I have thought long and hard about writing this post because I want to start by saying something I fear might not sit well with most of Creative Loafing‘s readers: I am a Christian. My family attends church every week; I teach Sunday school; my husband plays in the worship band. We believe in and are followers of Jesus and we aim to be more like him each day.
I hesitated to write this post because I felt like, once I told you I am Christian, you would assume other things about me – that I’m a Republican; that I hold a staunch, unyielding position against abortion; or that I voted in favor of Amendment One. And you would be wrong.
I hesitated because, sometimes, when I tell people I am Christian, I have to supplement it by saying, “but not the crazy-right-wing-nut-job kind,” and that gets tiring.
But I need to write this post. As a Christian. As a follower of a Jesus who was a radical; a revolutionary who stood for the poor and the outcast. A Jesus who did not say a single thing about being gay or straight, but sure did say a whole lot of things about love.
I realized I had to write this post when I was talking to my son as we headed out to vote on Saturday. I was trying to explain to him – a not quite 3-year-old – what it means to be married. “Being married means loving someone so much you want to spend your whole life with that person. You want them to take care of you when you are sick; you want to go on vacation with them; you want to play with them every day; you want to cook yummy food for them and read bedtime stories together.”
In that very basic, dumbed-down explanation, I realized just how very little marriage has to do with sex. And isn’t that the whole big hang-up the Christian right has? Those two or three Bible verses that talk about a “man lying with another man”? (Bible verses which many theologians argue are poorly translated and taken out of context.)
So let’s stop focusing on what happens in the bedroom and look at what marriage is really about: spending your whole life with someone; providing for and taking care of that person; loving him or her the ways Jesus asked us to: “like we love ourselves.”
“We are going to vote today because some people want to control who you get to marry,” I said to Luki as I buckled him into his car seat. “They don’t want to allow some people to spend their whole lives with their best friends.”
“That’s not very nice,” he answered with a frown.
No. Not very nice, indeed.
Please, get out and vote against Amendment One today.
This article appears in May 8-14, 2012.
So glad this post was written.
loved it. thank you. thank you.
Mrs. Arreaza:
While I do not share your religious belief, I admire your moral position and recognize the courage it took to write this letter. I do share your position that Amendment one is wrong on many levels. Your eloquent description is so much better than anything I would have written.
I agree with what everyone has said. No matter what a persons religious beliefs, this amendment makes no sense, there is nothing positive that can come out of its passage, all it can due is hurt people. I thank you for your post and your thoughts.
Thank you
Why can we not address the rights of gay and lesbian couples outside of marriage? Why is marriage the only solution? I think two people who share a dwelling for financial reasons, who are close friends, but who do not share a bedroom should have many rights they do not have. Such as being able to visit each other in the hospital like they are family. The same kind of rights that gay/lesbian couples want. We can give people rights without taking away the sanctity of marriage. God created marriage, not any government on earth. Man needs to stop trying to redefine marriage. We do need to legislate rights for all people, gay/lesbian and otherwise.
Now THIS is what it is to be a TRUE Christian! Thank you so much for taking the time to post this, but more importantly, thank you for teaching your son to see others in the way we were meant to see them…with love and understanding!
Actually, no, this is not what it is to be a true christian at all. It’s much easier to bend to the wisdom of man, than to the wisdom of a loving God. You obviously know nothing about covenant, although you seem to be a caring person – you may want to check you mercy motivated response to situations like this, and understand the compromise you’re teaching your son. Words like that are exactly why we have a generation of youth who live their life with the lines of sin and wickedness blurred. Exactly how the enemy wants it. And its funny how people want to toss the word “love” and tolerance around – meanwhile christians all over the world are being tortured, killed, raped, beaten, etc… but hey, as long as we are loving! Also, something to think about as well – I’m sure other “religeous” groups like say, muslims for example (who stone gays) were all for the amendment – for far less loving reasons than christians.
Either all of God’s Word is true or none of it is true. There is no in between. Believing it is not an emotional decision, it is a life dedication that stands under the heat and the pressure of the masses. It is not subject to your intellect, it is grasped by your faith. To think that God should think the way you think and then and only then will He be right is far beyond narcissistic. But to decide that the creator of EVERYTHING including YOU may know and understand something you don’t know and require you to trust Him – THAT actuality makes perfect sense. So the question is who do you trust more – you or the God who created you?
Nz writes: “Either all of God’s Word is true or none of it is true.”
Unbelievably arrogant of you, Nz! And that’s the big problem with fundamentalists of ANY persuasion — Christian, Muslim, or whatever. What you fail (actually, refuse) to acknowledge is that this is simply your opinion, your perspective on religion — yours, not everybody’s. You and other fundamentalists believe this, but that doesn’t mean all Christians do. I know, you’ll say people who don’t believe this aren’t really Christians. Well, I can say that, based on my reading of the Bible, you aren’t really a Christian. And then we would go round and round and round in the circle game, as Joni Mitchell might say.
The difference between what you believe and what a more progressive Christian from Myers Park Baptist Church or Holy Covenant United Church of Christ believes is that you insist that your belief is the only correct belief. News flash: just because you believe it doesn’t mean you and your fellow fundamentalists are right, even if you ARE absolutely convinced of it.
You’re not. We’re dealing with faith and belief, Nz, which by their very definitions are not based on evidence. So your sentence, “Either all of God’s Word is true or none of it is true” makes absolutely no sense.
On the other hand, what Ailen wrote in her ending paragraph — “So let’s stop focusing on what happens in the bedroom and look at what marriage is really about: spending your whole life with someone; providing for and taking care of that person; loving him or her the ways Jesus asked us to: “like we love ourselves” — that’s neither true nor not true, but simply moral.
