 |
| Signs, signs, everywhere signs |
I've long since grown tired of the whole debate, because (a) it really doesn't affect many people at all and (b) like most such urgent moral campaigns, the long term ramifications, for good or ill, will only become evident many years into the future. So why the urgency? Presented for your discussion, my theory:
I think the gay marriage debate is really a crisis of faith, but not Christian faith. I think it's really about the last 4+ years, in which we've had the Platonic ideal of a Secular Left leader at the helm of the country, a time in which most things have sputtered economically and otherwise.
It wasn't supposed to be this way, of course. We heard it ourselves, from the leader himself, right here in St. Paul, Minnesota:
The journey will be difficult. The road will be long. I face this challenge with profound humility, and knowledge of my own limitations. But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people. Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth. This was the moment — this was the time — when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves, and our highest ideals. Thank you, God Bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America.We're now about 5 years on from when those words were spoken, in St. Paul, Minnesota, and it hasn't quite turned out that way. So many people look to find a reason to believe, to see that Progress really is being made. I think the marriage debate is a way to affirm a secular faith that hasn't been delivering the goods. And in that sense, the debate is perfect. If the Supremes strike down Prop 8 and DOMA, the morality play reaches a satisfactory conclusion. If the decision goes the other way, the crusade continues with renewed fervor. We all need our heroes and villains.
29 comments:
Wonderfully said, D.
If it wasn't gay marriage, it might have been immigration reform, or some other liberal bailiwick. And, much to your point, it would have remained a distraction from the pressing issues at hand of employment, long-term debt, and troubling foreign affairs.
I think at some point we'll look back at this era as being profoundly non-serious. At a time when we needed to confront long simmering issues of debt and entitlements (especially as examples of what happens when you ignore such problems were occurring before our eyes in Europe), we were focusing our 2012 presidential race on issues like abortion and following it up with gay marriage. Are we really going to say to future generations that it didn't matter that the deficit ran up to $20 trillion - we ensured that Carol & Alice could get married. Hopefully Carol & Alice aren't trying to find jobs after they tie the knot.
Whistling past the graveyard isn't leadership but may be all that's left when you've used up all the solutions within your ideological playbook.
You are completely and utterly wrong about this.
But I am also tired of arguing about it.
I wonder id Carol and Alice will find the marriage penalty on their tax returns as discrimination? Pay up, barack needs your cash.
You are completely and utterly wrong about this.
I might as well be both -- more thorough that way. See title of post.
Fair enough. I am running on about 12 hours sleep in the last 72 and have been in the clutches of the airline industry for much longer than I planned. (Not that any of that is your problem.)
Anyway, please pardon the pithy grumpiness.
Actually, I liked the grumpiness. No worries.
You lost me on this one Mr. D. The absurdity of "gay marriage" should be seen by any person of reason, being both against the laws of God and nature. Consequences will be felt right away in our schools and legal documents. What I just said above could get me jailed for discrimination or a hate crime. Wrong now, wrong a thousand years ago, wrong a thousand years from now.
The absurdity of "gay marriage" should be seen by any person of reason, being both against the laws of God and nature. Consequences will be felt right away in our schools and legal documents. What I just said above could get me jailed for discrimination or a hate crime. Wrong now, wrong a thousand years ago, wrong a thousand years from now.
Sure, but that's not the way to bet. And one of the enduring lessons of history is that we need to relearn the lessons of history.
Loved the quote of Dear Leader. It was a good thing I didn't have a sip of coffee in my mouth when I got to "I face this challenge with profound humility", because of all the very real faults Obama has, humility is not one of them. The monitor would have paid!
(note for politicians; if you talk about your humility, you likely have a problem with pride)
On a bit more serious note, all politicians seem to ignore the actuaries (at their peril) when it is convenient, but it seems that Mr. Obama is in a league of his own (Obamacare, budget, etc..) in this regard.
And on the debate of homosexual "marriage," while only a tiny minority may take advantage of it, there's a bigger message over an issue that may have already been lost. If we predicate government recognition of relationships on romance instead of the likelihood of weaker vessels, what happens to the protections for said weaker vessels?
