acceptance is not just moral. if someone doesn't want to accept you into their homes and hearts, that's their business and can't be legislated.

EXACTLY...

And gay activists are fighting to be accepted into the house of the lord...

It just AIN'T going to happen..

when the federal government decides to establish a national policy toward civil unions that ensures precisely equal treatment to civil marriage in all state and federal legal proceedings, then we'll talk about what exactly is in a name.

Again.. EXACTLY

I completely and unequivocally agree...

My point is that if the gay activists were to fight for a UNION that has all the LEGAL rights and benefits as a religious marriage, they would have a lot better fight/argument to make..

But, by fighting to force the Church to accept them, they are fighting a losing battle..

They want to wrestle the idea of marriage away from the church...

They are reacting out of ego and not logic..

Logically speaking, they should fight the fight they CAN win and not the fight they WANT to win..

Fight for UNIONS that have all the same rights and benefits as a religious marriage..

I'll fight side by side with them for that...

But if they want to fight to save their egos, they are on their own...

Michale

And it just ain't going to happen in the here and now....

acceptance is not just moral. if someone doesn't want to accept you into their homes and hearts, that's their business and can't be legislated. but if they don't want to accept that you have the same rights they do, that's a problem. it's not just about the name.

"marriage" currently has over a thousand protected rights, and every state has to recognize and accept those rights, regardless of where in the country you go. civil unions are state-defined and established piecemeal. when the federal government decides to establish a national policy toward civil unions that ensures precisely equal treatment to civil marriage in all state and federal legal proceedings, then we'll talk about what exactly is in a name.

~joshua

Exactly..

Acceptance...

And it just ain't going to happen in the here and now....

Michale

They want what everyone else is able to have.

Even atheists.

-David

Gay people want a marriage that is unfettered by religious bigotry and is completely equal to a traditional religious marriage in the eyes of the government and the law..

And that EXACTLY what a union would be...

Yet, that isn't good enough..

Gay activists want a traditional religious marriage...

Michale

And, as you said, you would ALSO be fine with it recognized as a union..

As long as the union is not discriminated against in the eyes of the law and the government..

Thereby proving the wisdom of Commander Spock

"A difference which makes no difference IS no difference"

Michale

Heheheh.

I'd be ok with that. So long as my marriage was recognized as a marriage everywhere in our country.

Heck, I certainly wouldn't want someone who was a racist idgit as a reverend.

Marriage = "HOLY" matrimony

Sure. But which religion are you going to choose?

What about those religions that are ok with gay marriage?

Aren't you offending them by saying "god hates fags!"?

Why should you choose not to offend the jerks?

Just because some people find something offensive is not really a good reason to deny anyone a right.

Let's face it, marriage is also a government institution. It's both.

So why should one particular religion determine the definition of marriage?

Why not go with the kinder, less jerkier religious definition?

Just some things to think about ...

As I've mentioned, I'd be fine if the ONLY government recognized option was a civil union. Then churches could "marry" people all they wanted. You'd have church recognition and have to get your civil union papers from the government.

But as long as marriage is also recognized by the government, it shouldn't discriminate.

That's equality. Period.

-David

Union tells religion to take a hike..

There ain't no way around the facts, eh? :D

Michale

If you want to try and make the case that there is nothing religious about marriage in the here and now, by all means. :D

Make that case...

Marriage is first and foremost, a religious institution..

"You have declared your consent before the Church. May the Lord in his goodness strengthen your consent and fill you both with his blessings. What God has joined, men must not divide. Amen."

Dearly beloved, we are gathered together here in the sight of God, and in the face of this company, to join together this Man and this Woman in holy Matrimony; which is an honourable estate, instituted of God, signifying unto us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his Church: which holy estate Christ adorned and beautified with his presence and first miracle that he wrought in Cana of Galilee, and is commended of Saint Paul to be honourable among all men: and therefore is not by any to be entered into unadvisedly or lightly; but reverently, discreetly, advisedly, soberly, and in the fear of God. Into this holy estate these two persons present come now to be joined. If any man can show just cause, why they may not lawfully be joined together, let him now speak, or else hereafter for ever hold his peace.

Seems kinda hard to separate religion from a traditional marriage....

That wouldn't be a problem with a non-religious union..

I'm just sayin'....

Michale

Let's delve into this a little further..

Postulate a scenario where you have blue eyes and your prospective bride has green eyes..