I think we’re assigning too many definitions to one term here. As far as I’m concerned, a civil union is what happened when my husband Drew and I signed a marriage license – it’s a contract between the two of us and the state. It allows us to file our income taxes jointly, guarantees that either of us can visit the other in the hospital and make any necessary medical decisions, and guarantees that Drew and any children we may eventually have are covered under my health insurance. All that and more in two signatures to one document. We don’t have to worry about setting up half a dozen powers of attorney to cover every conceivable situation – that one document covers it all. Marriage is what happened when we told each other ‘I do’ – that is a contract between the two of us and God. That doesn’t mean that I think only Christians should be permitted to use the word ‘marriage’, though Drew and I are both Christians. It doesn’t mean that I think only theists should be permitted to use it. The word marriage is every bit as valid for an atheist as it is for a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindi, or *insert religion here*. It is valid for both religious and atheist; for gay and straight; for red, yellow, black, white, and everyone in between. But the word denotes a lifelong emotional commitment to another human being (and any applicable deity or deities), not a contract with the state involving tax law.
Under the first amendment (the Federal one, not the one recently passed in NC) we are guaranteed freedom of religion. That means that the state cannot go up to a church and tell them ‘you see these two men right here – you HAVE to marry them.’ However, neither can the church go up to the state and tell them ‘you see these two men right here – they absolutely MUST NOT be permitted to enter into a civil union, intrinsically and legally ensuring them the benefits regarding tax law, insurance law, et al that married couples take for granted.’ Nor can the state go up to a religious group that allows gay marriage (ie, some Christians, most pagans, and probably others I am not aware of) and say ‘you see these two men – you CANNOT marry them.’ The state can’t force Berean Baptist Church in Fayetteville NC (that one whose pastor has gone viral for advocating child abuse from the pulpit) to officiate a homosexual marriage, but neither can it prevent First United Church of Christ in Northfield MN from officiating that same homosexual marriage. Freedom of religion means freedom of religion, not freedom of MY religion.
The state has no business in the religious sacrament of marriage (regardless of the religion or lack thereof involved), but the church has exactly the same amount of business in the secular contract which is a civil union. IE, none. Why is the church so danged concerned about tax law, anyways? Two signatures. One document. It shouldn’t be so hard. When a law strips the intrinsic guarantee of tax law, of insurance protection, of parental rights from what is a SECULAR contract, separate from but unfortunately tied up in the religious word ‘marriage’, it has gone too dang far. Because this post has it right. In mid October 2010, Drew and I signed a document which, once witnessed, straightened out tax law and guaranteed us hospital visitation rights and insurance protections, among other things. On October 23rd, 2010, we told each other ‘I do’. I said it for many reasons. Tax law was not one of them. I said it because I want to be there with Drew when he is sick, I want to laugh with him when he is happy, cry with him when he is sad, share the good times with the bad. I want to wake up next to him every morning for the rest of my life. And you can’t legislate that.
This is how I visualize “Christ-like”. God loves us all and he created us all!! Jesus tells us that the greatest commandment is to Love one another..” Not JUDGE one another. Amen!
Thank you for a beautiful post!!!
BTW, I am a heterosexual, married,Christian mom of 4 and I whole heartedly agree with YOU!
Very good post and a great read. Only part I disagree with was that you had to hesitate writing this and saying that you were a christian we would judge you. I know many christians who are gay, christians who support their gays friends and family, and christian leaders who support their gay followers. So please don’t think that we assume all christians are nut cases who want to take our rights away. We know to be a good christians means to love everyone. Thanks for writing this.
Ah, Brian! Glad you brought up an interesting point – truth. What is faith or belief if there is no basis of truth in it, correct? I’ll share something with you that I learned not that long ago from a very sharp man, which changed my outlook on many things. Oh, and not to worry – I have no intention of changing your mind – that would be futile, as I do not have the power to do so. So rest easy. You seem like an intelligent person, and so I do hope you will indulge me!
Many people regard truth as something which only exists in relation to their consciousness, their conscience or their convenience. They operate on the premise that truth cannot be known, so all one can say without risking “arrogance” is “I believe.” The universe does contain more truths than we can know. The fact that we cannot know everything does not mean we cannot know anything. Yet, it remains a popular notion that “nothing is real but what is felt or believed” and that “reality will always remain unknowable”.
Another prevailing idea in our culture can likewise undermine our explanation of the gospel, and that is the post-modern tendency to see truth as relative. Experts in reaching postmoderns (such as many people reading this and clicking “dislike” –lol) with the gospel have advised us to avoid absolute truth claims because it may alienate those who are searching for answers but reject the idea of absolutes. If we follow this advice we find ourselves facing the same problem as with the consumerist mindset. The gospel becomes subject to a cost/benefit analysis along with all the other religious ideas being proffered. Will it work for me? What do I get? We know that truth is not relative, but we may be tempted to be too delicate about the issue when talking to those who see it differently.
Absolute truth is a reality, in fact THE REALITY. It exists without reference to or dependence upon those who may or may not believe. It would exist whether or not anyone benefited by it because truth does not exist to benefit people. It simply exists. Jesus said He is the Truth. That is not to say there is no benefit to following after Jesus. Jesus said He is the way to the Father, to life more abundant, to having the light of life, to living forever. But most people are not willing to trade temporal and material pleasures for these more lofty realities.
The gospel shatters the preconceived ideas of the me-first spirituality prevalent in our culture of consumerism and post-modern relativism. The gospel doesn’t address the question of what we can get, it points to the reality of what we need, and the grace that is our only hope to meet that need. The gospel doesn’t provide a self-indulgent spiritual, or physical fix but calls us to turn from our sin to the only One who can truly save. It calls us to deny ourselves, take up our cross daily and follow Him.
I understand that this gospel message is counter-intuitive to the mind-set of our present-day culture, because our society places a premium on pursuing the greatest degree of personal comfort and benefit possible. Hence the question, “What do I get,” motivates many people’s choices today, not only in the physical, and political realm, but in the spiritual realm as well.
