Prop 8 & M36: Opening the door to persecution of the church
The Church's teaching on marriage and on the complementarity of the sexes reiterates a truth that is evident to right reason and recognized as such by all the major cultures of the world. Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It was established by the Creator with its own nature, essential properties and purpose. No ideology can erase from the human spirit the certainty that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman, who by mutual personal gift, proper and exclusive to themselves, tend toward the communion of their persons. In this way, they mutually perfect each other, in order to cooperate with God in the procreation and upbringing of new human lives.
This statement is not wrong. This is a religious statement, a “Consideration” from the Vatican on “unions between homosexual persons.” A religious statement is, by definition, a matter of belief. It is a matter of faith, and such things are never wrong; they just are. I fundamentally disagree with the statement and the entire range of thought and belief behind it. I would say marriage exists between the people who choose to deem themselves married. If it’s Adam and Eve, Adam and Steve, or Eve and Edie — let there be love, that’s all I would say is required.
Yet I recognize that religion is important to the majority of the earth’s peoples. I do not believe in god, as such, but since I do have a set of beliefs about life, morality, etc, I’d have to admit that I am a person of faith. There’s not much difference between me and a religious person. We both believe, and that’s what is critical here.
Many Christians, Jews, Muslims and others believe homosexuality is wrong. I refuse to engage them in that argument. Many Christians, Jews, Muslims and others once believed (and too many still do) that persons of other faiths and ethnicities are inferior, worthy of enslavement or even death. I’m not sure what changed in their religion over the years to undo the belief in slavery, for example; that’s something for them to explain, if they can — without undermining the sanctity of their teachings (good luck on that one, fellas). If people want to believe “gay marriage” is wrong, fine. I say: Don’t let gays marry in your church. Don’t even let gays in your church. I have no problem with that.
What I do say is, who do you actually want in your church? Obviously not people who engage in sinful lifestyles, as you define it. That makes sense. People of a particular religion will naturally want to congregate with persons who share their beliefs. As long as they don’t over-react to the presence of sinners — no stoning, no burning at the stake, please — then I believe, under our Constitution, a church has the right to refuse entrance or membership to persons who do not adhere to the doctrines of that church.
But the churches have made a huge mistake that threatens the sanctity of their beliefs and practices: They have tied their religious beliefs to the laws of the secular state. Currently, a minister of a church can perform the legal, government-sanctioned act of marriage. The minister serves as an agent of the state, and the church services a major program of the state. This is not a good thing for any church.
Sue Hagmeier made a tremendously cogent point to me recently in discussing this: Churches in America have forgotten what it means to suffer religious persecution. Mormons, of all people, have the most recent memory of true religious persecution within this country. Their prophet and founder, Joseph Smith, was murdered — they would say martyred — for what he taught and practiced. The early Mormons had to flee their homes in order to practice their religion, much the same as Daniel Barnhart fled Germany over three hundred years ago, bringing my family to this country.
Who, today, is persecuted for their religious beliefs in America? Scientoligists are mocked, jokes are told about most religions, but no one is hounded by mobs, much less threatened with jail or made to fear for their lives. Separated from the memory of persecution, American religionists of all kinds use the power of their pulpits, their congregations, their funds and their station in society to force their religious views on government. The passage of Prop 8 in California is just the latest example of religion persecuting those outside of their own faith.
Yet we already see the backlash. The Church of Latter-Day Saints spent millions on passing Prop 8, and now it finds itself under attack not only by those it attacked, but friends of the GLBT community, by fair-minded people of varying beliefs and even by Mormons disgusted with the naked power play of their church. In seeking to transform religion into political power, the Mormon church has revealed the danger any religion faces in attempting to wield political power: that same power can turn around and attack the church.
I truly believe a church should be free to decide what it considers marriage. This definition varies among the many different faiths the people of America hold; the broad defitional umbrella of faith-based marriage would be called “sacramental” marriage. Those who submit to a church’s particular sacrament can consider themselves married in the eyes of their god(s). That is both logical, right and constitutionally sound.
But what the state determines marriage to be — now that’s another question altogether. Let’s say a church's sacrament of marriage is 48-hours of prayer, fasting and then the repetition of particular words. That might be great for a sacramental marriage; the State of Oregon requires a lot more. But what if a religion forbids the paying of a fee in the performance of a sacrament? What if they forbid a woman to sign any legal document? What if they say marriage can occur at the age of 15? Under such scenarios, the church and state, quite clearly, can find themselves at odds over what constitutes marriage. (Examples of church and state, in this country, being at odds over the practice of religious ceremonies already exist, including over marriage: the Mormon polygamist sects.)
And what if the voters of Oregon decide that in order to serve as an agent of the state and perform legal marriage ceremonies, a minister had to swear an oath of allegiance to the state itself — an allegiance that was meant to trump their allegiance to their faith? Now we’ve turned the problem around entirely, with churches forced to either submit themselves to human, and not heavenly rule, or being deemed traitorous, unpatriotic and losing the right to practice their faith. Yet there is no logical or even practical reason this could not happen. Get a groundswell of support and a good political campaign, and we could easily impose secular restrictions on the free practice of religion — restrictions that flow from the churches' own efforts to impose religious restrictions on the state.
This is why the United States has separation of church and state. The Founders understood religious persecution. They knew how easily the fulcrum could swing in either direction. By establishing a divide between the sacred and the secular, they did their best to protect each. We must follow their wise example and re-establish the separation. We must remove the state from having any role in how religions practice their faith (beyond the obvious, as demonstrated by so many civic-minded priests). The Oregon Legislature should do the following:
- Submit to the voters of Oregon the repeal of Measure 36.
- Have in place, to follow that repeal, a structure of marriage for all persons who seek to have their marriage recognized by the state. “Civil marriage” would apply to all persons and would have no restrictions based on gender. It would be the same for all couples (and, at this point, for couples only; polygamy is a critter I ain’t even gonna touch). Civil marriages would be administered by civil servants and would involve an oath or affirmation in recognition that this legally binding relationship is of critical importance to society — even if the couple is gay.
- Recognize the right of churches to limit their sacraments of marriage to only those who submit to the teachings of that church. If a church refuses to marry gay people — or straight people, for that matter — no penalty would apply in any way.
Initially, I expect many persons devoted to the dogma of “gays is bad” to object to this line of thought (which is not original with me, of course; the first I read of the idea was from an evangelical Christian — in Christianity Today). But in time, I hope enough people of faith would come to recognize several important ideas:
- All citizens deserve the same legal rights regardless of what others think of them. An ugly man and woman have the right to marry; why not two pretty women? Where once we did not, we now allow “mixed” marriages; the word “miscegenation” was last heard, by most people, in the Coen Brothers’ “O Brother Where Art Thou?"
