Prop 8. We are all being Duped

Marriage is a religious event?  Hehehehehe.

CFE - this has been a position that I have long held. However, it is obviously not only the "The Christian Right" that is in opposition to gay marriage. Unless you include everyone, including Obama, who is against gay marriage as the Christian right.

CFE: I have commented and thought I read you correctly, but judging from the other posters, maybe not. Marriage is a contract from the state, recognized by the federal government. Problem with that? Yes or no?

Leaving the religious side out of this, are you in favor of equal marriage rights?

Mike: Obama is a disappointment here. In the past, he has been on record as being in favor of marriage equality. He is now saying something different. He needs to make up his mind.

Hugh: Marriage is not a church issue. There are millions who get married without a church ceremony. Do you consider a couple that goes to a justice of the peace not married?

Chris - I have to disagree with you on the suggestion that "marriage" is a religious event and contract that "only" religious organizations bestow.  Yes, it is a contract.  And yes, it can be a religious event.  But it is a contract at its base between a man and a woman indicating that they have a "contractually committed relationship".  Clarifying that does nothing to change anyone else's relationships.  And it neither helps nor hurts religious organizations (or secular organizations) in carrying on with their religious (or secular) events.

As for the legal rights attached to that contract, I think they are not so much "marriage" rights, as "contractually committed relationship" rights.  Here in CA, those same rights have, for a number of years, been given to both those in a "marriage" contract as well as those in a "domestic partnership" contract.  If you look up CA State law, you'll find that all rights and responsibilities are shared equally by all couples who have a contractually committed relationship - whether that be a "marriage" or a "domestic partnership."  The granting or denying of those legal rights has nothing to do with any religious organization.

You said, "The state has a right to grant unions." 

I disagree with this too.  The state neither creates nor desolves relationships.  What the state DOES have the right to do is grant or deny benefits and responsibilities attached to contracts.

I agree with you that the government has no place dictating our relationships. 

And I also agree with you that it would be more helpful to recast this question/debate - clarifying that the rights and responsibilities granted by the government should be granted equitably, while clarifying that differences in relationships - based on religion, gender, race, etc - have nothing to do with those rights. 

We did that in a prior era in defining another set of rights as "Civil Rights" instead of "White Rights."  While the rights had been only available to Whites, the rights belonged to all.  So recasting them as "Civil Rights" enabled the transition.  Had they insisted on sticking with "White Rights" we'd still be fighting that battle to this day.

Here in CA, we've gone ahead and granted the rights, but for some that's not good enough.  They want more than the same rights and responsibilities on the state level.  They want to twist language in order to force the rest of the states as well as the Federal government to provide the rights they already have here in CA. 

I believe they'd get a LOT further in their quest if they'd recast the question/debate to be one about "contractually committed relationships."  If there was determined to be a need for a single inclusive word to describe all such relationships, instead of my unwieldy 3-word description, surely someone could come up with something.

Scott~ Ididn't say that was the way it was or at least I didn'tmean to I said that was how I would like to see it.

CF: Actually, marriage was not originally a religious idea. It was a tool and a mechanism to keep power centered amonst royal families, empiers, etc. There are still forced marriages all over the world. Religion and sadly and most importantly, love is not necessary for marriage. Your points are made. They are still confused. I hear what you are saying and as a straight man who enjoys the freedom to marry and have your marriage mobile in all 50 states, you don't get the point from the other side. 

As some of you may know from other posts is that I am indeed gay. I am also married. My partner and I have been together for 13 years and were we married in 2004, when it became legal in Massachusetts. We file taxes in MA as married, filing seperately and federal taxes we are "single" which is technically a lie, but I digress. We actually pay LESS in taxes as single payers vs. married. If the government wants less money, fine with me. The thing is...I have the exact same rights and responsibilities as the couple next door, who have been married 50 years. That is pretty powerful.

CF: I believe we are afforded the same rights under the Constitution. As long as the government grants special rights to married couples, it should apply to all. If the government decides to make all unions in the US "civil unions" then that would be equal.I highly doubt that most straight couples would want the union called a "civil union" if they went to the county courthouse and the couple next door had a big church wedding and they are "married." That's something you straights need to iron out. :)

I just want equal rights. That's all.

Chris - it sounds like we're (now) basically on the same page. 

The confusion I had came from your statement that the government creates the unions. (I know, you said "the state has the right to grant unions".  But that sounded like essentially the same thing.)

And you've apparently "heard" Scott, who's correct in stating that "marriage" doesn't have its roots in religious ceremonies... it predates Judaism, which predates Christianity (& Islam).

Scott - as far as legal rights go, here in CA - even with the passage of Prop 8 - you would have essentially the same situation as you currently have in MA, just not the use of the name "marriage" to describe your relationship.  I think that's almost as it should be.  The one further change I think should be made is to make all the Federal rights/responsibilities that are granted to those in a "marriage" union apply equally to those in "civil" unions or "domestic partnerships" (or whatever term is deemed acceptable to those who want those rights and are willing to enter into a contractually committed relationship.