You stated in your last paragraph that something can be, “neither true nor not true, but simply moral.” I would ask you this; what truth does morality depend upon for its foundation? What causes morality to be – moral?
Oh! Btw Ailen – I meant to say your boy is adorable.
Who the hell are you, Nz, to tell me what my understanding of god requires? I have total faith in my spiritual outlook, and guess what? It ain’t nothin’ like yours? The nerve of you and others telling me and others about the “wisdom of a loving God”! You paternalistic bastard!
God’s word? Those two words themselves are man-made. If your god is truly transcendent, it certainly doesn’t have “words” and it didn’t write a book — and you certainly don’t “know” anything about it. You have faith and belief in it, based on your reading of your text. And you have covenants, based again on your beliefs.
To many theologians throughout history, however, the Christ fetish modern fundamentalist Christophiles have would be considered downright idolatrous. Why? Because in the pre-modern world, faith also depended very much on the symbolism, myth, mysticism and philosophical ruminations at the core of most holy texts. Nowadays? You just believe it all — lock, stock and barrel, contradictions and contemporary knowledge be damned. And that’s dangerous — at least to me it is. Because what you end up doing is picking and choosing what you want to focus on, and that often depends on where you live, what your social class is, what your race is, what your political beliefs are, how fearful you are of others, how threatened you are about your power and status in society. We’ve lost the nuances of symbolism. And with that loss comes very scary and problematic views of religion.
So Nz, when you ask: “The question is who do you trust more – you or the God who created you?”
My answer is: I do not trust YOU or the god of your understanding. I trust my own understanding of god. Because whatever created me has not once spoken words to me nor written a book for me to read, although the god of my understanding does reveal itself in many books, many words and many other ways.
Oh, and Nz — thanks for the nice, paternalistic CS Lewis lecture. 🙂
^_^ Have a great summer Brian!… and your welcome – lol 😉
50% percent of first marriages, 67% of second and 74% of third marriages end in divorce
In 2010, more than four in ten births (41 percent) were to unmarried women.
Please explain this “sanctity of marriage” that you are defending.
Mrs. Arreaza:
You were worried about us judging you because of your faith. If you read all the comments you can see who is judging you.
I wrote this post and wanted to thank you all for chiming in. I have a few comments:
Cuulblu: What do you mean by, “address the rights of gays and lesbians outside of marriage”? Do you mean giving them the same rights married people have: visitations in the hospital, joint taxes, health insurance, etc. and just not calling it marriage? That sounds to me a whole lot like separate but equal… and we all know how that experiment turned out!
Nz: I’m a little confused by your comment. Can you specifically point out the part in which I’m not being a true Christian? Also, you take issue with my “throwing around the word ‘love'” and you mention that Christians all over the world are being tortured, raped, killed, etc. What exactly should a Christian’s reaction to that be? To torture, rape, and kill back? Is that what Jesus would do? Because he was tortured and killed and… what is it that he said? Oh, yea, “father forgive them for they know not what they do.” Also thank you for being the only one to acknowledge the most important thing about this piece: how ADORABLE my son is!! 🙂
Allison: Your comment resonates the most with me and my viewpoint. But, I keep coming back to the same question: is this all about the word “marriage”? Is it really all a matter of semantics? I know you said that the paper you signed with your husband was a civil union as far as you’re concerned, but it’s actually called a MARRIAGE license. Do you think that if the state of North Carolina stopped calling them “marriage” licenses and started calling them “civil union” licenses for everybody we wouldn’t be in this mess?
I would like to think that, but I grew up in Fayetteville, now of Berean Baptist fame, and I’m not quite that naive. But I think separating out the secular details like tax law and insurance coverage for everybody might at least get the hyperconservatives to open their eyes a bit more and see the necessity of giving everyone the same basic secular rights regardless of… anything, really. I think a part of the problem is that most religious individuals do see the word marriage as a religious thing, and that encourages them on some level to try and restrict it to those who their religion deems worthy. But there is nothing religious about tax law. I think if we could strip away the religious connotations from these inherently secular benefits it could go a long way towards ensuring that all couples have access to said benefits.
That is of course only half the problem. The other half is getting said hyperconservatives to understand that some religious groups do freely practice homosexual marriage, and that they have no constitutional right to enact legislation preventing them from doing so. That is probably the more difficult battle.
Nz, open your eyes. You and I both see absolute truth in the Bible, yes. My buddy at work, Mohammed – yeah, he sees it in the Koran. My high school friend, she sees it in the Torah. My pagan college roommate from freshman year? Well, I’m not sure wear she sees it, but she sees it. Because if each of these individuals, despite believing very different things, was not convinced that they knew the one absolute truth of the universe? Well, it wouldn’t be much of a faith, now would it?
That’s what faith is – believing what you cannot see, and cannot prove, but nonetheless know with all your heart to be true. I’m a scientist. I prove things every day. I can prove, with absolute certainty, that the chloroform sample coming in is 99.9% pure. I can prove that the production group’s reaction did not initialize for the 3,5-Dibromobenzaldehyde, and yes we have no aldehyde, we have no aldehyde today. I can’t prove that the world was totally flooded and creation was saved by putting two of every kind into the ark. I can find you some geologic evidence that supports that theory, sure, but I can’t prove with absolute certainty that that’s what happened, because I wasn’t there, and that isn’t the only potential explanation for that geologic evidence. But that’s okay – I don’t have to prove it. Because I already know it. I know it with all my heart, and all my mind, and all my soul, and nothing I coulf possibly come up with in the lab could ever make me believe it any more than I already do. And that is what faith is. I can’t see it. I can’t prove it. But I know it. And you don’t have a monopoly on that.