- Religion in America may not have known persecution for many generations, but that could change. We must ensure the Founders’ vision of a nation where all citizens are free to practice their religion as their conscience leads them remains the guiding light. Churches today are vulnerable to political attack just as they have used politics to attack others.
- The religious beliefs of one person cannot be forced upon another person. Faith is chosen freely or it is not chosen at all. Forcing the practices of a religion on non-believers is not religion; it’s tyranny. Unless churches wish to align themselves with such an ideology — and that might be a poor choice in this country — they better come to grips with the fact that laws apply equally to all persons. Even the ones you are pretty sure are going to hell for all eternity.
Measure 36 and Prop 8 are acts of religious tyranny, and yet they open the door for religion to be tyrannized by non-believing citizens and their government. If churches wish to maintain the full sanctity of their beliefs and practices, they need to relinquish the human lust for power. History has many examples of persons of faith finding ways to integrate their beliefs into the legal structure of their nation without violating anyone's rights: the civil rights movement, after all, was led by Christian ministers among others. Believers can bring their faith into the public forum, but if they attempt to have those beliefs codified into law at the expense of non-believers, they have to recognize their are no longer practicing their faith: They are giving to Caesar what belongs to God.
|
December 2, 2008 |
T.A. Barnhart | Comments (83 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Jack Roberts | Dec 2, 2008 9:01:58 AM
If the Oregon legislature refers a repeal of Measure 36 to the voters, then surely the prayers of many Republicans will have been answered.
Posted by: Oregon Bill | Dec 2, 2008 9:04:16 AM
>Many Christians, Jews, Muslims and others believe homosexuality is wrong.
Many of them also believed Biblical/Koranic passages endorsing slavery were right...
>A religious statement is, by definition, a matter of belief. It is a matter of faith, and such things are never wrong; they just are.
In other words, there's no there there - there's no evidence to support a religious prejudice. It is because I say it is. Or my book does. Or I think my book does. Or my priest tells me it does...
And newsflash - sometimes (often?), baseless, evidence free, holy book referenced statements are actually wrong. Completely and utterly wrong.
>All citizens deserve the same legal rights regardless of what others think of them.
Yes - that's in our American constitution. It was in Oregon's and California's constitutions once, too. And I want it back from you prejudiced, blinkered, slow-thinking, mean-spirited Catholics, Mormons, and Baptists. Pronto.
Posted by: Buckman Res | Dec 2, 2008 9:04:42 AM
(and, at this point, for couples only; polygamy is a critter I ain’t even gonna touch).
And why not touch it? The subject won’t go away, particularly once gay marriage is made legal. The two topics are invariably linked together, you can’t discuss one without the other.
The disdain shown toward multiple partner marriages is no less reprehensible and bigoted than that shown to same sex marriage. To advocate “marriage for all” without recognizing a form of marriage that has been practiced throughout history and in many parts of the world today destroys any argument that gay marriage support is based in fairness and justice.
Get the state out of marriage and let any combination of adults form civil unions as they see fit.
Posted by: Steven Maurer | Dec 2, 2008 9:10:19 AM
Here's my take: tolerance should not extend to tolerance of intolerance. You want to form your own little club where you all sit around and pretend you're so much better, more special, and Godly than everyone else? Fine. You're just another link in the unbroken historical chain of egocentric morons.
But once you enter the public square with those beliefs, don't pretend people's cross-examination of them is "persecution". Especially when you're a member of the majority religion in a country.
Posted by: t.a. barnhart | Dec 2, 2008 9:14:55 AM
Jack, i could take what you say as a sign that Oregon Rs have seen the error of their ways and want to undo M36. or perhaps you mean they believe this is a battle that could turn the tide back their way. if the latter, don't hold your breath. this is a battle the anti-rights people can only lose, no matter how strong their "faith."
Posted by: Greg D. | Dec 2, 2008 9:24:32 AM
Steve M., when I read the first paragraph of your post I thought you were talking about the Arlington Club. I was almost ready to make a motion at lunch today that we have the sergeant-at-arms come over and teach you some respect. But I see we are talking about religion, so never mind.
Posted by: Zarathustra | Dec 2, 2008 9:56:13 AM
The theology isn't coherent; I don't know that you can take direct social values from the theology, given that it is so internally contradictory.
This is really odd timing, for me personally. After 20 years of not working with the Church- I was paid during college to translate various manuscripts- I was persuaded to do a one month examination of the theology of Josef Ratzinger and Benedict the XVI, as if they were two people. I did this in '78 when JP II claimed to be a Thomistic phenomonenologist, which claim was as bogus as it sounds on the face of it. He was just an old Thomist. Read Aristotelean for Thomist. Why does the Church often seem so far out of touch? Aristotle isn't exactly best practices anymore. Thanks for the post topic!
So, back to the good Josef Cardinale Ratzinger. I had avoided studying him because of his choice of name. Benedict the XV did about everything progressive that has been done by the Papacy in the last 450 years. I didn't want to see him approriate the mantle to continue some backward agenda. I'll skip the details of the exigesis, but, bottom line, I was thoroughly shocked. Instead of a backward apologist, the only apologies I found were for Hans Kung and the the right of Jews to say "rubbish" to the whole Jesus story. His analysis is the first I've read in 1000 years, by a Pope, that understands the psycho-social dimension to Anselm's ontological argument.
Anselm has a famous argument/proof for the existence of God. It sounds odd to our ears, because he starts assuming that you believe in God. It's more like Immanuel Kant's "rational faith", where the method is faith, i.e. the non-falsifiability principle, but the faith makes rational sense. This, BTW, is why there can never be a conflict between religion and science, unless the scientists don't know what they're doing. The essence of the scientific method is falsifiability. String theory is often labeled as a non-scientific theory because it does not establish a criterion for falsifiability. It doesn't say, "if you show x, we will accept the null hypothesis to y". That is the essence of faith, non-falsifiability. "You cannot come up with a state of affairs that would cause me to doubt". Assumptions, at the start, which are diametrically opposed, by definition. Anyone that argues about an overlap is trying to push one into the others' domain where it has no business being.
Point is, Pope Benedict XVI understands all this. He doesn't look at the Old and New Testaments as a person that assumes, by faith, that you have to accept all the teleology around Jesus as the Christ, or in Hebrew, the Messiah, both terms which mean "annointed". (Actually the annointing was probably with cannabis infused oil, but that's another discussion!). He looks at it as a construct system and says that if you go bottom up instead of working backwards from what "has to be the case", there is no necessity in seeing Jesus as the Messiah and such persons are justified in waiting on another, today. He has made similar statements with regard to Buddhism, enough to please the Prince of Wales. In the 22nd century all church leaders will secretly be Buddhists, perhaps.
