Gay marriage issues must be decided by law, not religion
Later this month the Supreme Court will hear arguments on whether the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional. Societal, legislative and judicial conditions very much mirror those of 1966, when arguments were heard in the Loving v. Virginia case that sought to overturn miscegenation laws.
When Loving was decided the states had divided on whether to permit interracial marriages. Many had constitutional amendments to prevent it while approximately 14 states allowed it. This then became an argument about equal protection under the law. Much like it is today with regard to same-sex marriage. In fact many of the same arguments today against same-sex marriage mirror those arguments used against interracial marriage.
AP Photo
A favorite (although misplaced) argument by those against same-sex marriage is “well, if we allow gay marriage, then we have to allow all kinds of stuff.” And people’s representative, Rick Santorum, used this idea to make his infamous “man on dog” case against gay marriage. However, the original argument goes back to R.D. Mcllwaine, Virginia’s assistant attorney general, in Loving:
It is clear from the most recent available evidence on the psycho-sociological aspect of this question that intermarried families are subjected to much greater pressures and problems then (sic) those of the intermarried and that the state’s prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry and the preventing of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent.
Sounds familiar doesn’t it? However, the attorney for Loving responded:
The standards of consanguinity, mentality, age and number of spouse and so forth apply to all races, white, black, yellow, it doesn't matter to all races without any distinction, but now the racial factor is superimposed over and above this and is therefore is not on the same level.
This argument made by Mcllwaine failed then and the argument made today also should fail if the equal protection laws are applied to the cases before the Supreme Court today.
No matter what your religious beliefs about marriage, your religion and your belief is just that - yours to hold, not to impose on others. That is not the standard that should be applied in deciding whether or not same-sex couples should be allowed to marry. The Constitution provides for freedom of religion but prohibits religion from governing our laws.
Many will argue that this should be decided by the people, or by extension, the people’s representatives. I would counter that the people have often been on the wrong side of history. The majority should never be permitted to oppress the minority because we no longer have a democracy at that point. If left up to the people when we would have ended slavery; ended segregation; allowed women and blacks to vote; no longer deemed blacks and women property of men? I don’t know the answer do you? However, one thing I am sure of the court is exactly where this issue needs to be decided.
Wendy Cooper is an Ann Arbor resident.
Comments
1959Viking
Fri, Mar 15, 2013 : 11:50 p.m.
First of all I have to say that legislating morality is a futile and losing game. Morality is and has to be a voluntary and personal choice. It also seems clear that if a government claims and believes "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Then it can easily be seen that such a government would extend marriage status to all its citizens. But religion is clearly NOT pushing more and more into government. Religion is clearly losing it's influence in society. In actuality government is pushing more and more into religion. The free practice of religion is being challenged and limited by the government at a frequency never seen in American history. This can be seen in the HHS mandate and many social programs run by religious institutions being forbidden from working with many government agencies. The Founders wanted to make sure that people and institutions of all faiths could participate without government favoritism toward any particular faith. They never prescribed that religion be excluded from the public sphere.
Bertha Venation
Thu, Mar 14, 2013 : 6:43 p.m.
Very well said, Wendy!
arborani
Thu, Mar 14, 2013 : 6:05 p.m.
Per a comment above, "What the Catholic Church has learned of pedophiles is that they can never really be treated." Is the Church then invoking the old saw, "What can't be cured must be endured."?
UpperDecker
Thu, Mar 14, 2013 : 3:55 p.m.
If you oppose gay marriage you fail at life. This is such a waste of time to argue, yet again the younger generations are left to repair the ridiculous mistakes of older generations that were filled with hate for anything that seems different. Everyone has the equal right to be tortured/married.
345796345762345
Thu, Mar 14, 2013 : 3:44 p.m.
But this is "One nation under God". Clearly a Christion nation. /s
Steve Burling
Thu, Mar 14, 2013 : 6:55 p.m.
You are aware, are you not, that the "under God" part of the Pledge of Allegiance was added later, to distinguish us from the Godless Communists? I'd like to see that taken back out...
arborani
Thu, Mar 14, 2013 : 6:06 p.m.
Well, I guess Eisenhower thought so.
OLDTIMER3
Thu, Mar 14, 2013 : 12:57 p.m.
These same people that say keep your noses out of politics to the churches complain when other religions allow for more than one wife.
dotdash
Thu, Mar 14, 2013 : 2:13 p.m.