Aarreaza:
Unfortunately the word “marriage” carries significant religious attachments to it. Allowing the gay/lesbian community to use the word marriage for their unions is a slap in the face of the Christian community. Addressing the rights of the gay/lesbian community outside of marriage to provide the same benefits as being married is a form of being separate but equal. However getting the Christian community to stand down and allow marriage equality might be impossible. The ideal solution would be to remove marriage from the government granted domestic union contract, for everyone. Call it a civil union or whatever terminology is most acceptable to everyone. Then allow marriage to be ONLY a religious union that is legally non-binding in any way. This will cause a great uproar too, but in the end could be a more acceptable way to make changes.
Cuulbu:
And not allowing the LGBTQA community to use the word ‘marriage’ is a slap in the face to the Pagan Community, various subsets of the Christian community who allow homosexual marriage, and all-around human decency. Freedom of religion is NOT’ freedom of my religion; yours is permissible only to the extent that it doesn’t offend me – void where prohibited’. If we do not protect freedom of religion for all citizens equally, NONE of us are truly protected. Do I think the Church of Body Modification (yes, it exists – google it) is weird as all get-out? Frankly, yes, I do. But they are doing no one any harm, and they have the right to live and worship as they see fit, regardless of how weird I may think they are. Do I fully understand Hinduism, Paganism, or other polytheistic faiths? No, I don’t. But they are doing no one any harm, and they have the right to live and worship as they see fit, including performing homosexual marriages. That is their right, under Amendment One of the US Constitution, and as Voltaire said, I may not agree with everything they have to say, but I will defend unto death their right to say it. Separate but equal… isn’t. We proved that a long time ago. You do not have a monopoly on the word marriage. Get over it.
Allison Rose Warn:
I am not saying anyone has a monopoly on the word marriage. I am saying the best solution is to take it completely out of the state and federally sanctioned union of two people, for everyone including Christians. I don’t agree with the current politically correct thoughts of the separation of Church and State, but in this case maybe separating the Religious word of marriage from the State contract would solve some issues. Two people can be married in the eyes of their belief system without a contract from the government. We can have a contract from our government that gives everyone the same rights without using the word marriage. Leaving the word marriage for religious ceremonies without any legal contract, ceremonies of any religion or belief system, will change the legal view on this argument.
Ailen, I find it hypocritical on your part to call Christians whose views differ from yours: “crazy nut jobs”, all while condemning intolerance. How is that comment any less discriminatory? I, for one, didn’t vote for Amendment 1 and even though I agree with some of your points, the complete and utter double standard I see all over, including here, really turns me off to the overall message. So this message of love and tolerance doesn’t include these other Christians? You talk about respecting how others want to think and live their lives, but how are you doing that by disrespecting their right to vote as they choose and based on whatever belief they choose? This is supposed to be a free country, after-all, and the people of NC have spoken.
Cuulblu:
And I quote: “Allowing the gay/lesbian community to use the word marriage for their unions is a slap in the face of the Christian community.” That looks to me like a monopoly on the word marriage. Just sayin’…
Just for fun, let’s take this to a different level. This country is a Democracy, right? Here is the definition of democracy according to the Mirriam Webster dictionary.
Definition of DEMOCRACY
1
a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
I quote Mirriam Webster “Rule of the majority.” The majority has spoken.
What are your thoughts from this perspective?
To paraphrase my parents, if the majority were jumping off a bridge, would you do it too? In parts of this country (heck, the world), the majority was all in favor of slavery, followed by apartheid, segregation, and Jim Crow laws, which I think (hope) we can all agree is wrong. Just because the majority is in favor of something doesn’t make it right. That argument is ridiculous. And even if it wasn’t, the US constitution by definition supercedes any and all state constitution. Freedom of religion is still freedom of religion, not freedom of my religion. I still think Amendment 1 in NC and other laws like it in other states are unconstitutional under the (federal) first amendment.
Risell, I agree with you about the “crazy-nut-jobs” comment. I can argue that it was an attempt at humor, at trying to lighten things up… but overall I can see why it can be considered offensive. You are right.
Now, I don’t think that just because I disagree with how someone else is voting, I’m “disrespecting their right to vote.” And yes, this is a free country, and the people of NC have spoken, but just like Allison said… having the majority agree on something doesn’t make it right. There are many, many examples of that throughout history.
Hey, some of them ARE crazy nut jobs. I don’t think distancing oneself from those kinds of people should reflect badly on them.
Some of you may take a higher road then me, and that’s good of you, but when someone’s views are disrespectful and intolerant, I neither respect nor tolerate those views.
Here is a video that explains why Christians are fighting this issue. Skip to 6 minutes to get past the intro stuff and into the meat of the discussion.
http://www.frcblog.com/2012/05/the-problem…
Here is a link to an article that is far more eloquent than I could ever be. It’s short and will only take about 2 or 3 minutes to read.
http://www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/…
I just want to clarify something about the “crazy-nut-jobs” comment. I did not say that all Christians who disagree with me are crazy-nut-jobs. I was referring a to a very specific brand of Christian — the kind that often permeates our media. The ones that go out and protest at gay soldier’s funerals, or burn Korans, or call women sluts for wanting access to birth control. Still, I concede that name calling is not the right way to combat their bigotry and intolerance.
Now, cuulblu… I read that article. So, in the case of my friend who has been trying, unsuccessfully, to get pregnant for ten years, is her marriage less valuable than mine? What about my brother and sister in-law who chose to not have children? And are they more likely to end up in polygamous or polyamorous relationships because they haven’t procreated?
I have to say, that article has some of the most illogical reasoning I have ever read.
Cuulblu:
For the record, you’re WRONG. Google it! This country is a constitutional republic. In other words there’s a document we call the constitution and it is meant to protect the minority from the “tyranny of the majority.” NC’s Amendment 1 is unconstitutional and should have never been brought up for vote, but thanks to the “crazy-nut-jobs” (yes, I said it because that’s a lot nicer than saying what I really think they are) in the NC Legislature it was. Thankfully, I have no doubt that in time this and all other state amendments of this type will be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. It’s just a shame that the rest of us have to put up with the nonsense in the meantime.