So, after reading all his interesting thoughts, I was curious how it would translate into his Bulls. He seemed to be avoiding issues that would directly demonstrate the difference in approach. I honestly went to bed a week ago thinking, "why can't he come clean on this 'the only function of sex is procreation' BS, and really do some good?" His encyclical, Deus Caritas Est, looked to have taken the Franciscan intellectual side against the Thomists, after 500 years. Thomas Aquinas (reminds one very much of Newt Gingrich) and John Duns Scotus (reminds one very much of a super-genious Howard Dean) used to debate, "if man had not sinned, would Christ have come"? Thomas won the day and we have Protest theology as a result, that "Jesus came to save mankind from it's wretched condition by his blood sacrifice on the cross". The Franciscans always insisted that incarnation was necessarily de-emphasized by that point of view, and that incarnation was the important act, not the political reality of getting the death penalty for insurrection against the Romans, which was a matter of course thing. They maintained that if man had not sinned Christ certainly would have come, as the first act of a loving God that wished to share his life with his creation. (Francis invented the xmas nativity scene in Greccio, 1223, to make the point). Benedict the XVI takes this stance in Deus Caritas Est.
A year ago the Bull Spe Salvi was promulgated. BTW, Bull and encyclical are synonyms. It isn't a cut, though one has to smile when saying it. Anyway, Spe Salvi is an obvious reference to Gaudium et Spes, a seminal Vatican II document. Gaudium et Spes basically said, among a lot of other things, that you weren't going to hell if you were a devout, non-catholic. It ended re-baptism for converts and other such stuff. My fist read was to think that Spe Salvi is the anti-Gaudium et Spes. I noticed today that the theologian Rorate Caeli had a verbatim impression. So, the trend was for greated orthodoxy internally, yet a more progressive stance with non-catholics.
It is against this personal, theological backdrop that you have to read the Vatican's "consideration" letter, cited in the post topic. This is not a statement by Benedict XVI. He has not addressed the issue. The letter cited was a culling of the traditional, very, very Thomistic position on marriage. It was necessary because Benedict has been silent on the point. I looked through recent talks to see if there might be a hint to his thinking, one way or the other, and was struck that he'd much rather be talking about Hindu Diwali, at the moment! Migrants, refugees...very practical and social concerns. Every indication from his published works as Cardinal and encyclicals as Pope indicate that he would never think in Thomistic terms. He might affirm the doctrine, but I can assure you that it won't take the terms "the only end of sex is procreation". He's as likely to rescind Benedict XV's pardon of Galileo.
Given that his encyclicals have not been promulgated, ex cathedra, that the current, historic position is not likely to be the new pontiff's, and, most important, that this is a question of Roman Law, where practice preceeds change and creates the basis for legislation, American Catholics have every right to support same sex unions and can legitimately claim that their beliefs are not at odds with their religion. For 500 years, their religion has been at odds with reason. Devotion does not require blindly following those errors in doctrine. The traditionalists can't have it both ways. If you say that Benedict the XVI is a heretic, you have to throw out all of Vatican II, which some would do. That is absurd, though, Vatican II is the Church today. It's why Albino Luciano and Karol Wojtyła both took the name John Paul, to show a continuity with John XXIII and Paul VI, the authors of Vatican II. It's taken 40 years, but when Benedict XVI puts out something like "Humanae Vitae Novae", maybe on the 50th anniversary, which would be 4 years or so, the process of separating what have become the conjoined twins of Catholic theology and Thomism will finally be complete. As population is a serious environmental issue, this can't wait. Get to writin' lad... Do Benedict XV proud!
Perhaps, consideration is do the Dutch approach once again. The 2/5 that are religious believe in using their faith values as personal values and teach them to their children. All agree, though, that science is used to solved social-political questions. The opposite position is a holdover in US politics from colonial days. The position wasn't an acceptable model in Britain, already then, so those people ended up here. We always portray them as victims of religious persecution, but in fact they were the victims of the kind of persecution that every human society engages in when the target are right, bloody nuisances! We still have people saying they won't consider the science/research because it's morally wrong. In the rest of the world that's a "Fine. Don't do it". Only in America do they have to try and change the majority, on pain of eternal damnation. Sure, Al-Quaeda are trying that in Pakistan, but they aren't legitimized. Ostracizing isn't a preference of progressive, so evangelicals bleat on and take us all down to hell with themselves. Gee, I wonder why this lot were refugees? They want to go back to the country the Pilgrims knew? Fine. Go to Pakistan's tribal areas and you can relive it all. Not as fun with well armed natives, is it? They've never learned tolerance; don't even respect it. They should love the Taliban. Humor is already there. Comedian Andy Hamilton has a very funny routine about an Evangelical and Muslim suicide-bomber being assigned the same cell in hell as eternal punishment. It doesn't work. Both are too self-righteous to believe they could be there. Ironically, for the post, the last thing the evangelical could remember was telling a gay biker that he was going to Hell. The terrorist remembered a trainee asking, "what does this button do". I like the equivalence. Those evangelicals that show up at gay funerals of HIV/Aids patients are engaging in terror tactics. Once you know that they really, really want something, you don't have to go through all the analysis to know it's not good for the country!
Posted by: Chad | Dec 2, 2008 10:48:14 AM
I must admit, this is the best presentation of the issue I have read. Most site take a polarized view and see no middle ground.
I agree with your assessment on the dangers in our current environment coming back to whack the Church. By their own design, they have opened the door for their own destruction.
Also, let's not forget the Catholics. Zero moral authority, but trying to stay relevant. They are running from their past (30 years of raping children) and accusing Gays as the ones responsible. There is a serious witch hunt going on right now in the Catholic Church. Google it -- it's scary.
Good job.
Posted by: Jason | Dec 2, 2008 10:53:07 AM
T.A.,
A question: Why do you think a majority of people in the U.S. support a ban on gay marriage? All you have to do is look at the percentage of victory in each state during the 2006 election. The average was more than 60%...and as high as 80%.
So does that mean most of American's are bigoted and judgmental?
Posted by: t.a. barnhart | Dec 2, 2008 11:14:04 AM
Jason, the majority of people in America used to think blacks were sub-human. they thought Saddam was behind 9/11. they believe American Idol is worth watching. since when do civil rights depend on what polls report people are "thinking"?
most people are bigoted and judgmental; it's part of our human nature, given the range of what we don't know, what we fear, and the heuristics we use to evaluate the world around us. this does not make the bad people; it just means the fight to do the right thing can take a long time and a lot of struggle. but in the end, what is right - is right. this is why in CA we saw the large majorities previously against marriage equality slip hugely to a majority that won't last much longer.
