’t answer my question. I wondered if he’d confused that with the guiding principle of “the RIGHT of the people” as stated in the Declaration of Independence.
Report comment to moderator
What quote? He didn’t offer a quote. He’s describing a historical fact.
Report comment to moderator
“What most opponents of gay marriage mean by “traditional marriage” is the tradition of American marriage for the past century or two.”
You can’t be serious. Can you? At the very least, marriage in western Europe going back 2,000 years to the time of Christ–that is, the civilization that Christianity built–has always been between one man and one woman. I also suspect that Jewish marriage for thousands of years has been primarily between one man and one woman, although there have always been anomalies. Exceptions to the rule do not disprove the rule.
However, let’s consider what Jesus had to say about marriage.
‘The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.’ (Matthew 19)
Report comment to moderator
#57
Steve, your apparent denial that male/female marrage has been the historical norm is a contortion of the intellect that is beneath you, I think. This is hardly an ‘American’ idea.
Report comment to moderator
David L. and DJ: Both of you are ignoring the substance of what I wrote. Indeed, same-sex marriage has not been historically accepted in any civilization I know of. However, there have been many “traditional” arrangements that are not what proponents of “traditional marriage” mean when they use that phrase.
Would you advocate a system in which the father of a girl chooses the boy who will become her husband, paying a dowry to the boy’s parents? That’s a tradition in many cultures. That’s “traditional marriage.”
Would you like to see 15-year-old girls marrying 30-year-old men? That was very common in Europe throughout the Middle Ages and into the 18th century or so. That’s “traditional marriage.”
Would you like to see marriages of one man and two or more women? That was a common Biblical arrangement, and has persisted in some cultures for many centuries. To them, that’s “traditional marriage.”
What you mean is one adult man, one adult woman, freely choosing each other to marry with no monetary or other property transaction. And that too is a traditional marriage, but not — as Ken so boldly overstated — the tradition of “all cultures and civilizations throughout history.”
Report comment to moderator
However, let’s consider what Jesus had to say about marriage.
‘The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.’ (Matthew 19)
I might advise you to leave your wet umbrella in the hall. That would not be a sign that I disapprove of raincoats.
Report comment to moderator
Steve,
Ken was speaking specifically to the male/female aspect of marriage. Redefining marriage to include same sex marriage is an enormous departure from the historical norm. And it is not a departure that easily lends itself to being resolved on the state level since there are reciprocity practices between states that necessarily extend the effects of each state’s marrigae laws to the others.
Report comment to moderator
I have explained this many times. There is nothing disrespectful about the term “homosexualist.” It refers to people who may or may not actually be homosexuals themselves but are committed to a homosexual agenda.
And “abortionist” may not have abortions themselves, but they perform them or support their occurance.
A “capitalist” is someone committed to the free market and supports programs and activities that involve the free exchange of capital.
An “Islamist,” as currently understood, is distinguished a regular personwho practices Islam in that the ‘Islamist’ has a particular public commitment to promoting an agenda or a program that publically promotes that agenda.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG wrote; “What most opponents of gay marriage mean by “traditional marriage” is the tradition of American marriage for the past century or two.”
No, what we mean by it is what Jesus stated in Matthew 19:4-6, “…that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female… ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’ So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.” (Matthew 19:4-6).
Male & female. Two become one.
Report comment to moderator
DJ #66:
He’s not saying that same-sex marriage has ever been accepted in the past. He’s saying that the current definition of “traditional marriage” being used by opponents of same-sex marriage is not really traditional in that it excludes many practices for which there is enormous historical precedent.
In other words, same-sex marriage is “as abnormal” as a a system that forbids women under the age of 18 to marry. Or a system that forbids multiple wives. Or a system in which the bride’s father has little to no say in whether (and to whom) his daughters can marry. In essence, he’s arguing that modern opponents of same-sex marriage are, compared to its proponents, merely advocating a different kind of “non-traditional” marriage.
Report comment to moderator
Joel #68:
Then you should call it “biblical marriage”, not “traditional marriage”. The system Jesus proposed (i.e. no divorce) wasn’t even “traditional” in its own day.
Report comment to moderator
BuddyGlass,
Marriage, at its very core, is the union of man and woman: it always has been—traditionally. It brings the two halves of the human population together and makes them “one flesh”. Age restrictions and specific cultural traditions or prohibitions do not change that essential nature of marriage (the union of man and woman.)
We can converse about what marriage should be, but trying to make the case that marriage as we know it today is not ‘traditional’ because we have age restrictions or prohibit polygamy is simply an attempt to facilitate the redefinition of marriage by redefining what traditional means. To me, the attempt to reduce the term ‘traditional marriage’ to mean something uniquely American is scraping the bottom of the barrel in terms of ideas. Just because some unessential aspects of marriage have changed over time, does not in any way mean we should also change its traditional essence: union of man and woman.
Report comment to moderator
#71:
Personally I agree about not “redefining” marriage. At least, not personally. If others in same-sex relationships choose to define themselves as “married” then that’s their prerogative, but its no real concern of mine.
However, what irritates me is that many people take the above attitude and translate it into, “We must prevent the state from recognizing assigning the traditional legal rights and responsibilities of ‘marriage’ to same-sex couples.”