While I'm sure there would be some objection from some on the right, I believe it wouldn't be too hard to get majority public approval for correcting Federal law to grant those rights to all who are in such a civil union - and define the civil union as any relationship between two adults who are contractually committed to one another.  (So, "marriage" would be nothing more nor less than a way to describe a particular relationship that has a biological basis... back to what "marriage" was originally... devoid of special tax, insurance, etc. rights.)

Hey Christian,

It is great to see a post from you. Welcome back.

I thought you might find the arguments below from several Catholic Lay people interesting.

Kmiec: Time to get government out of the marriage business

May 28, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
I don't agree with Douglas Kmiec often, but this may be the exception ... maybe.  With all of the various legal and legislative challenges to the definition of marriage in states across the nation, Kmiec tells Catholic News Agency that government should restrict itself to enforcing contract law and leave the question of marriage to the churches.  Robert George, a highly respected Constitutional scholar and fellow Catholic, vehemently disagrees (via The Corner):

Doug Kmiec, a prominent Catholic who backed Barack Obama's presidential bid, has endorsed replacing marriage with a neutral "civil license," a proposal law professor Robert P. George called a "terrible idea" that would make the government neglect a vital social institution.

Speaking to CNSNews.com, Pepperdine University law professor Doug Kmiec said that although his solution to disputes over the definition of marriage might be "awkward," it would "untie the state from this problem" by creating a new terminology that would apply to everyone, homosexual or not. "Call it a ‘civil license'," he said.

"The net effect of that, would be to turn over-quite appropriately, it seems to me, the concept of marriage to churches and a church understanding," he said.

George counters:

"It's a pre-political institution," he said. "It exists even apart from religion, even apart from polities. It's the coming together of a husband and wife, creating the institution of family in which children are nurtured."

"The family is the original and best Department of Health, Education and Welfare," he continued, saying that governments, economies and legal systems all rely on the family to produce "basically honest, decent law abiding people of goodwill - citizens - who can take their rightful place in society."

"Family is built on marriage, and government-the state-has a profound interest in the integrity and well-being of marriage, and to write it off as if it were a purely a religiously significant action and not an institution and action that has a profound public significance, would be a terrible mistake," George told CNSNews.com.

"I don't know where Professor Kmiec is getting his idea, but it's a very, very bad one."

Normally in any debate between Kmiec and George, I'd rely on the latter, especially on matters of faith.  However, in this case, Kmiec has the better argument, mostly because the "state" gave up protecting marriage and children decades ago.  The advent of no-fault divorce, in which one party can abrogate the marriage contract without penalty or consideration of the other party, has completely destroyed the notion that the government plays a role in protecting "integrity and well-being of the family."  In fact, I'd argue that serial marriers of the kind seen in Hollywood (or in Washington DC) do more to undermine marriage than single-gender unions would ever do.

The state could get out of the marriage business entirely, and have its citizens enter into partnership contracts instead.  That might have the salutary effect of putting mechanisms into place for dissolutions that would keep divorces from dragging on through the courts, but also give the state more ability to enforce the terms of the contract than government is willing to do with marriages that lack pre-nuptial agreements, especially on penalties for abrogation.  That would also give the courts an opening to finally get rid of "palimony", that noxious avenue where the courts have to make determinations whether contractual relations exist between people who neither execute a contract or take wedding vows.

Churches could then recognize marriage along their own precepts.  Catholics who want to get married in a Catholic church would still have to be a heterosexual couple above the age of consent, at least one of whom is Catholic, without issues of consanguinuity, but would have to also sign a partnership contract for the civil recognition of the relationship.  It would be little different than the current requirement of getting a marriage license now, except that the agreement would have more detail on the partnership than the current marriage license provides, although even that could be more or less boilerplate for many couples.

Would the public accept the withdrawal of government from the blessing of marriages?  Not at first, certainly, but the public also won't back a revocation of no-fault divorce, either, which strongly implies that a government imposed "integrity of marriages" solution won't be popular at all.  I'd expect this to be the eventual solution to the definition-of-marriage argument.

Update: Green Room contributor Pundette disagrees with me.  Be sure to read why.

What I find disturbing about all of this debate is that I think it is more about the agenda of the Gay and Lesbian community. Below are a couple of examples.

Part 1: "Gay & Lesbian Pride" Day in Elementary Schools - Actual footage of teachers indoctrinating children that homosexuality is "healthy education." Extremely slick propaganda directed at the ...  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J67ZhinTokI   

Part II: Role-playing in the third grade. Extremely slick propaganda directed at the youngest of children! The videos below are from It's Elementary, a 78-minute feature film produced by homosexua... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2viTzZtT_us  

Homosexual Indoctronation Agenda To Kindergartners in California Schools!!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-1bWEAZgJk

Personally I believe I would like to have parents teaching children about these issues. Not mandated in public schools.

