Has anyone else noticed the message for gay marriage bans has changed since 2004?

[Pacifist Patriot]

In 2000 and 2004 we were encouraged to violate human dignity and be willing participants in legalizing discrimination.

Why? Because same sex marriage will cause harm to those of us who are in "traditional" (not exactly, but they obviously haven't read up on the history of marriage) heterosexual marriages. It will reduce the value of our relationships and somehow eradicate the sanctity of the marriage bond.

So for eight years we have been asking a simple question. How exactly?

Unable to come up with an answer they have changed the impetus to give religious and political extremists the power to constitutionally govern love and commitment.

Why should we violate human dignity and be willing participants in legalizing discrimination now?

Because same sex marriage will "hurt our children." I must once again demand an answer to a very simple and obvious question. How exactly?

[msongs]

1. anti gay discrimination is really imposition of religion on people thus unconstitutional nt

[Pacifist Patriot]

2. Dead on accurate.

[unpossibles]

3. I always turn it around and tell the anti-crowd that I believe in Equal Rights For All

No exceptions. Equal marriage rights, equal voting rights, etc. for all adults no matter what race, religion, ethnicity, political belief, age, gender or anything. Hoping to save a few dollars in taxes in trade for refusing equal rights is completely wrong and un-American on every level.

When you put it that way, it hits home pretty well I've found, as it's hard to argue against Equal Rights without exposing yourself as a bigot and anti-American asshole.

[nadinbrzezinski]

18. Been doing the same round these parts

and that is a discussion killer every day of the week and twice on Sunday

[Oregone]

4. I haven't seen the new "hurt our children" effort

But of course, Im not in California or any place where this is a hot button issue (so maybe Im out of touch). Same-sex marriage has been legal for 5 years in BC so far, so its not exactly like people can claim hell and brimstone will rain down upon us. :)

I do see that the "harming traditional marriage" argument seems to have subsided and was replaced with nothing congruent that I was able to follow. I dread to see this approach you mention as much as any.

[gratuitous]

5. Mindless bigotry doesn't stand scrutiny

And once you get behind the slogans and the sound bites, that's pretty much what these folks are left with. It's not very pretty, and they know it, which is why they push the "won't somebody please think of the children" nonsense.

The delightful lesbian couple in our congregation just had their second child, and the baby shower yesterday at church was chock-full of "awwwww" moments.

[customerserviceguy]

6. Fundies are all secretly scared

that the lack of persecution of gay and lesbian people will "allow" their kids to go over to that side. They equate tolerance with permission, even encouragement. Their whole fundamentalist framework makes everything in life a choice, including one's sexual orientation.

[codjh9]

9. Which we all know is utter bullshit (that gays 'choose' to be so).

[Pacifist Patriot]

16. Have you seen The Making of Me with John Barrowman?

Unfortunately I can only find it on YouTube in six parts. It's a BBC production that as far as I can tell has not been released on DVD or if it has, not for Zone 1. It's fantastic!

[frogcycle]

7. this thing won't go away until

government gets out of the business of enforcing religious practices.

Governments should not 'marry' anyone - regardless of their collective assemblage of body parts.

That will put it to rest once and for all.

Couples, or threesomes, or whomever, can find a religious organization willing to 'bless' their union if they want. And maybe some won't be able to find any, but that's really not society's lookout. Those who want to keep 'marriage' defined their particular way can join the sect that does that. Like the ones in that extremist mormon sect where men can have a harem of little girls (except that one should be illegal for other reasons - child abuse).


Government can and should provide for legal contracts, much like they do with incorporating a business or forming a legal partnership. It can be a two-party partnership, or three if the citizens of the state want to provide for same. It cannot, however, discriminate on the basis of sex. People can opt for a religious ceremony with no legal standing; a civil contract, or both.

"Gay marriage" should just become a moot point. Thos worried about it "hurting their children" can go live in some Waco-compound. Or Alaska.

[Oregone]

8. I totally agree 100%!

Marriage is a religious institution and should, in no way, be recognized by the state.