Posted by: Bob R. | Dec 2, 2008 11:15:04 AM
So does that mean most of American's are bigoted and judgmental?
On this particular issue, that at least explains some of it. Uninformed explains some more. Don't have many gay friends/coworkers to relate to explains even more.
California's Prop 8 is a particularly horrifying example, because voters voted explicitly to remove a right which was already in existence, rather than voting to prevent the recognition of a right which was currently denied.
PS... There's no apostrophe in "Americans".
Posted by: Bob R. | Dec 2, 2008 11:20:14 AM
Regarding the supposed link between gay marriage and polygamy:
Expanding marriage to include same-gender couples (and mixed-race couples, and mixed-religious couples, for that matter), does NOT alter the basic underlying structure of marriage itself: Laws, licenses, contracts, wills, divorce proceedings, custody proceedings -- all of these things stay exactly the same, with only a word or two changed. (In California, the forms were changed from "Husband and Wife" to "Spouse and Spouse".)
Group marriage, on the other hand, requires a complete rewrite of all laws and contracts, and there is no obvious path to follow when rewriting those laws. It would require intense and careful involvement of the legislature, the courts, and societal norms, to come up with a legal structure for group marriage.
In a polygamous relationship, who makes the health care decisions? Who gets custody of children? Who does a house or business go to when a partner dies? Is the household a democracy? Are the personal finances a corporation with each spouse being a shareholder? What if 5 partners want to leave each other, and 2 of them want to care for children but 3 do not?
There are answers to all those questions, I'm sure, but they are not answers which can be divined from existing marriage laws. The underlying structure is different.
In a conventional 2-person marriage, in the absence of things like prenuptial agreements, all of these questions can be answered automatically -- in the absence of one spouse, the other gets everything. I hate to use the word "easy" in the context of marriage, but compared to a group marriage, answering these questions in a 2-person marriage _is_ easy.
Just to be clear:
In the above argument I am sidestepping any moral debate as to whether group marriage should be allowed or is desirable. I'm just saying that structurally, it's a whole new animal compared to 2-person marriage. It is impossible for the existence of 2-person gay marriages to lead suddenly and irrevocably to polygamy. There is no slippery slope between A and B.
Posted by: Bob R. | Dec 2, 2008 11:23:32 AM
Regarding religious belief and proscriptions:
Churches are well within their rights to proscribe behaviors, turn their noses up at certain relationships, bar people form religious marriages, and bar people from attending their facilities or from being members in their organization. Individual members of those churches have every right to vote their conscience on various issues.
But once churches, in an organized manner, seek to become political actors for the express purpose of inhibiting the rights of non-members, which is what happened with Prop 8 and other anti-gay measures, they are no longer immune to political action. Those who have lost their rights also have a right to condemn those churches, to protest, to investigate political activities, and to strategize how to turn the tables.
Posted by: Bob R. | Dec 2, 2008 11:28:59 AM
My two comments after the 11:15:04AM comment appear to have been removed or held back... can a moderator please check into this for me? Thanks much.
Posted by: Jason | Dec 2, 2008 11:55:16 AM
T.A.,
I have several black friends who despise the correlation between gay rights and civil rights. That's not an argument I will ever agree with.
Herein lies the problem. You, like Steve, believe people should think and feel the way you do about this issue. You are being judgmental by assuming that your position is right, and that other are wrong. I respect your position, but I don't agree with it. There are other people who believe differently - and not because they are judgmental. They simply believe that God created a certain order in life for the spiritual and physical health and well-being of the human race. They also believe that children are best raised, and more likely to succeed in life, both emotionally and physically, when raised by a mother and a father. You don't have to agree with that, but that's how many people feel.
"But in the end, what is right - is right."
Yes, but that's according to your viewpoint. Again, when people have diverging ethical/moral values, there will always be a collision as to the outcome an a variety of issues.
Personally, I believe marriage should be taken out of the hands of the state. Even for Christians, if they believe their marriage is sanctified by God, why do they need the state to solidify it?
I also believe churches should not have a non-profit status, nor should married couples be given special tax benefits. While I don't agree with gay marriage, I do think tax benefits should be extended to anyone raising kids, regardless of their marital status. I think the state should get out of marriage altogether; therefore, negating the purpose of having a law defining what it is. (I know many conservative Christians would lambaste me for this position, but that's what I think.)
Instead of judging people for their lifestyles and always having a condeming attitude, more Christians should actually follow the two greatest commandments: Love God and love others. While I hold to a certain set of spiritual beliefs (and morals/ethics), I don't ever try to "preach" or "convince" others to believe the way I do. If they ask, I share why I believe what I believe, and how it's changed my life for the better. I try to lead by example, and let my actions speaker louder than words. For me, it's not about trying to "save" anyone. It's about loving others, regardless of our differences. If my love for others somehow shows them who I believe God to be, then great. But that's not the point of my journey.
In the end, if gay marriage becomes law, I won't be concerned with it, nor fight against it. My hope is not in this world.
Posted by: Jason | Dec 2, 2008 11:56:55 AM
Bob,
Thanks for the correction about the inadvertent apostrophe in Americans.
Posted by: Jason Garrett Hitzert | Dec 2, 2008 12:05:55 PM
Broken down to its most fundamental underpinnings religion is in many ways a means of controlling people to some end. For most of history this has been positive I would think. Moses kept the Jews together and a coherent group by showing a divine guidance. Religion has given order, substance and purpose in a universe so vast that it could otherwise crush our hopes and dreams. Our urge that favors religion enabled the human race to progress and find dominance by helping us find common cause. Unfortunately, most religion has a set of principals that are unique to the society, nee tribe, within which it originates. As our tribes grew larger and rubbed up against one another in the wilderness the limitations of faith's absolute nature has come into focus.
To navigate the rules of the different faiths requires a priestly class; clergy, reverends and ministers etc. Enter into a faith based argument with a member of the faithful and the dice are loaded against you. This is why the faithful have made the claim repeatedly that this is a Christian Nation founded on Christian values. Understandably, they seek to load the dice in favor of a faith based argument in order that there tribe might gain supremacy. This is neither calculated or evil it is simply a logical progression of their faith.