I think of it the other way. Those who want to make their religious values law would hate it if any other religion tried to do the same. There are a lot of born-again women agitating for legislating their religious beliefs who would resent not being allowed out alone in public. The beauty of keeping religion out of government is that we can ignore all religions equally.
Dog Guy
Thu, Mar 14, 2013 : 2:02 p.m.
Other religions legally cannot allow more than one wife in this country. We must praise that kind man who allows three of his cousins and their illegitimate kids to live in his home while collecting benefits.
jayjay
Thu, Mar 14, 2013 : 12:51 p.m.
I really wonder why some people believe they have to control the lives, the morals, the behavior of others. If two people choose to get married, that has to be their right. Call it marriage or civil unions or whatever you want to call it. If you don't like it or don't agree, don't practice it. It is called respect. Not everyone believes in religion, and not every religion believes in the same values. So how do we choose what religion will influence our values? By having laws that respect all religions equally, including no religion. A democratic society is based on majority rule with protection of minority rights.
Sheila Parsons
Thu, Mar 14, 2013 : 6:35 p.m.
We are not a democracy. We are a republic. Big difference. Just sayin'
lugemachine
Thu, Mar 14, 2013 : 12:37 p.m.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Help me understand how this endowment should not extend to gay American citizens in precisely the same way it extends to everybody else.
SEC Fan
Thu, Mar 14, 2013 : 4:42 p.m.
'cause some American citizens ain't men! oh wait, that is kind of a silly argument. ooh...how about: if we modify the "legal" definition of marriage (which primary purpose is to legally define ownership of stuff) we might be having dogs marrying fish! ...err...guess that doesn't sound quite as intelligent when spoken out loud as it did in my head. I mean dogs marrying people. well, actually, that sounds just as silly, since dogs don't actually own any stuff. well, shucks...
Usual Suspect
Thu, Mar 14, 2013 : 3:06 p.m.
Everybody has the right to marry a person of the opposite sex. That's equal - the same right for everybody.
clownfish
Thu, Mar 14, 2013 : 2:17 p.m.
ABC, do you have a dowry for your daughters? If not, you have redefined marriage.
abc911
Thu, Mar 14, 2013 : 1:32 p.m.
Exactly the same way. Gays are free to marry a person of the opposite sex. To alter the definition of marriage is to treat homosexuals differently.
Dog Guy
Thu, Mar 14, 2013 : 12:51 p.m.
I completely agree that this endowment extends "to gay American citizens in precisely the same way it extends to everybody else."
clownfish
Thu, Mar 14, 2013 : 12:21 p.m.
Always entertaining to read comments from people that usually make posts about freedom and less government intrusion into our lives. These folks should come out in favor of the individual to make their own life decisions, but they take the opposite position when it comes to two (at least) topics: gay marriage and pot. Why? IMHO it is because these two things are linked in their heads to "leftism", a leftover from the days of good conservatives banging the heads of hippies and sicking dogs on those that want to vote. There is no logic to any of the arguments against gay marriage, just tired old slogans, cheap "science" and adherence to one line in an old book. If you want less government, then you should support adults decisions to marry whom they choose. It does no harm to you or society to have more couples wed and maybe raising kids in loving homes. It DOES harm society to have kids left in foster care, to have estates go into probate instead of passing to heirs chosen by an adult and to have people beaten because of who they love .
clownfish
Thu, Mar 14, 2013 : 2:15 p.m.
You are just plain wrong that "Nobody is saying that it should be illegal and you should go to jail for being gay." If it were not for the Supreme Court it would still be illegal to "be gay" in several states. Here is an example of a person creating an argument that homosexuality should be illegal: http://action.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147491680 Here is the Montana GOP's platform on homosexuality - "We support the clear will of the people of Montana expressed by legislation to keep homosexual acts illegal."
jayjay
Thu, Mar 14, 2013 : 2:13 p.m.
If God had wanted people to be gay, they'd have been born that way! Oh, you mean they actually were! Well, I guess that says it all. They are God's children as well. End of story!
sayzme
Thu, Mar 14, 2013 : 2:10 p.m.
Bill Schuette and the GOP CONSTANTLY undermine the will of the people!
clownfish
Thu, Mar 14, 2013 : 2:06 p.m.
MIKE, please show me where I called anybody a bigot. The Majority of The People said they want to provide marijuana to other people, but the GOP of MI says "No, you will not have businesses that do that." A majority of The People also said they do not want emergency managers, MI GOP said "We don't care". A majority of people want background checks for gun purchases, health care for all and safe abortion clinics. The majority of people wanted "white only" drinking fountains, no interracial marriage and KNEW that Saddam Hussein had wmd's at points in recent history.
sayzme
Thu, Mar 14, 2013 : 1:13 p.m.