Cuulblu:
That article is the most biased, most nonsensical piece of flimflam that I have read in… well, it is an election year, so there’s more flimflam floating around than usual, but the most biased and nonsensical that I’ve read in the past couple of months, at any rate. For the record, National Review is an INCREDIBLY biased source (even moreso than Fox News, IMNSHO), to the point that some high school debate judges will call you out if you dare cite it in a speech.
No one is arguing about whether gays and lesbians are permitted to live together – of course they are, this isn’t the Victorian era! Granted, I do someyime question how far we’ve come since then. This is about ensuring that those couples and their children have access to each other’s healthcare coverage, to hospital visitation rights, to domestic violence protection – not at the whim and mercy of the private sector who may or may not choose to grant it, but guaranteed governmental protection for these basic rights. Now pull your head out of the sand and act like a decent human being!
So, no one had time to watch a 30 minute video to see how gay marriage has impacted freedom of religion in Massachusetts? How it’s impacting public schools? How a Christian man was jailed for objecting to what the public school was teaching? To hear the perspective of people who were gay or have same sex attraction, but found Gods way. It seems this group is as closed and narrow minded as those on the extreme right. You aren’t willing to compromise. Your way is the right way and everyone else is wrong. I did achieve my goal here. To make sure anyone who finds this thread has more than just one side of the story. And to let people see that the original article is in error. Her opinion is not educated from a Christian perspective. Christians should love the sinner, but hate the sin. Not empower them to continue to sin.
For the record, no I do not have time to watch a 30 minute video. I work 12 hour days and come home exhausted – if I’m going to watch 30 minutes of anything, it’s going to be something guaranteed to be free of political heckling, liberal, conservative, or otherwise. Also, I have heard the arguments before, ad nauseum. You seem to be incapable of understanding that yours is not the only religion in the world. Until you can comprehend that, I doubt this conversation will go very far.
AArreaza
You are misinterpreting the intent of the article. It is addressed to the issue of a gay/lesbian couple who within a committed closed relationship do not have the ability to have children. The article isn’t meant to address couples with fertility problems or those who choose not to have children. This issue is covered in more detail in the video.
I am surprised people who are so open minded and accepting as this group are responding with such animosity.
My point, cuulblu, is that you’re acting as if Christianity is the only religion that matters in this discussion; as though Christians are the only individuals entitled to an opinion on the matter. We’re not. Marriage existed before the Christian church; Christianity brought many radical new concepts to the forefront, but that wasn’t one of them. What I may or may not personally think about homosexual marriage is completely and entirely irrelevant. Neither my religion nor anyone else’s is the law of this land, and that is as it should be. Does the church I attend each week practice homosexual marriage? No, it doesn’t. And I fully support its right not to have to. I also fully support the right of my college buddy to go down to the courthouse and marry his longtime committed boyfriend, because they aren’t Christian to begin with, and it is thus unconstitutional for me to expect them to live by the rules by which I choose to live my life. But that isn’t the point.
I choose to worship with that congregation, and my right to have my husband covered under my health insurance policy hasn’t been called into question. The point is that my Jewish best friend from high school and her husband also use the word marriage. My Muslim coworker and his wife use it. And if my Grecco-Roman Pagan friend and her wife choose to use it too, that is their right. Yes, I said their right. Because it doesn’t matter whether I religiously agree with her – the term marriage (or language-appropriate translation) was already in use long before my religion laid claim to it. And that couple has just as much right as my husband and I not to have to worry about whether they can be on one health insurance plan, or whether they can visit each other in the hospital, or make emergency medical decisions. And yes, they have just as much right to the word marriage – whether I agree with them or not, Christianity doesn’t own the word.
Incidentally, for the record: we are seeing more and more evidence that sexuality is nature, not nurture. Something is fundamentally different in the neurochemistry of homosexual individuals for reasons we do not fully understand. But, seeing as it is nature and not nurture, that implies that these individuals are created to be this way. My God does not make mistakes. I may not understand His purpose – but I trust Him to know what He is doing. I’ll leave this one for Him to sort out. If my congregation were to start officiating homosexual marriages, I would be just fine with that. Meanwhile, our government has an obligation to start doing so, and to allow those religious groups who choose to do so the full ability thereto.
And, just a few of the decidedly SECULAR benefits you are using religion to justify cheating families out of. Incidentally, under the current system, even a civil union would not get couples these benefits. Justify this:
1. Shared Taxes. Married couples get to average their salaries to reach a lower bracket which benefits married couples with one high-wage worker and one low-wage worker (typical of a family where perhaps the mother works “mom’s hours” to supplement the budget while the kids are young.) Hence Gay couples in a comparable situation are taxed at a higher rate.
2. Bereavement leave: many employers only grant leave to workers who lose close relatives. Significant Others (SOs) are not factored into the equation, so to speak.
3. Wrongful death benefits. Gay spouses could sue for loss of consortium if their partner were killed by a reckless act.
4. Pensions and health insurance. Few employers grant benefits to unmarried partners (SOs). Even if granted, the government taxes it. Spousal benefits are tax free, on the other hand.
5. Social Security. Spouses, not partners, receive survivor benefits.
6. Inheritance: Gay partners pay estate taxes, married couples are exempt.
7. Family discounts: many organizations offer reduced rate family memberships. In most cases gay couples don’t qualify and therefore have to pay the higher rate.
8. Car ownership automatically transfers to a spouse, but not to a surviving partner.
9. Spouses cannot be compelled to testify in court against one another.
This is only a small handful. None of these have anything whatsoever to do with religion. Yet you are using your religion to justify cutting thousands of families off from these benefits. So yes – I have a certain degree of animosity.