The Constitution is clear on this as Mr. Barnhart alludes to in this eloquent piece. It is clear though that an Ecumenical discussion is, and has continually been seen by our founders as well as others, to be impossible when the stakes are high. The priestly class will always retreat into rules that support their claims and that they are only allowed to interpret. Jefferson describes the need for "the wall between church and state," established in the first amendment, in his letter to the Danbury Connecticut Baptists, to protect differing perspectives from this stifling urge toward establishment of a state sponsored church.
The purpose of the Constitution is to eliminate the primacy of faith being the last word in public policy debates. Ironically, the Baptists were active advocates of this perspective when they were being persecuted by Episcopalians. Secular rule makes peace between these tribes and defends minority faiths if no faith based perspective is given advantage. One could say that lawyers are the priests of the secular American faith. Our American faith is based on reason over arguments from religious tradition. The President our Pontifex Rex.
We need to reframe our argument in ways that makes testimonies of faith, other than our secular American, moot. Our Constitution must become our Bible not be conflated with it. We need to make it just as futile for a Minister to argue policy with a Lawyer as it would be for a Lawyer to argue Papal encyclicals with a Cardinal at the Vatican. We need to make the former to seem as absurd as the latter to ensure that our country progresses. Eventually religion catches up to secular society, look at poor Galileo, our LBGT friend's dreams of equality should not meet the same fate.
Posted by: LT | Dec 2, 2008 12:16:51 PM
"Posted by: Jack Roberts | Dec 2, 2008 9:01:58 AM
If the Oregon legislature refers a repeal of Measure 36 to the voters, then surely the prayers of many Republicans will have been answered."
Jack, as has been pointed out elsewhere, if that were to take place it would mean that the prayers of many open minded people in rural areas across the country had not been answered. It took awhile for interracial marriage to be accepted (just watch Guess Who's Coming to Dinner and ponder what has happened in the last 40 years) and no matter what the result of any election, it will take some time for gay marriage to be accepted.
I still think there should be a way to make sure there are legal rights for same sex couples without being "in your face" towards those who believe in marriage as a sacrament.
Some churches refuse to marry any couple which has not graduated from their preparation for marriage class. A matter of church decision, not law. Surely there is a way to provide legal rights and non-discrimination without those "in your face" battles over ballot measures.
BTW, don't make the mistake of equating votes on gay marriage with partisanship. I have a relative who belonged to a church in 2004 (before relocating) which had done the funeral for a gay couple who died in a hate crime. This relative voted for Bush in 2004 and against Measure 36.
Much as the temptation is to group voters into teams or blocs, many Oregonians reserve the right to vote as individuals!
Posted by: carla axtman | Dec 2, 2008 12:24:54 PM
I am an ardent advocate for gay marriage. But what you're proposing here TA is a political disaster for that cause.
Like it or not, Oregon voters have quite recently made their wishes known on this issue. In fact, I submit that had the Multnomah County Commission not decided to perform gay marriages, M36 would never have happened. Dianne Linn forced the issue and shoved it at people before the citizenry was really ready to tackle it. Certainly there's a great ration of bravery (and foolhardiness) in that move. But the result of Linn's actions, IMO, is M36.
I think in order for the LGBTQ community to gain full marriage rights in Oregon, there must be incremental change. We will have to live with civil unions for awhile--let the citizenry become accustomed..and then eventually add the accompanying rights a bite or two at a time. If its not done this way, the backlash will be severe.
Oregonians don't like to be asked to re-vote on something they've already decided--at least not so soon after doing it. The outcome of doing the "right thing" matters, in this case severely. We're talking about people's civil rights here--and what you're proposing will undermine them for an even greater time.
Posted by: Bob R. | Dec 2, 2008 12:31:42 PM
I submit that had the Multnomah County Commission not decided to perform gay marriages, M36 would never have happened.
This is incorrect.
Prior to Multnomah County's actions, four different anti-gay-marriage initiatives were already proposed.
In fact, during the recording of a TV interview of me and my partner (we had recently participated in the marriages in San Francisco in February of 2004), a phone call came in to the reporter from the original chief petitioner.
There was a movement afoot with a familiar cast of characters, well before Multnomah County was on the radar.
Posted by: LT | Dec 2, 2008 12:35:27 PM
"Oregonians don't like to be asked to re-vote on something they've already decided--at least not so soon after doing it."
Just ask those opposed to Oregon's Death with Dignity measure whether it got more votes the first time around or when those opponents put it on the ballot for a revote.
Posted by: Nick Wirth | Dec 2, 2008 12:41:13 PM
Jason-
I really think it's funny when the whole anti gay marriage crowd accuses us of pushing our values on them. You can accuse TA of being judgmental all you want, but he is going out of his way to make it clear that churches shouldn't be forced to marry gay couples if they don't want to, even when M36 is repealed. You on the other hand, are defending individuals who believe that other people should be restrained by their personal religious beliefs, even when those others do not hold the same values. So which is more judgmental?
Posted by: Marshall Collins | Dec 2, 2008 12:46:11 PM
I have to agree with Carla on this one. This thing is going to be a super-duper-duper marathon. It's going to happen but it's going to come 1 piece at a time. Right now the concentration has to be on eliminating hetersexism from the public perception of the LGBT community. The next step I would like to see the legislature take is to re-vamp the full faith clause to recognize same sex unions from other states. That's something that could be done fairly soon and I think not have the backlash problem. (It's gonna make waves but I don't think it will be THE ISSUE in the next election)
Posted by: Bob R. | Dec 2, 2008 12:53:31 PM
More about early anti-gay-marriage initiatives in Oregon...
I have found an archived blog post from Kelly Boggs, one of the proponents of withholding rights from same-sex couples.
Mr. Boggs and others filed multiple initiatives on February 19th, 2004.
Multnomah County did not announce or start issuing licenses until March.
Mr. Boggs clearly states he was filing his initiative in response to Massachusetts. Please note that Massachusetts still recognizes the rights of same-sex couples, and that the legal authority of the state supreme court had already been applied... it wasn't any kind of "rogue action" or "civil disobedience" as has been argued regarding San Francisco and Multnomah County.
The (recent) historical record is absolutely clear: Anti-gay-marriage campaigns were coming to Oregon regardless of what Multnomah County later did.
Posted by: Nick Wirth | Dec 2, 2008 12:53:40 PM
Carla and LT:
Gay marriage is not the same as death with dignity or other issues that have been revisited in the past. Demographic changes make it inevitable that gay marriage will become legalized, thankfully my generation is far less bigoted than those before it. Perhaps even more importantly though, public opinion is changing on the issue much faster than you two think. Just look at California, in a poll taken only 2 or so weeks after prop 8 passed, 8% of those who voted for the measure said that the ensuing protests had changed their minds. 8% in 2 weeks! If 8% of those who voted for M36 changed their minds over the past 6 years, then it would be repealed.