Well said Clownfish, so true..
Mike
Thu, Mar 14, 2013 : 12:48 p.m.
Nobody is saying that it should be illegal and you should go to jail for being gay. You have a conviction that gay marriage is OK, unfortunately the majority do not side with you. Peoople who have a religious conviction that it is wrong are entitled to their opinion as are you. The difference is that you would label those that do not agree as intolerant bigots while expecting those with the opposite view to accept your position. The definition of bigot cuts both ways: "a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial, religious, or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance " we are all bigoted in our positions but for some reason only the left likes to label people....................
Mike
Thu, Mar 14, 2013 : 11:36 a.m.
The argument that law should decide and not religion is a joke. The law IS that marriage is between a man and a woman, religion just happens to agree in most cases that I am aware of. The problem is the vocal minority does not agree with the very law they say we should be following. One of the problems with the left leaning folks is that they say they are accepting of everyone and that the right is intolerant...........as long as you agree with their position
TB
Thu, Mar 14, 2013 : 9:51 p.m.
@clownfish Libertarians should not be expected to support gay marriage. Wanting less intrusion in people's personal lives does not lead to supporting gay marriage. I'd say the pure libertarian position would be to get government completely out of all marriages so the government doesn't subsidize the married population at the expense of the non-married population, which is what I'd prefer. That being said, I don't see the government uninvolving itself from heterosexual marriages anytime soon, so for practicality's sake I support gay marriage. However, I would not support a Supreme Court decision to strike down gay marriage bans. The legislature has the authority to define marriage, the court does not.
jayjay
Thu, Mar 14, 2013 : 12:56 p.m.
I think you need to revisit what you call the "vocal minority" -- the country as a whole seems to hold the majority opinion in favor of gay marriage, that marriage cannot be narrowly defined as between one man and one woman. But let's not let the facts get in the way; they only cause problems.
clownfish
Thu, Mar 14, 2013 : 12:15 p.m.
Libertarians should support gay marriage, do they qualify as left leaning? REAL conservatives should fall in the libertarian category, less government, less intrusion in peoples personal lives. Thousands of gay people have been married in multiple states, have you noticed any changes in your life because of that? Are you even able to tell that this massive epoch shattering change occurred, other than the outrage being vented on talk radio?
grimmk
Thu, Mar 14, 2013 : 7 a.m.
Well said! I couldn't agree more. Sadly, religion is pushing more and more into government. I feel that as a nation, we are back sliding. While other nations that we should be on par with, we are still very far behind. Not just with allowing anyone who wants to marry someone else, but with our education and health care. Many may not see that as a problem, but being mocked by the rest of the world hurts us as a whole. Those who don't seem to care, don't seem to want to venture out into the world either. It's a shame. And yes, when asked, I say I'm a Canadian. If I say I'm American it leads to all kinds of questions and really bad looks. It shouldn't, and doesn't have to be this way. Time to step up America. I dare you.
jayjay
Thu, Mar 14, 2013 : 1 p.m.
Religion is a personal issue and should not be imposed upon anyone. It should be respected as part of our values such that those values are not compromised by any laws. That any particular religion has had an overriding impact on our laws and is now being "pushed to the side" should be welcomed by all who appreciate the reasons for which this country was founded. If religion is being pushed aside, could it be really that because too many religions, to promote their own political gains and financial survival have become irrelevant, thus the issue is with the very religion itself?
Mike
Thu, Mar 14, 2013 : 11:37 a.m.
I wish what you were saying was true. In reality we are pushing religion out of every place in our lives..........
Stanley James
Thu, Mar 14, 2013 : 4:57 a.m.
there has never been a law at that required people to procreate or even be able to procreate. So the whole biz about children is BS And the UN and other international groups recognize that for many reasons - natural resources, pollution load etc, over populaiton is one of mankinds greatest dangers the whole argument is about marriage is for chidlren is BS And it basically comes from the catholic and right wing xtgian churches who are behind measures to take us back to the 1920s wehn birth control devices eg even condoms were illegal They simply want more minds to control and corrupt agianst their enemy of the moment. Which to day is equal rights for gay people under the civil law.
Basic Bob
Thu, Mar 14, 2013 : 2:20 p.m.