God created man and woman who all humanity descended from. God did not create Adam and Edward. He did not create Eve and Anna. The natural structure of a family is a man and a woman. Change the names to suit your religion or belief system. Call God, Creator or any other name you like. The details don’t matter. The human race descended from a man and a woman. That is the natural order of things.
In Massachusetts, the first state to legalize gay marriage, freedom of religion has been infringed upon by the legalization of gay marriage. When it is proven that gay marriage can exist WITHOUT infringing upon religious freedom you will begin to see less resistance.
I agree that at least some of the secular benefits you have listed should be available to LGBT people. However, as long as any proposed solution infringes upon religious freedom it will meet resistance.
Get it through your head. That whole bit in Genesis? Some people don’t believe that. Not in any way, shape, or form. No God. No Creator. No Almighty. Just atoms and a really big exothermic reaction. Speaking as a both a Christian and a scientist (but not a Christian Scientist), yes, I think that’s crazy. Doesn’t matter – it’s still their right to believe it, and from that point of view, there’s no reason not to engage in homosexual marriage. And before you cite procreation on me, you may have noticed, but the world is not exactly hurting for population. Many Pagans believe that the world was created by a goddess or a pantheon, the deities of which have no problem at all with homosexual marriage. And regardless of what you or I may think, that is their right. And the only rights to religious freedom being infringed upon in NC and other states with similar systems are theirs.
Nobody’s religious freedom is infringed upon by calling the thing that a gay couple does ‘marriage’ – the Catholic church doesn’t have to perform said marriage, nor does any other religious group opposed to it. As for that being mentioned in the schools, I’m all for it – it might make the next generation less bigoted, closed-minded, and self-centered than the current one. The law in Massachussets gives UCC, Pagan, and other groups which allow homosexual marriage the ability to practice it, and gives those couples equal protection under the law. That’s it. As for a Christian man being jailed for objecting to school curriculum, as long as his protest was peaceful and on public property, and he didn’t threaten anyone, the law was broken in arresting him. He has a right to protest until he’s blue in the face, whether I agree with him or not, and if he was arrested for a legal protest, I hope he wins the inevitable lawsuit. HIS rights have indeed been violated, and I want to see that rectified. But a gay or lesbian couple marrying each other, calling each other husband or wife as appropriate, filing their income taxes together, and trying to raise their children away from all of the bigotry and hate they have faced in their lives does not violate YOUR rights. But you seem awfully eager to violate theirs.
Churches and religious groups will be required to provide benefits to people who live a lifestyle in opposition to their beliefs (the organizations required to provide the benefits). Prayer has been taken out of school, yet other belief systems are forced upon people who do not believe in them. Yet you believe you are right and others are wrong. You need to look in the mirror before accusing other people of things you do yourself. Freedom of religion in this country provides freedom to all religions. It does not exclude one specific religion as it seems you want to do. No, this issue is not directly a freedom of religion issue. It’s a civil right issue. Unfortunately these civil rights are being used to impinge upon religious freedom. I am not eager to violate anyone’s rights. However, I will not stand idly by while laws are passed that will be used to extend far beyond providing basic rights to a very small minority while limiting the vast majority. To quote philosopher Jeremy Bentham: “It is the greatest good to the greatest number of people which is the measure of right and wrong.”
Funny you should mention mirrors…
You say that I want to exclude one religion (never mind that said religion is, in fact, my own), while you seem to be willing to include only one religion. He who among you who is without sin, let him cast the first stone. So, let’s all put down the rocks. First off, there is nothing preventing any student who wishes to pray in school from doing so – you will not be suspended for saying grace before lunch, or for offering up a silent word of prayer when the test you didn’t study for lands on your desk, or gathering with friends to pray before classes start – and if any admin is stupid enough to try to suspend you for doing any of the above, he or she will lose the resulting lawsuit. You cannot be prevented from wearing a rosary, a yamulke, or a hajib in school – again, if admin tries it, they will lose. All that has been prevented is organized, in-class prayer, which is and always has been unconstitutional under the first amendment. And if you were sending your kids to school in a predominantly muslim school district, you would probably be quite grateful for that. Teaching in civics class that in a particular state, same sex couples can marry isn’t religous instruction – it’s civics, just like it says on the text book. Mentioning gay/lesbian couples in the kindergarten unit on families is also not religious instruction – some families are not like your child’s family, and making sure children understand that early will prevent years of bullying (and thus, likely, more than a few suicides) down the road. Mentioning the need for protection in homosexual as well as heterosexual intercourse in sex ed is not religious instruction – it’s preventing the spread of HIV. You have failed to concretely explain how your rights have been infringed upon by gay marriage. I’ve already given you a list of ways in which gay couples’ rights are infringed upon by banning it. And don’t try and say that h
Sorry about that – the cat stepped on my mouse. As I was saying, ‘I’m offended by having to refer to this thing I don’t like as marriage’ is not a valid infringement of your rights. As an individual with a learning disability, I find society’s wanton and inappropriate use of the word ‘retarded’ and its grammatical variants – as in ‘Dubya is such a retard’ or ‘did you see that new roundabout they put in at the corner of Fifth and Maple? I hate those things, they’re so retarded’ – incredibly offensive. I am protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act. When I was in school, this required my professors to give me access to other students’ lecture notes and extra time on exams. Now, it requires my employer to make sure I have a quiet space I can go to if I am overwhelmed by noise. This protection, however, does not extend to not having to hear the word ‘retarded’ – however offensive I may personally find the term, other people are entitled to use it.
Allison Rose Warn
I have discussed some situations where gay marriage has infringed upon religious freedom. I am not going to take the time to produce a list for you to dismiss them out of hand because you have judged them as unimportant. They are important to many people. Instead here is a short article that has some examples in it. I am sure you will dismiss these also.
http://www.therightscoop.com/gay-rights-vs…
I am not casting stones. I do not show hate or disrespect toward gay people if they respect me. I actually started this discussion more open minded than I am at this point. The more I read about the subject and what is happening in states that have legalized gay marriage the more I believe you are wrong. Not from the position of providing civil rights, but that religious freedoms are being eroded in states that have legalized gay marriage.