6 years is a long time when it comes to this issue. It's not about the timing so much as it's about the quality of the campaign we run.
Posted by: t.a. barnhart | Dec 2, 2008 12:54:53 PM
carla, note i did not say the Leg should do this in 2009. but the fix needs to include the Leg drafting the necessary legislation to enact civil marriages properly (and at the right time). the last thing we need is to have that vital piece of the program left to the initiative process. law-writing-by-ballot-measure is almost always a disaster.
but this can't be overly incremental. we need to push the education aspect of this issue hard; i see no reason the 2011 Leg should not finalize the entire process so we can move on to the other vital issues that will arise.
Posted by: carla axtman | Dec 2, 2008 1:00:58 PM
There was a movement afoot with a familiar cast of characters, well before Multnomah County was on the radar.
Yes..but what Linn did was put a face and a lot of juice to it. The publicity was IMMENSE--and that storm created a huge backlash.
Nothing else ever came close, at least that I witnessed.
Posted by: Fitz | Dec 2, 2008 1:05:05 PM
The abolition of slavery movment, the suffrage movment, & the anti-segrgation movment (The REV mlk)..
All were religiously based...Just because something is also theologically based dosent mean it can be also good civil law (think thou shalt not steal)
"Marriage is neither a conservative nor a liberal issue; it is a universal human institution, guaranteeing children fathers, and pointing men and women toward a special kind of socially as well as personally fruitful sexual relationship. Gay marriage is the final step down a long road America has already traveled toward deinstitutionalizing, denuding and privatizing marriage. It would set in legal stone some of the most destructive ideas of the sexual revolution: There are no differences between men and women that matter, marriage has nothing to do with procreation, children do not really need mothers and fathers, the diverse family forms adults choose are all equally good for children. What happens in my heart is that I know the difference. Don't confuse my people, who have been the victims of deliberate family destruction, by giving them another definition of marriage."
Walter Fauntroy-Former DC Delegate to Congress Founding member of the Congressional Black CaucusCoordinator for Martin Luther King, Jr.'s march on DC
Posted by: carla axtman | Dec 2, 2008 1:09:18 PM
Nick:
I think that people's minds are changing, but I believe its much slower than you realize. I think the potential for backlash here is monumental--and this is a wade into very dangerous territory.
I've seen the polling on Prop 8 after the protests. I understand the shift. But I don't think you can really apply that to Oregon so easily, especially given Oregon's really bizarre political schizophrenia. And how pissy the electorate gets here when asked to revisit issues so soon. DWD is absolutely an appropriate example of that, as LT cites. I believe that you dismiss this at your peril.
Educating folks is certainly part a huge part of moving this forward..but I also think the public needs time to see that gay rights aren't the apocalypse. Living with civil unions for awhile is a demonstration of this..and incrementally adding marriage-type rights followed by a digestion period makes that case even more.
I absolutely want to see this move forward. M36 is an atrocity, in my view. But I don't want to see rights further undermined by shoving the electorate around when they're not ready.
Posted by: Bob R. | Dec 2, 2008 1:14:40 PM
But I don't want to see rights further undermined by shoving the electorate around when they're not ready.
[sarcasm mode on] By all means let's continue to shy away from this fight and only let the right-wing define the ballot agenda. That's worked oh-so-well over the past 20+ years. Never waste effort being proactive when you can be reactive.[sarcasm mode off]
Posted by: Fitz | Dec 2, 2008 1:27:55 PM
It’s really telling - those so (suddenly) concerned with "marriage"...
In this great glorious future of marriage equality that we will some day eventually reach...
May I ask a question... What’s the illegitimacy rate?
I’m afraid your talking to someone who has tried for years to get family breakdown on the political radar and has been called archaic and patriarchal.
Se I'm from Detroit and the broken family simply won’t be able to repair itself under a genderless rubric with no necessary connection to childbearing.
Maybe in liberal Oregon all is peachy with the family. But when did the left start caring about "marriage" in any form other than a vehicle for "inclusion" for gays???
Posted by: torridoe | Dec 2, 2008 1:38:47 PM
TA, when someone refers to their beliefs as "a truth," they have left the realm of opinion and are attempting to assert something that applies regardless of one's belief. You don't believe in truths, per se (well, ultimately we all do, since there is no objective truth); we come to accept the overwhelming evidence of it.
I had some comments on why polygamy isn't the same and a couple other points, but Bob R did a bang-up job reflecting them, so I'll spare you.
I really don't understand the main thrust here, though--in what way have churches EVER been forced to conduct a civil marriage? If they don't want to perform one, they don't have to. They can tell their parishoners that they'll perform a religious rite no problem (and at their sole discretion), but for the paper from the state they'll have to go to City Hall like the unchurched do. There is nothing about civil gay marriage that affects any church, at all. No matter what is supposed that the state may demand in order to perform a civil rite, each member of the clergy is always free to decide those requirements are too onerous or contrary to their beliefs, and opt out.
I think this is supposition:
Yes..but what Linn did was put a face and a lot of juice to it. The publicity was IMMENSE--and that storm created a huge backlash.
If there was such an immense backlash, why didn't it show up in the vote? It passed by the lowest approval of any state that has yet to ban it, I believe. We'd all like to think that Oregon voters are substantially more enlightened than the rest of the nation, but even in Cali it got 61%, four years after Oregon and a couple years after other states have smoothly implemented same sex marriage. I can't imagine the Multno process being dispositive on M36; sadly it was bound to pass regardless (and others have noted that the push was on already before MultCo stepped in).
I think Marshall has a strong idea: work next on accepting the marriages of states that currently perform same sex unions, and any that do in the future. It will need to be finessed, but I think it can be sold as a fairness issue--maybe a lot of Oregonians think 12 year olds shouldn't get married either, but we accept Michigan's marriages, and they allow it (albeit with a probate judge's approval) The Leg should pass a "Reaffirmation of Full Faith and Credit" Act in this vein.
Posted by: Bob R. | Dec 2, 2008 1:43:33 PM
Se I'm from Detroit and the broken family simply won’t be able to repair itself under a genderless rubric with no necessary connection to childbearing.
I know people from Detroit who are smart and are able to read studies and find things out using search engines. Maybe I can introduce you to some of them.
Study after study has shown that same-gender relationships are in the same statistical range as opposite-gender relationships when it comes to issues of divorce, relationship longevity, and the development and well-being of children raised in those relationships.