"there has never been a law at that required people to procreate or even be able to procreate" Procreation used to be something that happened frequently when people had sex, and the religious traditions and laws were set up to protect women and children from bad men. Granted, those who did not get married first did not get this protection. To simply offer this "right" to people who will never be penniless, isolated, and saddled alone with pregnancy and the rearing of a child is a bizarre twisting of the noble idea that men should be responsible for their children. You are dead-set on taking this away just to stay "even"? Please do not attempt to rewrite ancient traditions in the context of modern secularism. That is the real baloney.
Mike
Thu, Mar 14, 2013 : 11:39 a.m.
I could care less what the UN has to say............they are a bunch os USA wannabees who are jealous of this country and would like to see us brought down to the level of most of the nations that belong to that organization which we pay for..........
Usual Suspect
Thu, Mar 14, 2013 : 2:38 a.m.
There is no such thing as "gay marriage" any more than there is such a thing as "cajun sushi." Marriage is marriage, and it's not between two people of the same sex (or gender - can't seem to tell the difference any more). Call it something other than "marriage" and I'm all for it. But it's not marriage.
arborani
Thu, Mar 14, 2013 : 6:20 p.m.
Jayjay: Re legislating correct use of "decimation" - actually, I kinda wish somebody would . . .
SEC Fan
Thu, Mar 14, 2013 : 4:33 p.m.
Why you hatin on Cajun Sushi? Dat's not right.
jayjay
Thu, Mar 14, 2013 : 1:06 p.m.
The definition of marriage like that of any other word is subject to change over time. That it may have meant at one time a union of two people of differing sexes only reflects the historical point in time. Another example -- people use the word decimation to mean literally incredible, almost total destruction. But if you take the word apart, "deci" means 1/10, or the word means 10% of something being killed or destroyed. Shall we legislate usage of that word as well?
Bababooey
Thu, Mar 14, 2013 : 12:34 p.m.
@Usual Suspect...You can tell as many people as you want that 2 + 2 = 5, but anyone who knows basic math will know the answer you gave is a little off. Some will tell you so and others will smile and shake their heads and let you keep believing because they know you will never learn basic math no matter how hard they try to teach you.
clownfish
Thu, Mar 14, 2013 : 12:29 p.m.
Why is it wrong, because you say so? Can you show me the harm done?
Unusual Suspect
Thu, Mar 14, 2013 : 12:18 p.m.
The fact that those places got it wrong does not require me to get it wrong. (per me)
clownfish
Thu, Mar 14, 2013 : 12:11 p.m.
As stated above, many places allow gay people to enter into a legal contract with each other. How have you been harmed?
Peter
Thu, Mar 14, 2013 : 4:28 a.m.
There is no such thing as "interracial marriage" any more than there is such a thing as "cajun sushi." Marriage is marriage, and it's not between two people of different races (or ethnicity - can't seem to tell the difference any more). Call it something other than "marriage" and I'm all for it. But it's not marriage.
Susan Montgomery
Thu, Mar 14, 2013 : 2:50 a.m.
... except of course where gay marriage is legal: Connecticut, DC, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, Washington, Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden (per Wikipedia)
Tim Hornton
Thu, Mar 14, 2013 : 1:35 a.m.
Well in a democracy the people vote which decides law and peoples religion affects the way they vote. If someone believes gay people should not be married in their society they have a right to vote that way. No matter what religion will govern law in a democracy to a certain extent. A gay person's own belief of morality isn't going to change what a spirtitual person believes the Divine's Word will have him or her do. It takes a lot more backbone now to say gay sex is wrong then to just go with the media and praise and glorify being gay. I've had a lot of gay friends and most of the male ones were pretty cool (I only liked 3 lesbians). I would tell them straight up "IF ASKED" I didn't agree with gay marriage but I also stated Idon't go out of my way to judge since I was quite the fornicator. I find this article real preachy and who is Wendy Cooper? You can't compare having laws set against you because of the shade color of your skin or your gender as the same as who or what you have sex with. If we couldn't judge sex then we wouldn't have sex offenders and adultery would just be "normal". Sex is an action (in context right or wrong)! Being black, white, or being a woman is not, thus should not be judged!
Sue
Thu, Mar 21, 2013 : 4:19 a.m.
We can't judge sex between consenting adults, that's why adultery is not a punishable crime, nor is pornography, or swinging, or sex between multiple partners, or fornication (which is so popular and accepted among Christians, as well as out of wedlock pregnancies), etc. Gay marriage is not about sex, they are already having sex after all. It's about giving people who are attracted to the same gender as themselves the same rights as people who are attracted to the opposite gender of themselves. If straight people can marry those they are attracted to, then gays should be able to marry those they are attracted to as well.
jayjay
Thu, Mar 14, 2013 : 4:23 p.m.
