Gay marriage: your opinion?

Marc wrote:

For as long as religion is tied up in politics, there is going to an issue with gay marriage. I know the parting line is that no church would ever be required to marry a gay couple if they didn't want should the government legalize same sex marriage....but I wonder how long it would be before a movement...even if it's internal....to get churches to officiate gay nuptials.

There are many churches, synagogues and other religious organizations who are already happy to solemnize a same-sex couple's marriage. Conversely, there are still churches in the Deep South that will not perform inter-racial marriages, and most Hasidic Jewish synagogues will not perform inter-faith marriages.

You're right that there might be some sort of internal movement, but I think that the gay men and lesbians who belong to those churches who will refuse to marry same-sex couples will, instead of trying to change their own church's doctrine, will move to another congregation, or another denomination.

Civil marriage isn't tied up with religion in any way. There is no requirement to have a religious ceremony to obtain a marriage license in any state.

Marc wrote:

For as long as religion is tied up in politics, there is going to an issue with gay marriage. I know the parting line is that no church would ever be required to marry a gay couple if they didn't want should the government legalize same sex marriage....but I wonder how long it would be before a movement...even if it's internal....to get churches to officiate gay nuptials.

I can almost see that happening, with social progress & changing attitudes some congregational members of say the Catholic church might start demanding it changes some of its policies on not welcoming gays or performing gay wedding ceremonies. But it wouldn't be sanctioned by the law at all. Just the people (members). Sort of like a restricted country club where some of the members might object to the policies of keeping certain "kinds" of people out and threaten to leave (take their money somewhere else) if these restrictions aren't relaxed. Ergo church members might decide to go elsewhere if the attitudes towards gays remain negative. But IMO the members would have every right to take that stance.

I think it would be a great thing if parishioners demanded that the church eases up it's stance in being discriminatory and become inclusive of gay marriage once the law passes to grant all gays the rights to civil marriages! But first things first. Change the law so that every gay couple can be eligible to marry at city hall. From there maybe a "community" push will occur to get local churches to start being more inclusive. But the law will never enforce that, only the people! The same people who support and donate to the church have a right to expect certain things of it. As more and more gays come out and more people become tolerant of their friends and family being gay, religions continuing to espouse homophobia will be taken to task by its gay or gay-friendly members. If they don't don't enlighten their position than their #'s will probably drop.

Seeing as my partner and I have shared a loving, supportive, committed relationship for the past seven years, I would very much like to know that we are considered family in the eyes of the law, that our hard work will benefit each other should one of us pass, to have the security of knowing that in an emergency we will be allowed to stay by the other's side, that we will be connected for progeny in the family tree. I would like to stop feeling that sting of disrespect when I am forced to check the single box on my tax and financial aid forms. I would like to call my help mate and soul mate my husband without having the point argued by people who think they know better than I the nature of our relationship. I would like to know that our relationship is valued by the community to which we contribute. I would like to know that my seven year relationship stands for something in our society. I would like my partner to be accorded the place he deserves, place that was granted my step dad after six months of relationship to my mom. I would like my taxes to subsidize benefits that are just as available to me as they are to my mom and step dad. I would like to fully participate in the American dream that I work so hard to ensure for others.

Have you seen this video.....

Forgiveness_Man wrote:^^^^

I think the burden of proof lies with those wishing to change things. There's no logical reason to change it, hence I don't see why we gotta waste time doing it. The "two people in love" thing is an emotional argument, not a logical one. When we let emotions dictate laws, we end up with a bunch of laws that really don't help anybody. And as you said, there are more important things to worry about than gay marriage. So since we don't have it now, why waste time with it when there are real problems and injustices to correct. ...

So, you are saying that I should not have been allowed to marry my wife because I am white and she was black? You know that was the way it was in 1967, before miscegenation laws were declared unconstitutional. Or was there no "logical reason to change those laws?" It seemed logical to the Lovings and the many other interracial couples who wanted to share their lives.

BTW, I hate that "there are more important problems" shit ppl spew. There were more important problems than letting Rosa Parks sit in the front of the bus. There were more important problems than letting black kids go to the white schools. YOU DON'T KNOW HOW IMPORTANT SOMETHING IS TO THE DISENFRANCHISED!

Biden: Gay Marriage 'Inevitable' (VIDEO)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/24/biden-gay-marriage-video-gma-_n_801079.html

Forgiveness_Man wrote:^^^^

I think the burden of proof lies with those wishing to change things. There's no logical reason to change it, hence I don't see why we gotta waste time doing it. The "two people in love" thing is an emotional argument, not a logical one.

It used to be against the law in some states for a black person to marry a white person. By your argument interracial marraige should never have been legalized.

Forgiveness_Man wrote:When we let emotions dictate laws, we end up with a bunch of laws that really don't help anybody.

Such as?

Forgiveness_Man wrote:And as you said, there are more important things to worry about than gay marriage. So since we don't have it now, why waste time with it when there are real problems and injustices to correct. And you might be right, you can't stop the train, which is a shame cause it is headed for a cliff and stopping it would actually be in it's best interest.

So allowing gays to marry equals a train heading off a cliff. And you are still trying to convince people that you are not homophobic?

I absolutely think that gay couples should have the right to marry and be afforded the same rights as everyone else, and I think it's sad that we're here in the 21st century and there's still so many against it.

Normally I do try to see both sides of an issue, but in this case I don't see any argument as to why two gay people can't get married. I mean, for those that oppose it- it's not going to negatively impact your life or anything.

I have hope that the end of DADT will speed up the process for equality. The denial of rights to people because they are gay IS a "real" problem & an injustice-not to mention an embarrassment to a country that calls itself the greatest country in the world. The time has come. It's long overdue. Hopefully the death of DADT will be the jumpstart needed to finally make it happen.