In other words, is it a cobblestone on the road to barbarism?
The compelling argument is on the side of homosexuals. That is where the compelling argument is. We’re Americans, we just want to be treated like everybody else. That’s a compelling argument, and to deny that you’ve got to have a very strong argument on the other side. And the other side hasn’t been able to do anything but thump the Bible.
The compelling argument is on the side of homosexuals. That is where the compelling argument is. We’re Americans, we just want to be treated like everybody else. That’s a compelling argument, and to deny that you’ve got to have a very strong argument on the other side. And the other side hasn’t been able to do anything but thump the Bible.
Very compelling. But utterly beside the point of the post.
I'll give you two names to Google. Chomsky. Hoffer. Have fun.
"Compelling."
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
I wasn't familiar with Hoffer before and read his wiki entry to get a quick introduction. Very interesting. It resonates.
I wasn't familiar with Hoffer before and read his wiki entry to get a quick introduction. Very interesting. It resonates.
I've been a fan of Hoffer's work for many years. He had a great gift for aphorism.
Not that many people, huh. 3/5? Too many? Nobody you know? None of your kid's friends (god forbid). None that I want to know. That doesn't happen around here, thank god. Well that kid down the street's mom is like that, but Joey has a dad somewhere, right? He couldn't be a FedEx baby, could he?! No, not here. They wouldn't deliver here! Would they...
Not that many people, huh. 3/5? Too many? Nobody you know? None of your kid's friends (god forbid). None that I want to know. That doesn't happen around here, thank god. Well that kid down the street's mom is like that, but Joey has a dad somewhere, right? He couldn't be a FedEx baby, could he?! No, not here. They wouldn't deliver here! Would they...
Annnnd, another brave anonymous poster utterly misses the point of the post.
It's so much easier to win arguments when the people one disagrees with are caricatures.
Perhaps Hoffer's point is pertinent to anon?
"[Hoffer] noted that mass movements and juvenile mindsets tend to go together, to the point that anyone, no matter what age, who joins a mass movement immediately begins to exhibit juvenile behavior."
You're already familiar with Bonhoeffer's take on trying to convince a fool by reason (and its dangers), but here's another thought from the same essay:
“What matters in the long run is whether our rulers hope to gain more from the folly of men, or from their independence of judgment and their shrewdness of mind.”
Is there a government today that benefits from the "independence of judgment" and the "shrewdness of mind" of its subjects? Fan the folly.
Homosexuals make up about 1-3% of the population. Many of the practices that take place in the homosexual lifestyle are physically harmful. The spread of the AIDs epidemic has been directly linked to many of those practices. This noisy minority has been granted more accommodation than any other unhealthy lifestyle I can think of. This whole debate is designed to change the definition of marriage as defined in culture and practice to a truly perverse term. The question is why? What is the end goal? Who suffers the most? The two consenting adults who have made a conscious decision or the children who, in increasing numbers are growing up gender confused?
Why are we agreeing to allow our children to be blatantly exposed to sexuality in kindergarten and elementary school? I too am tired of this endless debate. Why are we debating definitions and romance when our entire social structure is being destroyed? That my friends is the real debate.M
M. "Who can turn the whole world on with her smile?" Sure as hell not YOU. Mr. D.?! Can any slug afflicted with rigor mortis above the neck post here? To quote a word of this post would make words feel dirty. Please, clean up the trash, or scrap the whole brain-dead thing. Soon.
Or tacitly agree. We'll see.
"Can any slug afflicted with rigor mortis above the neck post here?"
Evidently.
All,
those of you who are opposed to allowing same-sex couples the right to marry...can I ask a few questions? Do any of you have gay friends, relatives, co-workers, acquaintences, old friends from high-school or college? If yes, do you view them as disordered, disturbed, broken, unworthy? Do you believe that they should not be accorded the same rights that you have because of their gayness?