Leaguebus, let's take a closer look at your last line -- "But the younger people in this country are far less religious than their parents and it will swing back." Could that have anything to do with the fact that religions may have become irrelevant, that a person's relationship with God has become more personal and less collective? Churches after all are institutions, and like all institutions, they tend to impose certain rules and beliefs upon their followers. When those beliefs or rules become corrupted, are shown to be not even followed by the church hierarchy or are shown to not reflect a society's changing values, it is only normal that people would fall away. Hard to find a religion today that speaks to the issues of today's youth. Is that because today's youth are bad and don't follow the rigid doctrines of the church, or is it that the church's rigid doctrines cannot address the needs of the modern world, especially our greatly enlightened youth.
Stanley James
Thu, Mar 14, 2013 : 5:02 a.m.
I really doubt that you have gay friends. This is old claptrap garbage. Sri but your also saying that gay is a choice which virtually every psych and med association say otherwise - except for a group that agrees with you > It btw has 200 members. The real group has 60,000 member
leaguebus
Thu, Mar 14, 2013 : 3:04 a.m.
What you forget, Tim, is that we have a written Constitution and a written Bill of Rights. We don't vote on basic freedoms because we have basic inalienable rights, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Our Forefathers distrusted religion as much as they distrusted royalty. They wanted to keep the affairs of church out of the affairs of state and vice-versa. So when the right wing Christians in Michigan pass a bunch of religion based laws that restrict the rights of women, we object. The courts used to protect us from unwise laws, but they are stacked by right wing theocrats. Our Democracy swings back and forth like a pendulum and right now it is in a right wing swing. But the younger people in this country are far less religious than their parents and it will swing back.
5c0++ H4d13y
Thu, Mar 14, 2013 : 1:02 a.m.
How about we get the government out of the marriage business and then we wont have the argument anymore?
SEC Fan
Thu, Mar 14, 2013 : 4:29 p.m.
t'would be nice...but not very practical. Taxes, inheritance, property ownership, Social Security benefits...etc....all affected by marital status.
Stanley James
Thu, Mar 14, 2013 : 5:04 a.m.
Get the govt out of marriage - well how do non religious people get married? What we need to do is get relgion out of govt - we could prob solve the deficit problem by seizing the assets of churches that get involved in politics which violates their tax deductible tax free status A double whammy
Michael
Thu, Mar 14, 2013 : 2:06 a.m.
How about we remove religion from marriage, the way it was originally designed!
Basic Bob
Thu, Mar 14, 2013 : 1:37 a.m.
That's a refreshing argument.
cmdvimes
Thu, Mar 14, 2013 : 12:59 a.m.
Churches, temples, mosques, etc should not be involved in any determining civil legal issues outside their domain. Theocracy is unethical and un-American.
jayjay
Thu, Mar 14, 2013 : 2:52 p.m.
I think too many people do not understand what respect of religion is in terms of separation of church and state. It is not that religion has no place in our lives or our politics, it is that the state may not make laws based on any particular religion in disrespect of other religions. But it was never meant to exclude any group from having a voice. But when a religion seeks to impose itself upon others because it is the "true" religion, that is where the state has to draw the line. The good of a society has to be to protect its diversity, its plurality. It can be a fine line to tread, but isn't that why we elect such intelligent people to run our gov't, so they make the right decisions -- now where did we go wrong? Is it in the use of the word "intelligent?"
dsponini
Thu, Mar 14, 2013 : 2:07 p.m.
As much as Gov. Snyder's merry band of fools in Lansing want to see Michigan as a Plutocratic Theocracy, fortunately so far...it is not. It will never be. Get your religion out of my life and let me marry my partner of 14 years. I am constantly being told that I am not an equal citizen and I've had enough of this religious dogma.
Stanley James
Thu, Mar 14, 2013 : 5:06 a.m.
If you wnat to see what theocrcys allways become go to the coutnries that provided the pepople who flew the 9-11 peolple And try to sell xtian bibles on the street corner and wait for the Mutwa to come with their swords (saudi religious police - choppers)
cmdvimes
Thu, Mar 14, 2013 : 1:54 a.m.
The people who belong to those organizations are certainly free to express their opinion. What you misunderstood or I made insufficiently clear is that groups like the Southern Baptist Convention, National Islamic Association or the Mormon Church should be not be dictating what kind of laws the passed by local/state/federal governments.