You approach a church because you want a religious traditional wedding..

The church official says to you, "Sorry. We don't support inter-eye-color marriages. We're not going to allow you to have your wedding here."

You now, have two choices..

Your ego is bruised so you are going to FORCE that church to have your wedding...

OR

You can think (rightly) what a bunch of jerks and go somewhere else where the people are a little less... MAGOO...

Apparently, the gay activists think the former is the best option... :^/

Michale

Not really. Last time I checked churches weren't issuing marriage certificates.

They still look like they're coming from state governments.

Are you sure marriage is a religious institution? Because it looks a lot like a government institution.

-David

A marriage and a union WOULD have the same rights and status as anyone else.

Just not in the eyes of the Church..

But gay activists WANT to be the same as everyone else in the eyes of the Church..

Which is why they are fighting for acceptance and not equality..

It doesn't mean here's another option that we've designed just for you because you're gay.

It's designed for ANYONE who doesn't want all the religious felgercarb associated with a religious marriage... See comment #21

Should black people not be allowed to inter-marry because they offend some people who just happen to hate black people?

I would venture to say that, in the here and now, there are a LOT more black people than white people who have a problem with a black/white union..

But that's a whole 'nother argument...

p.s. I'd totally be happy with the $29.95 marriage as long as it's my right to be able to have the traditional marriage if I wanted it.

That would be up to the church you wanted it in, now wouldn't it?? :D

I can see no reason why people should accept inequality because it just happens to offend some people. If that were the case, we'd have all kinds of legislated inequality in this country.

We DO have "legislated inequality in this country"...

It's called AFFIRMATIVE ACTION...

Mebbe ya have heard of it... :^/

Michale

If the goal is equality, they should have the same rights and status as anyone else.

Equality equals "="

It doesn't mean here's another option that we've designed just for you because you're gay.

Now you should accept it because otherwise you'll offend some people who just happen to hate you.

Should black people not be allowed to inter-marry because they offend some people who just happen to hate black people?

I can see no reason why people should accept inequality because it just happens to offend some people. If that were the case, we'd have all kinds of legislated inequality in this country.

-David

p.s. I'd totally be happy with the $29.95 marriage as long as it's my right to be able to have the traditional marriage if I wanted it.

Postulate a scenario where everyday American couples in the here and now are offered a choice.

They could have a religious church wedding that would cost them tens of thousands of dollars and they would get a shiny certificate (suitable for framing) announcing their marriage.. They would have all the rights and benefits that come with a traditional marriage..

OR

They could go down to the county courthouse and for $29.95 (multi couple discounts available, fee increase on weekends and holidays) they can have a union. They would get a shiny certificate (suitable for framing) that would announce their union. Said union would have all the rights and benefits that are part and parcel to a traditional religious marriage...

Now, don't you think that a good portion of those couples would JUMP at the chance to save tens of thousands of dollars??

Do you think ANY of those couples would agonize over the fact that their union is not a religious marriage???

Speaking for myself personally. I have been married over 30 years.. And I know I speak for my wife when I say that we really wouldn't give a rat's patootey if we called our union a marriage or a union...

It simply does not matter...

Just as it shouldn't matter to gay people... IF their goal is equality, it shouldn't matter one damn bit..

Michale

Two words...

Arbi tration :D

There are other legal remedies that would actually be a LOT cheaper than a divorce...

But don't tell me, let me guess..

Gay activists won't feel "equal" if they can't enjoy all the pain and acrimony of a "real" divorce..

I say that half in jest.. But only half... :^/

Michale

Now, see, I didn't realize there were Pastafarian fans on the site!

Quoting from Wikipedia for those not aware of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (praise His Noodly Appendages...):

"The Pastafarian conception of Heaven includes a beer volcano and a stripper factory. The Pastafarian Hell is similar, except that the beer is stale and the strippers have sexually transmitted diseases."

Heh. Gotta love that part...

Ahem. Where was I?

Oh, right. Yes, I based Adam and Steve on my vague memories of the Texas case (I think you're right, I think they were from Massachusetts... I wrote an article in the last two weeks where I first introduced the fictional case, and I think I used "they were married in Massachusetts" in that example). The Texas judges refused to hear the case and threw it out of court, on the grounds that the two were not married in the first place, as far as Texas was concerned.