Alice: Once again you bring your cut and paste to the thread. Do you ever have an original thought or  experience that you can share? We are having a "discussion" and you have brought nothing to the table. This whole schoolkid meme is bogus and you know it. Ask anyone in MA about it and you will find that this argument is a lie. Marriage equality is coming to a state near you and try as hard as you want with the fear and hate, but it is not going away. Gays are not going away, as much as you would want us to.

Oh, and Alice, did you know that there was a Roman Catholic liturgy in the 14th century (Not sure of the timeframe) there was a blessing of same-sex unions? Try Googling that and then cut and paste away.

Now, a civil discussion can resume.

Scott,

I have many thoughts and opinions and those who I blog with know where I stand. Just because you and I do not agree doesn't mean you are more correct because you attack me. Sorry, Scott that is not a valid argument.

The reason I provided the article above is to show that two people even in the same religion can disagree and debate an issue.

At this point I personally do not care if you or any other gay individual has a civil union and has all the rights and privileges of a married couple. But do not call it marriage. Marriage is the foundation for a family. In the Catholic church it is a sacrament that is sacred to us and our faith. While you and your partner are family in your eyes. You do not have the God given blessing of producing a child, therefore you are not Married. You have a civil union with the state privileges that go with that union. I agree with Douglas Kmiec.

But just as we want separation of church and state, a religion can not be taught in schools. I do not want your lifestyle taught in public schools period.

What goes on behind closed doors is not mine to judge. But do not tell me that when you bring it out from behind closed doors that I do not have the right to judge whether my children should be taught that it is OK.

Here is another example of the of the Gay agenda. What is it they always say. Follow the money.

From Andrew Sullivan. The activist Andrew Sullivan, one of the movers and shakers in the international homosexual movement.

'Hate crimes' a bogus argument for raising funds  ‎ - 5 hours ago A surprising revelation from a homosexual activist over the purpose of the "hate crimes" bill is drawing kudos from at least one pro-family spokesman. ...

Sullivan continues: "The real reason for the invention of hate crimes was a hard-left critique of conventional liberal justice and the emergence of special interest groups which need boutique legislation to raise funds for their large staffs and luxurious buildings. Just imagine how many direct mail pieces have gone out explaining that without more money for [Human Rights Campaign], more gay human beings will be crucified on fences. It's very, very powerful as a money-making tool -- which may explain why the largely symbolic federal bill still hasn't passed."

Alice says: While you and your partner are family in your eyes. You do not have the God given blessing of producing a child, therefore you are not Married.

In Alice's opinion (and I guess in her God's opinion) all of the couples who are unable to conceive a child are not married. All of the elderly couples who marry and are unable to produce children are not married. I wonder how big that will go over with those in the AR audience? Marriage is not about producing a child. Heck, your hero Sarah Palin, had her own sweet little daughter get pregnant out of wedlock. They certainly did not need a marriage to do that, now did they? Nope, raging hormones and two willing participants created a child. Teach that to your kids, Alice.

Scott,

I had a feeling that is where you would go. I have experienced the frustrations of infertility by having 4 miscarriages. I understand the pain and loss of a child. If my husband and I had not had our other children we would have adopted and loved those children as our own. God's plan is his and each child has a purpose. We do not have the authority to choose who lives and who dies, Christ does. I do not think people who cannot conceive are not married I strongly believe they still have a "vocation" to their marriage. As for Sarah Palin's daughter she stepped up the the plate and brought a gift from God into this world. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIBZ-kJ6XAc&feature=player_embedded

Pope John Paul II stated "At the origin of every human person there is a creative act of God.... From this fundamental truth of faith and reason it follows that the procreative capacity, inscribed in human sexuality, is--in its deepest truth-a cooperation with God's creative power. And it also follows that man and woman are not the arbiters, are not the masters of this same capacity, called as they are, in it and through it, to be participants in God's creative decision.

"In 1968, Pope Paul VI, a true prophet in Humane Vitae cautioned the world against four consequences of separating the procreative and unitive aspects of marriage: conjugal infidelity and the general lowering of morality, sexual exploitation and loss of respect for women, governmental control over people's lives, and human beings thinking they had unlimited dominion over their own bodies, turning the human person into an object. This is pretty much what we see in our society and culture right now.

It is interesting that Mahatma Gandhi, though not Christian, understanding the Natural Law, insightfully stated: "There is hope for a decent life only so long as the sexual act is definitely related to the conception of precious life. This rules out perverted sexuality and, to a lesser degree, promiscuity and to condoning if not endorsing natural vice" (10).

John Paul VI and Gandhi are neither American nor alive. And again, Alice cuts and pastes her responses, knowing exactly where "I would go" Well, Alice, I think you know where you can go. I ahve had enough of you and your responses.

Shame too. The discussion was going so well. Thanks for ruining yet another thread.

Bye Scott!!

Have a wonderful and blessed weekend!!

Alice- I had read about Ghandi's feeling on this matter previously.