Joe Hood
Thu, Mar 14, 2013 : 1:04 a.m.
And the people that believe in those places are not allowed a say in society? Only Secular Humanists have a say?
Ivor Ivorsen
Thu, Mar 14, 2013 : 12:31 a.m.
ABC NEWS: "A majority of Catholics, 54 percent, now support gay marriage, compared to 47 percent of all Americans, according to a new Quinnipiac University poll." Hmm.
SEC Fan
Thu, Mar 14, 2013 : 4:27 p.m.
Yes, but the vast majority of Catholics are not American...and therefore do not set Catholic doctrine...
jayjay
Thu, Mar 14, 2013 : 2:43 p.m.
If you believe in an afterlife, and therefore a heaven and hell, if being gay is a sin because it is not natural (whatever that means), then shouldn't it be left up to God to judge whether one has met the criteria or not. If you are hetero and believe that being homo is wrong, don't your actions speak louder than your words; in other words, if you act in a hetero sense, doesn't that do more to promote your beliefs than citing religion and your interpretation of it as the reason to deny the rights of others. The gay people I know who are upstanding citizens and model parents do more to dispel rumors about the gay lifestyle than anything anyone says. They are as loving and caring as their heterosexual counterparts, and maybe more so because of all the barriers they have to overcome in our "just" society. And what they do in the privacy of their own homes should not be a subject of law or religion.
Ivor Ivorsen
Thu, Mar 14, 2013 : 12:08 p.m.
Mike, I'm sorry, but you're living in the past. There has been a very clear shift in attitudes toward marriage equality across the United States in recent years. Millions of Americans have voted for marriage equality in 2012. It's coming to Michigan, sooner or later--and certainly within my lifetime.
clownfish
Thu, Mar 14, 2013 : 12:08 p.m.
MIKE, "The People" also spoke on inter-racial marriage. I assume that you would favor a return to the days of white-only bathrooms and drinking fountains? DO you think non-whites should use only the balcony at theaters? The People also elected Barak Obama, how much support do you see from the radical right (the people that tell us about less government, more freedom of the individual) that favors limiting the freedoms of gay people?
Mike
Thu, Mar 14, 2013 : 11:42 a.m.
You can trot out a poll that will support any position you want to take...........the problem is the people voted on this and have spoken.
Stanley James
Thu, Mar 14, 2013 : 5:12 a.m.
Despite the maniac who ran the church until the last two weeks. the german pope who in 2009 UNexcommunciated a holocaust denier, bishop williamson From what I've read the new pope francis is of the same mentality re gays having equalr rights. All of us who support equalr rights for gay people should perhaps be happy. Benedict in his mania has been the best supporter of gay equality in along time - a maority of catholic snow support marriage - the big cahoona of gay rights. The new pope will contiue to drive the church into oblivion as it has already become in ireland (most catholic country in the world http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/poll-73-of-public-back-allowing-same-sex-marriage-in-constitution-184849.html note below how the catholic church in Ireland is dead last in a concern of the Irish people. http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2013/0123/breaking38.html
Joe Hood
Thu, Mar 14, 2013 : 4:51 a.m.
Tim: What the Catholic Church has learned of pedophiles is that they can never really be treated. I stressed the word "learned," because learning has taken time. And I say "learned" because whenever you teach a Catechism class or are ever dealing with children you have to take a class to learn about pedophiles. Just like the Boy Scouts, where they always have "two deep" to keep the pedophiles at bay (because the pedophiles still exist out there but if you disrupt their environment, they need to move on--unfortunately they move on to places that believe pedophiles only exist in the Catholic Church and the Boy Scouts resulting in more kids getting hurt).
Joe Hood
Thu, Mar 14, 2013 : 4:29 a.m.
Leaguebus: No one follows the teaching of the Catholic Church? That's not correct. I think a lot of people strive not to sin (luckily there is reconciliation). A proper Catholic lives toward the ideal. We attempt to be like Christ but we as humans have a tendency to fail; It doesn't mean we stop trying.
leaguebus
Thu, Mar 14, 2013 : 2:35 a.m.
Joe, what is the use of an organized religion if no one in the religion follows its laws or beliefs?
Tim Hornton
Thu, Mar 14, 2013 : 1:39 a.m.
The catholic church has also been hiding its pedophile priests for years. Does it matter what the majority of people who identify as catholic think? Not to mention the millions killed by that church during the inquisitions. Hmmm.
Ivor Ivorsen
Thu, Mar 14, 2013 : 1:04 a.m.