Mark, recently wrote glowingly of his marriage. Congratulations. I am very happy for you and Mrs. D and your wonderful family. I just celebrated my 30th anniversary on March 5th, and I feel very similarly about my marriage. I cherish it, and my wife. But in no way do I feel that gays marrying will threaten the sanctity or legitimacy of my marieage. So here is another question: Why wouldn't you want the same thing for other people? Regardless of their sexual orientation? What are the objections? I am not directing this specifically at Mark, but to all that are opposed. What's the issue? Do you think that gays marrying diminishes the institution of marriage? If yes, do you feel that heterosexuals really have a lock on stable marriages? Have we done so well with the institution that we need to safeguard it by denying it to others?
Is it religious? Marriage does have both civil and religious aspects. Many marriages are marriages in both senses, but it is possible for a civil marriage not to be recognized by a religion (e.g., Catholics married to non-Catholics, in the Catholic Church). And it is equally possible for a religiously sanctioned marriage to be void in civil law (e.g., plural marriages and old-school Mormons). But ours is a secular society, and as such, we should be free to adopt whatever definition of marriage suits us in the civil arena. We also happen to live in a country that is committed to freedom of religion. So much so that we enshrined in our Constitution that we cannot compel any religious body to recognize (for the purposes of its religious practices) any civil arrangement that that body does not imbue with religious significance. Civil recognition of the right to same-sex marriage does not entail a requirement that churches opposed to gay marriages must perform them.
Admittedly, contestable issues will occur in contexts where a member of a religious community is engaged in a civil function. It's just a matter of time before a devoutly Christian Justice of the Peace will refuse to perform a civil marriage between a same-sex couple. That is where the Courts will need to step in. So, as we work through this as a society, we can expect some acrimony. But ultimately, this can and will be the law of the land, and a conflicted civil official should expect to be required to perform same-sex marriages. When that happens, it won't be an infringemnt on the religious beliefs of that individual. It will be a requirement of their civil position.
Regards,
Rich
Sure as hell not YOU. Mr. D.?! Can any slug afflicted with rigor mortis above the neck post here? To quote a word of this post would make words feel dirty. Please, clean up the trash, or scrap the whole brain-dead thing. Soon.
Or tacitly agree. We'll see.
You know, I'd take your complaint a lot more seriously if you weren't posting anonymously.
As for my comments policy -- I can only remember deleting non-spam comments about 3 or 4 times in the 7-1/2 years I've been doing this. A couple of cases were the result of direct threats of violence against other commenters and the others were cases where the posts were explicitly racist or anti-Semitic.
I don't agree with Care4Mn's characterizations, but I don't agree with at least 2-3 other comments on this post, either, and I let them stand. I value free speech far more than I value would-be censors who won't reveal their identity.
Oh, and what Picklesworth said, too.
Rich,
Good to hear from you again.
I'm only going to call out one thing you said here:
Civil recognition of the right to same-sex marriage does not entail a requirement that churches opposed to gay marriages must perform them.
I hope not. But reports of this sort do concern me.
And when I already have anonymous censors telling me how to manage my comments policy, I think those concerns aren't entirely baseless.
Oh, and congrats on 30 years, Rich! I remember your wedding day well and find it exceptionally hard to believe we're that far removed from it.
Mark,
Thanks for the congrats. I find it hard to believe that 3 decades have passed since that day as well. I have been quite fortunate.
Regarding the site you directed me to, that is Canada, not the U.S. I cannot imagine an America where a Church is forced to perform a same-sex union against its wishes and doctrines. It is not going to happen. If you don't believe me consider this: That JackAss and his congregation who protest outside of dead soldier's funeral services are still up to their disgusting shenanigans. It's their right to be revolting in the name of their religion. Our Constitution backs them up on this, and I am sure, will back Churches up that have moral and doctrinal objections to same sex marriages.
Some of the examples the article pointed to were not exactly apples to apples comparisons of Church/State issues. Many were a matter of civil law. Those are undoubtedly more complicated.