I have avoided quoting scripture here. But since you started here is one for you.
Leviticus 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.
Since you claim to be a Christian you should pray about that verse before continuing to defend your position.
At this point we are probably at an impasse. I see no way around the points we disagree on. I also have not heard any convincing argument that shows me gay marriage does not erode religious freedom. I have found evidence that satisfies me it does. I also see you are too narrow minded to watch 24 minutes of video (I suggested you skip the first 6 minutes in my earlier post) to help see where I am coming from. I have worked 12 hours shifts before so I don’t take that as a valid argument. I am sure anyone who is open minded that finds this thread will do enough research to make their own educated decision.
Cuulbu:
If two heterosexual atheists get married by a town Justice or a Judge, is that a slap in the face of religion? Would you support an amendment to deny them the right to marry?
Face it marriage has nothing to do with religion. It is a normal part of the human condition. People voluntarily bond together in family groups to go through and share life. They neither seek, nor require, the approval of your church.
“In Massachusetts, the first state to legalize gay marriage, freedom of religion has been infringed upon by the legalization of gay marriage. When it is proven that gay marriage can exist WITHOUT infringing upon religious freedom you will begin to see less resistance.”
You have that backward. Amendment One infringes on religious freedom. Religious freedom does not mean free to make everyone practice MY religion.
“God created man and woman who all humanity descended from. God did not create Adam and Edward.”
That argument is predicated on the truth of the biblical account of creation. Not everyone believes that. In fact, all the scientific evidence points to it NOT being true.
Having looked at your second article, cuulblu (I will nearly always check text-based references; I typically will not check videos even if I am likely to agree with the contents, because spoken language is far more difficult for me to process than written language – see aforementioned learning disability), I will be the first to say that I see some misapplications of it here. Fining a private photographer for choosing not to book an event (for any or no reason) is ridiculous. If a photographer had declined to photograph my wedding because they objected to my heterosexual marriage, my reply would have been ‘okay, thank you for your time and have a nice day’ and then to go find someone else. It’s an incredibly idiotic situation, but the law here has been drastically misapplied – it’s not a function of the law itself. I most definitely hope that that will be won on appeal. As for the man protesting to his kid’s school, a lot depends on circumstances. Did he say anything which could in any way be construed as a threat? If so, it wouldn’t have mattered what he was protesting, he would have been arrested on the spot – schools take no chances these days, too many crazies who think with their gun and not with their head. (I’m not saying that he was one of those crazies, only that schools will err heavily on the side of caution in that matter. I’m also not saying that anyone who owns a gun is one of those crazies – owning a gun is fine, thinking with said gun instead of one’s brain is not.) Similarly, was he swearing? Yelling and making a scene? In front of students? If yes, that probably does fall under disorderly conduct. If the answer to all of these questions is no, than yes, his arrest was illegal, and that school district will be in (well-deserved) deep doodoo when that hits court. As for it being in elementary school curricula, I actually think it needs to be – if you have a problem with same sex marriage, explain that to your kids and why it goes against your beliefs at home – religious instruction is the job of the parents in any case – but whether you approve or not, whether gay marriage is legalized or not, your kids will sooner or later be exposed to a child who has two mommies or two daddies. In the interest of them not a: freaking out, or b: bullying another child over something he or she has no control over, they need to be aware that this exists, and even if lityle Suzie’s two daddies are doing something wrong in adopting her, they do still love her and care for her – and God still loves her and cares for her too. The curricula isn’t about religion, it’s about explaining to children the realities of the world they live in. A parent in my class in second grade pitched an epic fit because a story in our reading book featured pictures of a multiracial family – and yes, some churches still freak out over that; they shouldn’t, but they do – and was going on at length about how the teacher, the svhoolboard, and the publisher would burn in hell for that. Needless to say, he was told to stuff it, the curriculum wasn’t changed, and it’s likely a very good thing for his son that he had SOME exposure to the concept of a multiracial family. Especially since there was at least one in our class.
DLP
It appears you did not read the last link I posted. I will post an excerpt here from:
http://www.therightscoop.com/gay-rights-vs…
“Another example of this is when Catholic Charities was sued for not allowing gay and lesbian couples to adopt children from their agency. Instead of complying with state law requiring them to adopt children to same-sex couples, they chose to stop adopting children to any couple, abandoning their founding mission. The difficult thing with this case is that they were performing a public service in finding children homes. Because they felt so strongly about their faith, they chose to stop altogether. They had been in the adoption business for over 100 years.”
In this example gay marriage laws were used to actually shut down a ministry.
Here is another excerpt:
“A University of Toledo associate vice president who was fired for writing a column called “Gay rights and wrongs: another perspective.”
Hmmmm….loss of Freedom of speech rights due to a disagreement with gay rights laws.
An excerpt from the final paragraph of the article:
“The end result here is that when same-sex marriage is legalized, the state has a duty to enforce it, which strips away rights of those who disagree with it. So for those who say that there are no ramifications for those who disagree with it, they are clearly wrong. And as same-sex marriage becomes legalized in more states, we will read even more accounts of people being punished for their religious beliefs.”
Allison Rose Warn
Children who are bullies are typically the result of bad parenting. Teaching the GLBT agenda in schools is not going to resolve this issue. It will most likely reinforce the problem at home when the parent learns what their child is being taught and the parent reacts.
A parent should not have to undo teaching a child received at school. It is a parents right to protect a child from teachings they disagree with (on moral and religious grounds) until that child reaches an appropriate age as determined by the parent. It is the responsibility of the parent to teach their children to treat other people with respect, not the school.
cuulblu:
1. If the parent reacts to anything in school curricula in a manner that would encourage their children to bully another child, they need to seriously reconsider whether they have any business being parents. Being angry is fine, acting in a manner that appears to their children to condone bullying is not.