Sin is irrelevant to the issue at hand. More Americans under the age of 35 are self-indentifying as "nonreligious" or "secular." Younger Americans are increasingly urban, eduated, well-traveled, and tolerant. Marriage eqaulity is here, better get used to it.
Joe Hood
Thu, Mar 14, 2013 : 12:47 a.m.
A majority of Catholics sin. That doesn't make sin correct.
jns131
Thu, Mar 14, 2013 : 12:18 a.m.
Can't wait to see what the new pope has to say about all this. Going to be interesting. America excommunicated. Interesting.
UpperDecker
Thu, Mar 14, 2013 : 3:51 p.m.
lol stanley, once you are in you are in for life!
Stanley James
Thu, Mar 14, 2013 : 5:17 a.m.
America excommunciated? Taht would be a badge of honor. I actually tried to see if I, not a catholic could get excommed. There is a website to do so but it also said that the church ignores it. They want to keep appearances up IMO
Stanley James
Thu, Mar 14, 2013 : 5:15 a.m.
I gather from what I've read in the last 6 hours about him that he is another RATZInger as far as gays are concerned. Probably good - more and more people will leave the church, cut off the money flow etc. the big question is who appointed the new pope a cardinal. RATZI?
Joe Hood
Wed, Mar 13, 2013 : 11:37 p.m.
One doesn't need to use religion to argue against a re-definition of marriage. The ideal for raising kids is a mother and a father (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/302319/gay-parenting-bad-kids-charles-c-w-cooke). The main way to get more kids is with a man and a woman. We, society, promote the ideal of marriage because we need the offspring. If we want someone to support our healthcare when we are eighty and destitute, we'll need someone around working. As we slip below the 2.1 children per family, we're no longer replacing ourselves. Oddly enough, religion mirrors this logic.
peacebwu
Thu, Mar 14, 2013 : 7:49 p.m.
Excellent points. I can't believe others feel we are so above the ways of the universe that we can get around procreating the next generation! Marriage laws and benefits are the direct result of having to put so much effort into creating the next generation, which is billions of people!
SEC Fan
Thu, Mar 14, 2013 : 4:25 p.m.
Let's see if I understand this...your premise is that if we don't allow same-sex marriages, gays and lesbians will abandon their sexual preferences, marry opposite-sex people and procreate? seriously?
jayjay
Thu, Mar 14, 2013 : 1:12 p.m.
I have met met several gay couples with very well balanced children just as I have met many heterosexual couples with absolutely "bad" children. Sorry, but raising kids is not the domain of a "man and a woman". It is the the domain of loving caring people, whether married, civil unions, living together, single parents, whatever. Love doesn't abide by norms created to protect one's values and beliefs, especially when they trample the rights of others.
clownfish
Thu, Mar 14, 2013 : 12:04 p.m.
"logic" is stretching this flaccid argument. There are no requirements of married people to have children in any state. There is no law that says married people without kids have to get divorced. Married hetero couples divorce, leaving kids with one parent households, there is no longer a restriction on divorce. Marriage is not about and has never been solely about having children. The laws and rules surrounding marriage have been fluid for centuries. If you have decided that you do not want to trade your daughter for a certain amount of livestock or land then you have already RE-DEFINED marriage . My wife and I have been married for over 20 years, no kids. What do you think the punishment should be? Should we be forced by the state to adopt or divorce? How long would you give newlyweds to have kids? What would the punishment be if they don't meet your time line? What are we to do with all the kids being raised by single parents, it is not an IDEAL situation? Should we take them by force and give them to couples? Should we deny kids being raised by two loving gay people the love of a two parent family because one line in a 2000 year old book says two men should not lie together? Do you eat shrimp, cut your beard and deny circumcised men access to your worship services? What should we do with dwarfs,the blind and those with blemishes? Leviticus 21:16-20
Stanley James
Thu, Mar 14, 2013 : 5:29 a.m.
To joe hood - Life site news is a rabid anti gay website of evangelicals who hate gay people and many of them see Obama as a nighr mare come true - a black president An example of their mentality is that the only black gay viable candidate for state office in MIssissippi was brutally murdered and his body burned only about two weeks ago. BTW religion sis not logis - in particular your type of religion is still racist to the core eg the head of the FRC hate group - tony perkins is an evangelical who is also a racist http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/picture-worth-thousand-memories
Stanley James
Thu, Mar 14, 2013 : 5:24 a.m.