There will have to be a post-Windsor case which matches the specifics in some way (it doesn't necessarily have to be divorce, some couple could sue a state over their income tax returns so they can check the "married" box). What will likely happen is that there will be dozens of cases, and the ACLU and those supporting the concept will pick a perfect "test case" to move through the appellate process. What I wonder is if the high-powered anti-Prop-8 attorney team will get back together for the next big test case.

Michale -

While you're right about the outcome (since they weren't married as far as Texas was concerned, they didn't need a divorce), remember that divorce is mostly about dividing the stuff up. And when doing so, sometimes a court is a handy referee.

-CW

Yea, just give it an extra TWIST to make sure it's in good! :D

Michale

So, if I understand the law correctly, Adam and Steve were no longer married when they moved to Texas..

So, they don't NEED a divorce!!

Think of all the money they saved!!! :D

Michale

Just making sure we agree on the definition of terms.

Heh.

-CW

Hay now! Let's keep them above the belt! :b

Michale

Thanks for the kind words! I thought about taking that first paragraph out, because it seemed sorta tangential, so I'm glad to see someone liked it...

Michale -

2 cases of beer? Or 2 cases of Keystone Light?

Heh. Couldn't resist.

David [5] -

Aha! Someone else saw that Sulu article!

:-)

Two things -- he does an excellent job of pointing out what people were saying about interracial marriages at the time. And 2, the first interracial kiss on TV (on Star Trek) was so controversial that it had to be on an episode where both Kirk and Uruhu were mind-controlled by an alien species (so people could say "well, it wasn't really them kissing, it was the aliens). Sad but true...

-CW

Haven't read these comments yet, so apologies if you've already seen it:

Sulu on SCOTUS and gay marriage. Excellent article!

-CW

I never said he wasn't funny! :D

Michale

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ken-oneill/three-goats-and-a-cow_b_1560024.html

-David

Oh yea... They are just admitting they made a mistake.

It CAN'T be that it was politically expedient and advantageous back then to vote FOR discrimination....

No, of course not.

It HAS to be that "they made a mistake"...

That must be it...

Remember....

AT night...

Not LAST night.... :D

Michale

Good for them! They're capable of admitting their mistakes.

-David

"Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep." - Scott Adams

You would think they would be embarrassed to display such blatant hypocrisy...

Michale

Maybe that's how those things are, but for Takei to join in such blatant homophobic attacks...

well, it just doesn't seem to me that he has any moral authority here...

Michale

On a quick Star Trek aside, I just wanted to share an article written by George Takei about the decisions yesterday ...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-takei-a-defeat-for-doma--and-the-end-of-ick/2013/06/27/d3c986dc-dd10-11e2-9218-bc2ac7cd44e2_story.html

One of the things I forgot about was how controversial Captain Kirk kissing Lieutenant Uhuru was at the time.

Just posting to riff on the Star Trek theme from last article.

-David

I am constrained to point out that, if you have a discussion with the rank and file gay people, they would be fine with a union that has all the rights and benefits of a traditional religious marriage..

As it seems to be with just about everything, it's only the "leaders" and professional Left/Right wankers that agitates things..

You have said so yourself...

You and me get together, we could solve the countries problems by the time we went thru a case of beer... OK maybe 2 cases, cuz I drink fast :D

Put people like Pelosi/Reid and Boehner/Issa together and they would be hard pressed to agree that water is wet and the sky is blue..

"Water is wet, sky is blue, women have secrets."
-Bruce Willis, THE LAST BOY SCOUT

:D

Michale

"I have half a mind to deny that!!"
"I deny that you have half a mind.."
-M*A*S*H

:D

Michale

Just have to say I liked your opening paragraph so much that I made it my FB status today:

"Yesterday DOMA was repealed. Today, my marriage is the same."

I've had some great discussions with religious people and I've found that once you help them realize that there is actually no attack on them, they're fine with the idea of gay marriage.

Which is, naturally of course, why the opposition has adopted the fake 'marriage/religion is under attack' approach.

-David

I am sitting down to address all the comments reaching back to last week, before I left for the Netroots Nation conclave. I had a great time, by the way, and made lots of contacts and had lots of fun. Met a few senators, shook the hands of a few folks who will be senators in the very near future, and generally got my money's worth.

In any case, check back to articles for the last week for new comments from me, and apologies for the delay. You HAVE all been behaving yourselves, hmmm?

-CW