Report comment to moderator
Err, that was a typo. “Not personally” should be “personally”.
Report comment to moderator
BuddyGlass,
If it were just a matter of what people choose to call themselves, I would agree. And if I had no obligation or responsibility for ‘the state’ proclamations regarding marriage, I would, again, agree with you. In other words, if I lived in a kingdom, I would have no responsibility for the king’s ruling on marriage laws, because I have no power over a king. But in a democracy, the power of the government is vested in its citizenry, who are free to elect the officials to make these laws. And contained in that freedom is the responsibility to try to see that our laws are as good as we can influence them to be. But I’m no activist, and I even believe that deliberate abstention from voting can be an acceptable, principled act if done thoughtfully.
All that being said, I do think there is merit to a discussion of how much, and to what extent, the state should be involved in marriage at all. Personally, I strongly favor leaving things the way they are; traditional marriage. But the persistence of activists in many states (including mine) to redefine marriage, may make that position untenable eventually and may force the necessity of a constitutional amendment in the end.
Report comment to moderator
IMO there are good reasons to allow same-sex couples to take upon themselves the legal rights and responsibilities of marriage. Conferring these rights and responsibilities on them doesn’t make them “married”, because “marriage” is in essence a spiritual designation. Currently it is used to refer to both parts, though. The spiritual and the secular/legal. That’s what I object to. I’d prefer the state deal in terms of a designation that has no spiritual or religious connotation, e.g. “civil union”.
Individuals (same or opposite sex) wishing to take upon themselves the rights and responsibilities of civil union would express that commitment to the state, which would then treat them accordingly from a legal point of view. If they also wish to be “married”, then they would need to find a church willing to “marry” them.
For my part, I would oppose it if my church ever considered marrying same-sex couples. (It wouldn’t.) But, at the same time, I see no compelling reason to deny same-sex couples the legal, secular status of civil union. Which, under my system, would be the exact same thing offered by the state to opposite-sex couples. “Marriage” would be the exclusive purview of religious organizations.
Report comment to moderator
BuddyGlass,
Your proposition has a certain appeal to it. However, I think negative unintended consequences would be very detrimental to those who choose to marry in the church and not the state. It is not for nothing that marriage is traditional. We have built up laws and customs and ways to doing things that would cause much chaos if overturned one day by law. I don’t think there is much to be gained by doing it.
Also, I think you are mistaken in your assumption that homosexual activists will be satisfied with civil unions that give them the rights and responsibilities of marriage—without the name. In Connecticut, the ink was barely dry on the signed legislation legalizing civil unions, when the gay activists brought suit in court alleging that civil unions are intrinsically unfair, and that they must be called marriage. The court agreed, so now we have gay marriage.
Report comment to moderator
There would need to be a provision that automatically assigns the rights and responsibilities of civil union on those who get “married” without actually filing the paperwork with the state. This already exists in the form of common law marriage. For instance, in Texas, if I cohabit with a woman and we both refer to ourselves as “married” (even if there was never a religious ceremony) then we’re considered “married”. If we separate, my common law spouse is entitled to a share of whatever we jointly own. I would be required to pay child support. Etc.
Most evangelicals and other supporters of “traditional marriage” would do the state thing (similar to how they get marriage “certificates” now) and then do a church wedding.
I agree, so long as the state continues to recognize “marriage” for opposite-sex couples and not for same-sex couples. Hence my suggestion that the state recognize “marriage” for nobody and instead deal solely in terms of civil unions.
“Marriage” would be an extra thing religious people do, divorced from the secular state, and would be open to same and opposite sex couples alike. (Assuming the same-sex couple could find a church willing to “marry” them, though that’s not much of a challenge.)
Report comment to moderator
Buddy, that sounds a little like reverse discrimination against religious people.
Report comment to moderator
I still don’t see the point in legally overturning the traditional definition of marriage. And just because a few people demand it, doesn’t mean there’s a good reason to do it. And civil unions are just an excuse to sue for marriage rights. Traditional marriage provides the framework for naturally occurring families. This has worked well for many centuries, and I would oppose changing that arrangement just because a few people don’t like it.
Report comment to moderator
#78:
How so?
When I started thinking about this issue, I asked myself, “What does it mean to be married?” And I came up with two answers. First, its a secular pseudo-contractual designation that confers certain rights and legal consequences. Second, and more importantly, it is a mystical union between between man and woman entered into before God.
According to the second definition it is utterly impossible for a same-sex couple to ever “marry” since God does not bless such unions. So I’m not worried on that count. Regardless of what a state government says, same-sex couples are not “married” in the most important sense of the word.
Given this second meaning, who in their right mind thinks the secular govt. should have a say in approving the “mystical union before God” of two believers? It grossly perverts the function of the state. All the state should care about, from a legal standpoint, is whether two individuals have entered into a civil union (either explicitly or implicitly by common law).
In the system I support, everyone (same or opposite sex) is able enter into a civil union. Similarly, everyone (same or opposite sex) is able to be “married”, assuming they can find someone willing to perform the ceremony.
Report comment to moderator
Why should marriage be “an extra thing religious people do” in order to satisfy male and female homosexuals who want to change a long-established moral culture?
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!