Gay Marriage to Alfred: Your Thoughts

I actually agree with most of what you're saying, except for this. Marriage in the golden days of the 40s and 50s or whenever were the golden days were was not "about" children.

Not something I expected at all:

SAN DIEGO (AP) — Mayor Jerry Sanders abruptly reversed his public opposition to marriage for same-sex partners and revealed that his adult daughter is a lesbian.

Sanders on Wednesday signed a City Council resolution supporting a challenge to California's gay marriage ban. He previously promised to veto it.

The Republican mayor said he could no longer back the position he took during his election campaign two years ago, when he said he favored civil unions but not full marriage rights for homosexual couples.

He fought back tears as he said he wanted his adult daughter, Lisa, and other gay people he knows to have their relationships protected equally under state laws.

"In the end, I could not look any of them in the face and tell them that their relationships — their very lives — were any less meaningful than the marriage that I share with my wife Rana," Sanders said.

It's going to start coming down to this more and more, I figure. It'll be interesting to see what the reaction is -- Sanders is a perfect fit for San Diego as mayor (former police chief, Republican, etc.) and without knowing all the local dynamics I find it hard to believe any challenger in the next race from the GOP side can chip away at him on anything else *but* this. (Two to one Duncan Hunter is off banging his head against the wall right now.)

without knowing all the local dynamics I find it hard to believe any challenger in the next race from the GOP side can chip away at him on anything else *but* this.

Reading this on Sulllivan's site this morning, I had the same thought, then dismissed it. I mean, he's articulated his change of mind as clearly as possible. What GOP challenger would dare to say he's "anti-family" now?

I'm all for adult couples marrying whoever they like but the thing I don't get about this debate is that marriage is a religious institution, not a civil one - I certainly agree that gay couples should have all the same rights and legal priveleges and distinctions that straight couples have, but how can the state possibly legislate religion, it just seems completely stupid. Make civil unions have the same exact legal standing as trad marriages and voila - problem solved, at least legally speaking. But if Catholics don't wanna marry gays, I don't see how there's any way the law can tell them they have to.

What GOP challenger would dare to say he's "anti-family" now?

It's a hell of a glove to throw down, for sure. Wouldn't be surprised if someone tries it, though.

It was nice of the Catholics to decide last year that unbaptized babies' souls now go to heaven instead of limbo.

What happens to those in limbo already?

luckily nothing, since it never really existed in the first place, but not soon enough to prevent hundreds of years of psychic sorrow for believing Catholics whose kids were stillborn, aborted, etc...

but I guess that's another thread...

so wheres the motivation for baptism now?

My Mom is married to a Lady, but it looks like their union isn't legal anymore. They got married in Oregon. They've been together for nearly 25 years.

I'm all for adult couples marrying whoever they like but the thing I don't get about this debate is that marriage is a religious institution, not a civil one

That's really odd...I'm legally married, but the ceremony was totally secular and performed by an agnostic friend who filled out a form on the internet. There's no box on my tax forms for "civil unioned filing jointly".

I see what you're saying though, if churches don't want to marry people, they shouldn't have to. But if marriage is exclusively a religious institution, then I guess I'm not married, despite all evidence to the contrary.

you're not married according to any CHURCH, but you are married according to the law. That's the whole problem with this debate, the conflation of the two concepts together under a single term - its just not helpful.

The Catholics wouldn't have to marry gays if gay marriage were legalized. They don't have to marry straight atheists or Jews or Lutherans now. Marriage is a weird religious-civil hybrid. (xpost - yeah pretty much)

I'm all for adult couples marrying whoever they like but the thing I don't get about this debate is that marriage is a religious institution, not a civil one

You're joking, right? Or do you think atheists can't get married? Marriage is a religious and a civil union -- and it's the religious part which is optional. No one is saying Catholics have to marry anyone they don't want to.

xpost

yeah I mean death is a religious and a secular concept too, it's only when we hook a bunch of machines up to a medulla with lungs that we run into problems with that

Isn't marriage the death of hope? (spot the quote)

I'm not joking at all - there's nothing in the Constitution about marriage, for ex., and there's nothing in the legal rights granted to couples that requires using that term.

Yes, but marriage is two separate things. It is ceremonial and a civil union. And you're getting it all backwards. Nothing is stopping a gay couple from getting ceremonially married in a church that is open to it. It's the civil part of marriage that they are denied: the right to get married in, say, city hall and according to the law. And no church would be "forced" to marry gay couples if gay marriage were legalized, churches are not *required* to marry anyone.

It's the civil part of marriage that they are denied: the right to get married in, say, city hall and according to the law.

I understand that perfectly well - which is why, say, Obama's position that he is for civil unions and wants to leave ceremonial marriages up to churches is perfectly understandable. But it seems apparent to me that there are people on both sides of the debate - gay and homophobe - who seem to think that a) "legalizing" gay marriage will force churches to marry homos, or b) that civil unions don't "go far enough".

There's also the whole "but if we legalize gay marriage people will be marrying box turtles/their cousins/five wives!" tack, which likewise makes no fucking legal sense whatsoever.

<i>there are people on both sides of the debate - gay and homophobe - who seem to think that a) "legalizing" gay marriage will force churches to marry homos</i>
And they are both wrong, so what's your point?

<i>b) that civil unions don't "go far enough".</i>
Well, why not call it what it is? Why give them a ghettoized version of marriage?

so that there's a clear distinction between LEGAL RIGHTS and religious ceremonies. Its just a word, is semantics what this debate is really all about? How is calling it a civil union "ghettoizing" it? Who is hurt by it, and how, exactly? This isn't like a "separate but equal" clause - just call all legal arrangements between couples civil unions and be done with it. Let the churches have "marriage", they invented it anyway.

And they are both wrong, so what's your point?

my point is there confused by this willful blurring of the line between legal rights and religious ceremonies, and the sooner such distinctions are more clearly spelled out, the better.

the only people benefitting from this confusion are demogogues.

That wasn't what you were arguing to begin with. You were arguing that churches will be forced to marry gay people, and you were wrong about that. And now you've moved the goalposts to legal definitions. I think ceremonial marriage and civil unions *should* be separate matters, but that's a whole different argument. So for the time being while the two things remain entwined, I see no reason why gay people should be the only ones who have to get "civil unioned" while everyone else gets married.

I see you can't read very well.

I see you can't reason very well.

to repeat:

how can the state possibly legislate religion, it just seems completely stupid... if Catholics don't wanna marry gays, I don't see how there's any way the law can tell them they have to.

You were arguing that churches will be forced to marry gay people,

seriously I never said this, go back and read the thread.

You said: Make civil unions have the same exact legal standing as trad marriages and voila - problem solved, at least legally speaking. But if Catholics don't wanna marry gays, I don't see how there's any way the law can tell them they have to.

And through that passage, I came away with the idea that you don't seem to realize that a) Catholics will never have to marry gay people, whether gay marriage is legalized or not, and whether it is called marriage or not.

I'm sorry I snapped at you but maybe I used too many double negatives for you or something. The law can't make churches marry anybody, as my statement "I DON'T SEE HOW THE LAW CAN TELL THEM THEY HAVE TO" should make clear.