2. You do realize that pretty much every non-Christian parent with a child in the public school system already has to undo a metric crapload of religious teaching by the schools, right? I have muslim friends who could tell you horror stories about having to deal with the damn easter bunny indoctrination every single year, where they get to explain to their children that even though they made a cute little basket with bunny ears from an old milk jug and their teacher said the easter bunny would come fill it with candy, the easter bunny won’t be coming to their house. Or the fifty bazillion math worksheets with christmas trees and/or santa clause on them. Or, my personal (least) favorite, my Jewish friend who is holding down the fort while her husband is serving in Iraq – her nine year old came home in tears because her teacher told her it was unAmerican not to celebrate Christmas. The religious bias has been there for decades – you’re only just now noticing it because 99.9% of the bias is skewed toward your religion.
Allison Rose Warn
I did state the following: “It is the responsibility of the parent to teach their children to treat other people with respect, not the school.”
I in no way suggested any parent should teach a child disrespect or allow or encourage them to be a bully. But…it does happen. We can’t regulate who can and can not have children. There is no test to determine if someone is a good parent or not. At least nothing short of actually having children. What I am saying is there are prejudiced people out there you will not get through to. They teach their kids things you or I would not. Forcing LGBT agenda into schools will not solve this problem.
Neither the Easter bunny or Santa clause are in the Bible. Those are relics of pagan religions. Take religious teachings out of the schools. While we are at it, let’s eliminate Christmas, Easter, and Thanksgiving from the calender as official holidays. No more paid time off for such things. I really don’t care if we observe those holidays officially or not. I really wish we could get rid of the commercialization of those holidays. While we are at it let’s get rid of Halloween too. That is most definitely a pagan religious holiday. That’s a whole different battle than what we are discussing here. If people do not have or are being denied rights that they should have under existing law then let them fight for them. Passing gay marriage is not going to solve any of those problems.
We can discuss this for the next 20 years and the only thing we will ever agree on is that we disagree. You want to change the basic foundations that our country was created on. If our founding fathers could have foreseen how what they have written is being misconstrued today they would have written far more than one sentence about religious freedom.
You say you are Christian too. God isn’t looking for fence straddlers.
Thank you for voting against Amendment One. I know we lost the battle, but there is still a war. Thanks to Amendment one, we took away rights from 222,000+ straight couples who choose to be in a civil union, for one reason or another.
Hopefully we can overturn this Amendment 1 because it conflicts with the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
Thank you, God bless and most of all Happy Mother’s Day!
This article highlights some of the issues we are facing. I feel it does it in a way that is tasteful to those on both sides of this issue.
Santa Fe New Mexican
Looking In: Marriage views not off-limits for businesses
By | The New Mexican
2/27/2012
Santa Fe hairdresser Antonio Darden decided he can no longer in good conscience cut the hair of Gov. Susana Martinez because she does not support redefining marriage to include same-sex couples. In order to operate his business according to his beliefs and make a public statement against the governor’s position on marriage, he is refusing to offer his services to her. Many admire Darden for his courage.
Suppose Gov. Martinez were to feel insulted or hurt by Darden’s actions and decided to file a discrimination complaint against him. Then suppose state officials find “probable cause” that Darden violated New Mexico’s anti-discrimination law, and the New Mexico Human Rights Commission orders him to stand trial.
While on the witness stand, suppose Darden endures the withering cross-examination by the governor’s attorney while he calmly explains that his business is an expression of who he is and that he could not in good conscience cut the hair of a governor that declines to redefine marriage.
Suppose that Darden’s attorney explains how the First Amendment protects Darden’s actions, but the commission harshly rejects that argument and says Darden surrendered that right when he became a commercial hairstylist.
Imagine the commission demeaning Darden as a mere dispenser of services who must dispense haircuts as a gumball machine dispenses gum when someone puts in money. Then suppose the commission finds Darden guilty of discrimination and orders him to pay the governor $6,600 in attorneys’ fees.
Many would be outraged by such a misuse of anti-discrimination laws to punish someone with views different from the governor’s.
Well, it turns out that the commission has already done exactly that — only not to Darden, but to another small business, Elane Photography, run by a young husband and wife from Albuquerque.
Their business received an email from a woman in a same-sex relationship inquiring about prices for shooting her and her partner’s “commitment ceremony” in Taos. The photographer knew that she could not in good conscience use her artistic skills to photograph a ceremony that communicated support for redefining marriage. Although the same-sex couple found another photographer for their ceremony, one of the partners filed a discrimination complaint with the state, subjecting the owners to a trial before the Human Rights Commission.
The owners explained that they tried to operate their business according to their higher principles, including those on marriage. The commission rejected their First Amendment defenses, found the company guilty, and ordered it to pay $6,600 in attorneys’ fees. The case is now on appeal and awaiting a decision by the New Mexico Court of Appeals.
Both Darden and Elane Photography have the right to decline to provide services to people with whom they disagree about what marriage truly is. I don’t think many would accuse Darden of bigotry and discrimination against Gov. Martinez, and they shouldn’t level that same accusation against Elane Photography either.
Even though cutting hair has little to do with the definition of marriage, many would admire Darden’s act of courage and conscience. People should view Elane Photography’s case the same way.
We should encourage business owners to operate their businesses with ethics and higher principles so that they do not mindlessly dispense goods and services with no thought to the impact of their actions. The Constitution protects people’s expression of their views, even when it comes in a commercial context.
Business owners do not surrender their constitutionally protected rights at the marketplace gate. Although Antonio Darden and Elane Photography disagree on the definition of marriage, both should have their rights protected to operate their businesses within the protections of the First Amendment.
Jordan Lorence is senior counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund (http://www.telladf.org), which is defending Elane Photography in court.