Your comments may have been labelled by some as being "archaic" and "patriarchal", but really they seem simply to be ignorant of well-established facts. Whether those comments are _willfully_ ignorant, is left up to you to determine by your future actions.
Pardon me if this sounds personal, but it is. It is _my_ marriage and _my_ family that anti-gay activists are toying with.
Posted by: carla axtman | Dec 2, 2008 2:11:43 PM
By all means let's continue to shy away from this fight and only let the right-wing define the ballot agenda. That's worked oh-so-well over the past 20+ years. Never waste effort being proactive when you can be reactive.
When you make leaps like this BobR, you set yourself to not make it over the precipice.
Posted by: Fitz | Dec 2, 2008 2:19:06 PM
Bob R.
"Study after study has shown that same-gender relationships are in the same statistical range as opposite-gender relationships when it comes to issues of divorce, relationship longevity, and the development and well-being of children raised in those relationships."
"but really they seem simply to be ignorant of well-established facts."
I do follow the social science literature. And I believe thou dost protest too much.
The good science requirement -says at this point that there really is not enough solid data on same-sex families to make an adequate scientific consensus. This point is conceded by gay advocates as well as social science in general. Sure you could point to studies & I could point to studies…. But the field itself admits that not enough solid evidence exists to make a sound scientific judgment at this time.
There is however solid scientific consensus about the intact natural married family as compared to every other adequately studied family form (as stated above same-sex marriages –jury still out) including step families, adopted families, divorced families, single parent families, and so forth.
However The question is not what individual family is “better” than another… rather the question is…What impact does same-sex marriage have on the culture of marriage as a whole.
Like the quote I listed, there is ample reason to fear that traditional marriage won’t thrive under an androgynous marriage definition with no necessary link to childbearing.
Posted by: LiberalIncarnate | Dec 2, 2008 2:21:30 PM
The people that voted in favor of both M36 and Prop 8 can be seen as a "picture in time" of a set of beliefs. I am sorry to those that believe that this is the end all be all of the issue. It is not. The issue of gay marriage will be debated, argued and fought over at the ballot box, in the media and in the streets until one day we will have the right of every other tax paying American to equal treatment. Period. Unless you are willing to have me pay less taxes because I cannot fully participate as US citizen, then frankly it is not fair.
Also, while I would have called myself a religious person in the past, I have steered clear of this definition largely because of the dogmatic faiths meddling in personal lives of others. I am not alone, while Americans may be overall more religious than their European counterparts, this demographic fact is changing largely caused by the inflexibility of these faiths and their willingness to dominate the rest of us.
Posted by: Jason | Dec 2, 2008 2:38:56 PM
Nick,
That wasn't my intention. In fact, after reading over what I wrote again, I realize that I should've just left out the word judgmental. T.A., I apologize for that.
Again, I'm advocating for the state to rid itself of governing marriage; therefore, abolishing the need to have laws regarding the institution in the first place (although I realize this may never happen due to the enormous legal ramifications of having children, health issues, estates, etc). While I don't agree with gay marriage, I'm not going to fight against it or try to create some law to ban it.
I think Christians spend far too much time worrying about what the rest of the world is doing . It's not our job to be the moral compass for everyone.
Matthew 7:1-5
1"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."
3"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."
There are parts of T.A.'s post that I agree wholeheartedly with, like the last paragraph:
Measure 36 and Prop 8 are acts of religious tyranny, and yet they open the door for religion to be tyrannized by non-believing citizens and their government. If churches wish to maintain the full sanctity of their beliefs and practices, they need to relinquish the human lust for power. History has many examples of persons of faith finding ways to integrate their beliefs into the legal structure of their nation without violating anyone's rights: the civil rights movement, after all, was led by Christian ministers among others. Believers can bring their faith into the public forum, but if they attempt to have those beliefs codified into law at the expense of non-believers, they have to recognize their are no longer practicing their faith: They are giving to Caesar what belongs to God.
Posted by: Bob R. | Dec 2, 2008 2:40:22 PM
However The question is not what individual family is “better” than another… rather the question is…What impact does same-sex marriage have on the culture of marriage as a whole.
There is not a single shred of credible evidence that same-sex marriage has any negative impact whatsoever on the "culture of marriage as a whole". Have divorces skyrocketed in MA? No. Has the rate of unwed mothers gone up? No.
In any case, we're talking about legal rights here, not "culture". The wording of Prop 8 was not about "culture", it was about stripping real families of real, existing rights. There's no getting around that.
You seem to want to set up a nice catch-22 trap: We don't have enough evidence about the impact of same-sex marriage, therefore we shouldn't allow same-sex marriage. Therefore, no such evidence can accumulate, and therefore we never have to allow it. QED.
Posted by: Jason Garrett Hitzert | Dec 2, 2008 2:51:56 PM
Nick,
I think you missed my point completely, which was probably my fault. I think that we need to embrace a civic faith that allows for the old axiom about swinging ones fist. As long as you don't hit someone in the nose, swing away, for the most part. I am not in any way in opposition to Mr. Barnhart here, I like how he is building an argument that satisfies all aspects of our constitution. I was simply looking at the issue and developing a kind of heuristic for argumentation, expanding on the concepts within his piece. Please take another look.
I think we need to not be outflanked by some in the religious sphere when they make claims about the US being built on Christian values. Sure the Constitution is a positivist document that draws on Christian philosophy but so did Nietzsche. My thought was how do we look at our secular faith, the Mythical underpinnings of America, to create a solid claim for our perspective that matches the strength presented by the fundamentalists and their allies in the minds of those who would vote for things like Prop 8, against gay marriage. Can we peel off Christians to our perspective by appealing to their American-ness without attacking their faith, kind of like Mr. Barnhart is doing here.
As for incrementalism vs. agitation. Agitation provides the foundation for incremental change. The people who argue for slow and steady change would see none if the issue wasn't forced by agitators like the Multnomah County Commissioner. It shows the society that change is coming and that they better get ready.
Posted by: Oregon Bill | Dec 2, 2008 2:54:13 PM
>But the result of Linn's actions, IMO, is M36.
No.
It was the result of a coordinated campaign by the Catholic Church (led by the Archdiocese of Portland, which donated the most money), the Albina Ministerial Alliance, and other Protestant and Mormon churches in and out of state.
Mormon US Senator Gordon Smith also contributed his significant "moderate" image and quotes to literature promoting the measure.
This, combined with our Catholic Attorney General's spineless failure to respond to efforts to cut gays and lesbians off from a basic constitutional right (in a document he was charged with defending), and a pathetically lukewarm response from Catholic Governor Ted Kulongoski, led to my family's current legal devaluation.