Loving v Virginia was not that long ago. But if you were to walk into work on Monday and start spouting off about how you think interracial marriage is an abomination, and that people who would marry interracially are poisoning racial bloodlines (a view that was fairly common 50 years ago) I am pretty certain your employer would be within his rights to hand you a pink slip. But if you wanted to get on a soap box and proclaim the same thing in a public space, I don't think anyone should or would be able to stop you. These are very different matters.
One of the cases noted in the article was one of the hypotheticals I had proposed: A civil official who refused to perform a same sex marriage due to personal religious convictions. The article noted that the official had referred the couple to another official who could peform the ceremoony. You might think the couple was being churlish for bringing suit, but would you say that if you went to a public official and asked them to perform a routine function he or she is being paid to do. And they refused to, referring you to another official and explaining that they don't do stuff for people of German heritage, or middle-aged white guys. I am pretty certain you would be offended. And you would be correct to be offended, and I wouldn't fault you if you brought suit against them.
Context plays a pretty big part in this. If you are a Judge, or a Justice of the Peace, and you have moral objections to performing your functions, you should resign. If you are a religious official, acting in a religious capacity, you are perfectly within your rights.
Regards,
Rich
Rich,
That's a lot to respond to, so I won't even try to do so in totality. But a few thoughts:
I had a gay roommate in college for two years and at that time was a member of F.L.A.G. which stood for Friends of Lesbians and Gays. I don't dislike gay people as a general rule.
In my own experience, yes, they have very often been the most unstable people I have known. I say this as someone who has not always shown the greatest stability myself. To whit, when I was living in a halfway house after treatment for alcohol abuse, the gay fellows were much more likely to be exhibiting unstable behaviors like going to a particular bar/hourly hotel in Minneapolis (which was strictly against the rules, obviously) and/or hooking up at the gay coffee shop. These are not scientific observations, obviously.
Do I think they are unworthy? Worthiness has nothing to do with it. I don't look down on gay people.
Do I think gay marriage diminishes the institution of marriage? Yes. In a similar way to no-fault divorce. I don't believe marriage is about personal fulfillment. It's about protecting women and children and enforcing a kind of discipline on men for the sake of societal stability. This understanding (and I realize that many or most people do not share it any longer) is also being undermined by serial monogamy among heterosexuals, not to mention the hook up culture. As someone who has many libertarian inclinations, I struggle with this. Should state institutions meddle at all with these things? For the time being, I've come to the conclusion that resisting more change is better than simply opening the floodgates to everything, but it sure looks like those floodgates are opening whether I like it or not. My fall back position (and maybe the intellectually more consistent one) is for the state to not be involved at all.
Do I think that heterosexuals have a lock on stable marriages? Heavens to Betsy, no. Stability is one thing that seems in increasingly short supply.
My basic objection, as far as the civil sphere goes, is that gay marriage takes us further down the road where there is no meaningful structure for our society. Is it fair to gay people? Not particularly. But they're hardly alone in that. Many of us have characteristics that society punishes through no fault of our own. To be an alcoholic becomes difficult not so much because of the hangovers, but because of the law and because of the judgment of other people, like employers.
I also have a religious objection to homosexuality. I see it as a sin that is on par with the sins that I do. Not more sinful or less, but sinful. What is worrying about this particular sin in our context is that we are beginning to celebrate it as diversity or "the way God created some people." That's the opposite ditch from saying that homosexuality is a worse sin than anything else and they're both garbage.
Does any of this help to clarify where at least some of us are coming from? I'm concerned with society because it has many things that are undermining its foundations. I'm concerned with homosexuals because they deserve it.
I cannot imagine an America where a Church is forced to perform a same-sex union against its wishes and doctrines.
I can. Hope you're right and I'm wrong.
I cannot imagine an America where a Church is forced to perform a same-sex union against its wishes and doctrines
I can imagine an America where a wedding photographer can be sued (and lose) for not agreeing to work a same-sex wedding. Oh, wait, I don't have to imagine it:
http://scottfillmer.com/2008/07/06/christian-photographer-refused-gay-wedding/
Post a Comment