Maybe you ought to direct your ire at the people - virtually all str8 who are destoying the institution of marriage Str8 people divorcing at a 50% rate Single mothers Alcoholci parents who beat their kids etc etc BTW virtually every world wide organiztion re population etc say that overpopulation for many reasons is our greatestt danger. natural resources limitations, polution etc Example Japan entered WWII because it needed rice oil rubber and tin. They called it the southeast asia co-prosperity sphere They took those resources and paid for them with hot high speed lead
Joe Hood
Thu, Mar 14, 2013 : 4:40 a.m.
Susan: the point is to have more kids. The point is to give a carrot to those that can best make that happen. To hold that relationship above others as a societal ideal.
Joe Hood
Thu, Mar 14, 2013 : 4:38 a.m.
Scenedujour: Mark Regnerus's study has been under attack from the point it came out. His professionalism was initially attacked, to where the university did an investigation (which after months turned up nothing wrong). Mark's study was the first that did not involve getting volunteers from Lesbian book stores and then filling in with their friends. Perhaps more studies will be performed. And from your cited article, his study isn't debunked. There are facets of the people that supplied the funding for the study and constrained timelines.
Joe Hood
Thu, Mar 14, 2013 : 4:24 a.m.
Jaime: those findings are debunked here: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive//ldn/2007/jun/07060404
Jaime Magiera
Thu, Mar 14, 2013 : 2:19 a.m.
Joe, the ideal? Here is some research from organizations that deal with children and mental health which support gay marriage. I tend to trust professionals who actually work with children on a regular basis. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/118/1/349.full
scenedujour
Thu, Mar 14, 2013 : 2:19 a.m.
Except that this study you cited has been completely debunked by many reputable social scientists for faulty data collection and other inconsistencies, and it was revealed earlier this week that the study was rigged from the start (http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/03/11/1697801/documents-reveal-anti-gay-parenting-study-was-manipulated-to-influence-supreme-court/). I guess when the facts don't match reality, the next step is to just make it up.
Susan Montgomery
Thu, Mar 14, 2013 : 1:25 a.m.
Joe Hood - The research was about the ideal for raising children, it said nothing about procreating, so I don't see how your comment is relevant, but if you want to go there.... surely you are familiar with many homosexual couples who somehow figured out a way to have children? There are plenty of heterosexual couples who can't have children for biological reasons, they figure out a way... I don't see your point.
Joe Hood
Thu, Mar 14, 2013 : 12:45 a.m.
Try as they might, two gay men can't procreate. Not even the chance the childless couple might eventually. But we want married couples, so the test is against the ideal.
Susan Montgomery
Thu, Mar 14, 2013 : 12:03 a.m.
The test had two variables: gay/straight and married/unmarried. The noted difference could be because of the married/unmarried factor as much as the gay/straight factor, we'd never know. For the research to be fair the control group should have been children of unmarried heterosexual couples. If you agree with the article's conclusion that "Put simply, if you want to give your children the best start in life, you should have children inside of wedlock and stay together for the duration," I take it you are in favor of homosexuals being allowed to marry so that they can have their children inside of wedlock?
Michigan Man
Wed, Mar 13, 2013 : 11:12 p.m.
Foolish statement - just goofy. Of course, religious beliefs determine convictions relative to same sex marriage. Don't need a law degree to figure this one out!
Dog Guy
Wed, Mar 13, 2013 : 10:39 p.m.
Marriage is antecedent to both religion and law, being defined by biology. Religion and law can restrict marriage, but cannot define it.
Brad
Thu, Mar 14, 2013 : 11:48 a.m.
Really. If it's only biology then dogs can marry, right?
Elijah Shalis
Thu, Mar 14, 2013 : 12:40 a.m.
stick with the dog issues dog guy
Brad
Wed, Mar 13, 2013 : 11:08 p.m.
Marriage is a legal construct. It is reproduction that is defined by biology.
pseudo
Wed, Mar 13, 2013 : 10:52 p.m.
Marriage as defined as one man and one woman came AFTER both religion and law. Further, Religion's can, and will always be able to, restrict the things they recognise (some still don't get the interracial marriage thing while others are still worried about diet - thats up to them) however, in terms of a couple's relationship to a government, the law most definitely defines it. And that is what we're really talking about here - a couple's relationship with the government.
GoNavy
Wed, Mar 13, 2013 : 9:51 p.m.
Whoa! Law? Reason? My head is about to explode. Perhaps we can decide the issue of gay marriage by burning paper and examining the color of the smoke released -
Anna
Wed, Mar 13, 2013 : 11:48 p.m.
If the smoke is white, it ain't right.