A lack of leadership, and some very nasty and successful efforts by religious bigots led to the passage of Measure 36...
I can't tell you how many people - particularly younger people, who know my family and know we're human, just like everyone else, have decided to quit donating to and attending services at Catholic, Protestant and Mormon churches.
That's the root cause of our inequality. And it's definitely time to weed.
Posted by: Fitz | Dec 2, 2008 2:54:18 PM
Bob R.
"You seem to want to set up a nice catch-22 trap: We don't have enough evidence about the impact of same-sex marriage, therefore we shouldn't allow same-sex marriage. Therefore, no such evidence can accumulate, and therefore we never have to allow it. QED."
This is not my intention...
I do however find it intuitively true & philosophically grounded that same-sex "marriage" will undermine marriage as a whole.
I would look to those States in years to come, but it is the nature of the change that the resultant deterioration will take time to settle in.
The better evidence is from European societies that have had same-sex “marriage” for more than 10 years.
80% of first born children in Scandinavia are born out of wedlock
DUTCH SCHOLARS ON SSM
“The question is, of course, what are the root causes of this decay of marriage in our country. In light of the intense debate elsewhere about the pros and cons of legalising gay marriage it must be observed that there is as yet no definitive scientific evidence to suggest the long campaign for the legalisation of same-sex marriage contributed to these harmful trends. However, there are good reasons to believe the decline in Dutch marriage may be connected to the successful public campaign for the opening of marriage to same-sex couples in The Netherlands. After all, supporters of same-sex marriage argued forcefully in favour of the (legal and social) separation of marriage from parenting. In parliament, advocates and opponents alike agreed that same-sex marriage would pave the way to greater acceptance of alternative forms of cohabitation.
In our judgment, it is difficult to imagine that a lengthy, highly visible, and ultimately successful campaign to persuade Dutch citizens that marriage is not connected to parenthood and that marriage and cohabitation are equally valid 'lifestyle choices' has not had serious social consequences. There are undoubtedly other factors which have contributed to the decline of the institution of marriage in our country. Further scientific research is needed to establish the relative importance of all these factors. At the same time, we wish to note that enough evidence of marital decline already exists to raise serious concerns about the wisdom of the efforts to deconstruct marriage in its traditional form.”
Signed, Prof. M. van Mourik, professor in contract law, Nijmegen University Prof. A. Nuytinck, professor in family law, Erasmus University Rotterdam
Prof. R. Kuiper, professor in philosophy, Erasmus University Rotterdam J. Van Loon PhD, Lecturer in Social Theory, Nottingham Trent University H. Wels PhD, Lecturer in Social and Political Science, Free University Amsterdam
Posted by: Jason Garrett Hitzert | Dec 2, 2008 2:59:03 PM
Nick
I think you meant a different Jason. My bad.
Posted by: carla axtman | Dec 2, 2008 3:10:44 PM
It was the result of a coordinated campaign by the Catholic Church (led by the Archdiocese of Portland, which donated the most money), the Albina Ministerial Alliance, and other Protestant and Mormon churches in and out of state.
Mormon US Senator Gordon Smith also contributed his significant "moderate" image and quotes to literature promoting the measure.
Much or all of those same dynamics were in play on the Death With Dignity Measure and we passed it..twice. (Although I'm not completely sure that Gordon Smith appeared in lit or advertising during the actual initiative/measure process)
Posted by: William Blum | Dec 2, 2008 3:21:59 PM
"I believe that Christ died for my sins and I am redeemed through him. That is a source of strength and sustenance on a daily basis." That was said by someone named Barack Obama. The United States turns out religious fanatics like the Japanese turn out cars. Let’s pray for an end to this.
Posted by: torridoe | Dec 2, 2008 3:27:31 PM
I knew it was coming; it's just like the climate change deniers who, when pressed for the research, ALWAYS cite people being paid by the denier fringe or unsuited to speak scientifically on the topic. And when Fitz started talking about the science on same sex marriage, I just KNEW that eventually, when pressed, the "evidence" cited would come from Scandanavian studies.
This is a pretty good, succinct debunking of the conclusions drawn from those studies, but there are others and they all say the same thing: there's no indication that same sex marriage is having a deletrious impact on hetero marriage or the well being of children.
To say that the science isn't conclusive on harm is a convenient framing. I would suggest that in order to deny an entire class of people their inherently due civil rights, it's incumbent on those who would seek to prevent same sex marriage to prove the harm, rather than point to the absence of proof there is no harm.
To this end, I know of NO credible research that indicates a same-sex marriage has any causatively negative effects on het marriage or children raised in same sex homes. Absent that, I can think of no compelling interest the state can show to prevent same sex marriage rationally.
Posted by: Greg D. | Dec 2, 2008 3:39:48 PM
I will compare my leftie credentials against any of you. But how about we leave specific religions out of this? I have voted, donated, phone banked, doorbelled, and begged for Democratic candidates, women's reproductive rights, same sex marriage, Planned Parenthood, single payer health coverage, environmental justice, and just about anything else you can think of. But if you back me into a corner and make me choose between my Catholic faith and my left wing political causes, I choose the Church and will say FU to the rest of you. But why are you doing this? What do you expect to gain?
Posted by: Oregon Bill | Dec 2, 2008 3:48:49 PM
>Much or all of those same dynamics were in play on the Death With Dignity Measure and we passed it..twice. (Although I'm not completely sure that Gordon Smith appeared in lit or advertising during the actual initiative/measure process)
Didn't Death with Dignity pass by only a few percentage points? At least the first time? So perhaps Gordon Smith could have pushed it off the cliff..?(!)
But I don't deny that decades of religious efforts to selectively demonize me and my family have been much more successful than religious efforts to deny ALL Oregonians access to more choices when terminally ill.
I think many Oregonians understood the potential loss of control over their own lives if that measure had failed; Measure 36, in contrast, probably seemed, to many, to primarily affect someone else.
And gays and lesbians? Not even fully human, according to my Archbishop.
Post a comment
Posted by: Greg D. | Dec 2, 2008 8:52:35 AM
Not directly responsive to your post, but . . .
Seems to me that state law variations on marriage are insignificant compared to the big prize which is - federal recognition of same sex marriage for all purposes. Until same sex couples can enjoy equal protection under the Internal Revenue Code, Social Security Act and ERISA, they will never achieve true equality.
I know that "every journey begins with a single step" and "you have to walk before you can run" etc. etc. etc., but rather than using this historic moment to tinker with state laws I would like to see a push on the national level. I know this may be a pipe dream with so many "blue dogs" participating in the current Dem. coalition, but why not try for the big prize?