Abolish all marriage (as a legal institution), and instead, recognize "domestic partnerships" or "civil unions" or whatever term is chosen. Allow people to enter into one any way they choose (and they can choose to get "married" to do it), but that is their personal preference, and their personal conception of the event. The state should only recognize the union as a legal matter on paper, and nothing more.

No one has to have a Bar Mitzvah to become a "man" (the legal definition of an adult is black and white, and later anyway). But they are certainly welcome, if that is their religious belief, to do so on their way to becoming one.

[wtmusic]

10. You said the word "preference"

:evilgrin:

[Oregone]

11. Ahhhhhhhhhh!

I hope they use smaller stones this time.

[surrealAmerican]

12. This could be a viable approach, but ...

... I doubt that the fundies will be any more tolerant of it than of allowing civil marriage for any two adults. They would actually have a stronger argument that the government is "weakening marriage" if it ceased to be recognized by the state.

[drmeow]

15. actually, I think if it was presented properly

fundies could get behind it. Sell it as getting government out of their religion. "Don't let the government define what marriage is ... that's the church's job." Change the law to make marriage exclusively a religious institution and restrict the government to registering secular contracts. A team of smart lawyers could probably write it in such a way that it would look innocent enough to the fundies (especially with the right advertising) but would force change we want.

[frogcycle]

17. that argument requires

taking a position that the state is entitled to enforce religious "laws"

It is a very, very weak position. The state is showing preference for one group of religions over others by saying it cannot be polygamous. Despite the fundie claims that this country is based on their religious views, it is not. The Constitution does not say the state shall not dictate a specific religion but gets to ban zoroastry or whatever. By defining a legal entity (marriage) as something based on the modern Judeo-Christian (in ancient times Jews were polygamous) rules, the state is enforcing a religion. It is a thorny realm that should never been entered into. Just because it was, though, is not a reason to preserve it. Slavery was abolished, after all.

[surrealAmerican]

19. Not exactly.

There is a state contract called marriage, and a religious institution called marriage. They need not be the same thing just because they share a name.

[frogcycle]

20. but the state contracts that discriminate are unconstitutional

when they call the state contract "marriage" and use the word to excuse it's conforming to the religious contract's rules, they violate the Constitution. By any other name it would not hold up.
The "religious" defenders of "marriage" use the coincidence of the name to rationalize their "defense" of the state institution equating it to the religious institution. I don't really care if they change the name of the state institution or not, as long as they remove the bias, but it would help to defuse the whole thing if they did.

[surrealAmerican]

22. I agree with you there.

Restricting who may enter into this contract should be unconstitutional.

[drmeow]

13. AMEN!!!!!!!!

And yes, that was a deliberate choice of words :)

[rcrush]

14. I'm scareed of gay marriages

Cause all gays want to do me and if its legal they will try and marry me!

[aadean]

21. anti-gay for "the sake of the children"

'Cause it's so much better for an adolescent to commit suicide than for the availablity of same-sex marriage to encourage them to think it's okay that they have a crush on another kid of the same sex! :eyes:

More and more, I agree with the "government: provides contract/church: does the religious bit, if that's your thing" idea.

Heck, that's actually what we did. Missouri's law regarding who can officiate a wedding includes the usual JP, "a clergyman or clergywoman, active or retired, who is in good standing with any church or synagogue in Missouri" or "a religious society, institution or organization in Missouri of which either marriage party is a member, in accordance with the organization's regulations and customs." It was the "in Missouri" bit that threw a kink in our plans. Does it mean your church has to have a presence here? Our church is really really tiny and does not have a building anywhere but Illinois. We got in touch with the county government, but nobody there could tell us what "in Missouri" meant for the purposes of who could marry us, nor could they refer us to anyone who could.

So we got married at the courthouse for the legal protections and then later in the summer got married again at our temple in Illinois for the spiritual/community thing.

(In case you're wondering why we didn't just go to Illinois in the first place: We live in Missouri, most of the family lives in Missouri. They would have thought it was very strange to go "next door" for the wedding, as they do not know about the religion we belong to. What's kind of funny is that the religion in question is Ancient Egyptian, and our spiritual forebearers actually did not do a relgious thing for marriage -- this in a culture that did rituals for laying building foundations! -- they just ... signed a contract. :yoiks:)