Will homosexuals silence America's Christians?

[Suzy]

No, Simone.  Sorry if I was unclear.  I meant let society recognize the church's right to conduct weddings in the way they see fit, and let the church recognize greater society's right to legal marriages which do not fall inside its boundaries of what it considers acceptable.  Nobody has to lose anything.  FWIW, I hear what the fringe element is saying, but virtually all of the Christians I associate with do share this viewpoint.  Of course it is boring, not flashy, and certainly not newsworthy.

Kristi

[Kaitlyn]

No, Simone.  Sorry if I was unclear.  I meant let society recognize the church's right to conduct weddings in the way they see fit, and let the church recognize greater society's right to legal marriages which do not fall inside its boundaries of what it considers acceptable.  Nobody has to lose anything.  FWIW, I hear what the fringe element is saying, but virtually all of the Christians I associate with do share this viewpoint.  Of course it is boring, not flashy, and certainly not newsworthy.

Kristi

I absolutely agree with this.  I've never advocated "forcing" religions to perform ceremonies that are not in accordance with their beliefs.  The issue I've come into with most Christians is the word "marriage."  They may agree with your above sentiment Kristi, but they feel they have dominion over that word.  And they refuse to consider anything having that word that isn't within their religious doctrine.  And I've known a lot of people who said they could care less what you call it, just give me the same rights. 

Lots of Christians aren't going to be fooled by us calling them "civil unions"... it's the idea they're opposed to, not the word "marriage" specifically.  They don't think homosexual unions should have the same legal benefits as their marriages, that it somehow demeans them.

[lady amarant]

Thanks for the clarification Kristi. I think we're pretty-much in agreement there. I don't believe in coercion of any way shape or form, and that would include forcing a religious grouping to go against its beliefs. As long as they don't try to force their beliefs on me (or the rest of society) either, I think all's right with the world.

I agree with Kaitlyn though - I think it's opposition to the whole concept of gay unions, and of gay people themselves that drives alot of religious people. (let's be honest, not just Christian) I read somewhere that another proposition is now being considered to limit the privileges partners in a gay civil union enjoy on the pretext that the state or county or something can't afford it for it's employees ... I'll try and find it unless somebody else knows the source.

EDIT: AHA! Found it:

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=8355

~Simone.

[glendagladwitch]

My preference would be to take away the power of clergy to perform legal marriages.  Force everyone to go to a judge (or sea captain) to get the marriage made legal.  People should still be able to have ceremonies in churches, of course, but those ceremonies should have no legal effect.  I think that vesting clergy with legal authority on the basis that they are clergy violates separation of church and state by establishing religion, the Lemon test notwithstanding.

[Suzy]

My preference would be to take away the power of clergy to perform legal marriages. 

Without repeating what I have previously said ad nauseum, the government can't take away what it did not and cannot grant or establish in the first place.  A serious chunk of our constitution would have to be removed first.

Kristi

[NicholeW.]

My preference would be to take away the power of clergy to perform legal marriages.  Force everyone to go to a judge (or sea captain) to get the marriage made legal.  People should still be able to have ceremonies in churches, of course, but those ceremonies should have no legal effect.  I think that vesting clergy with legal authority on the basis that they are clergy violates separation of church and state by establishing religion, the Lemon test notwithstanding.

As you know, I completely agree with Glinda on this. And yes, I know, Kris, you disagree. But I don't see how ministers are somehow constitutionally entangled in this. The entire amendment talks about separation, not convergence!

Nichole

[glendagladwitch]

My preference would be to take away the power of clergy to perform legal marriages. 

Without repeating what I have previously said ad nauseum, the government can't take away what it did not and cannot grant or establish in the first place.  A serious chunk of our constitution would have to be removed first.

Kristi

What is it the clergy always say at the end of the ceremony?  Oh yeah, "by the authority vested in me by the State of ____________, I now pronounce you husband and wife."  This authority is the power to act on behalf of the State.  I don't care if clergy were performing marriages before the State started according them legal significance.  The vesting of authority by the state in the clergy IS something that the State granted or established, and it should be taken away.  Also, back in jolly old England, the clergy used to hold Court in Equity and had the power to resolve disputes over land and such.  Does that mean the State today should not be able to prevent the clergy from doing that?  Hell no!

[Suzy]

You are correct, some clergy say that.  Some adamantly refuse to.  So take your pick.   And you are right about the church of England, which was essentially an Anglican Catholic model with an extremely powerful episcopacy.  Either way, I just cannot respect any argument which resorts to taking away rights and/or privileges from any class of people as its solution.  If you wish to accuse others of unfairness in your own struggle for equality, all well and good.  Just at least be consistent.  Either you believe in free rights or you do not.  Try to see this from the other side for just a moment:  "Sure you can get married in the church, it will just not be a legal union any more."  I realize it sounds good to you, but trust me, it is quite odious to those for whom this is an integral part of their faith.  Take this tack if you want, but you are playing right into the hands of those in the Christian who are feeling threatened by your assertion for equality.  In fact, they might just have a point.  And this I regret very much, because I have worked very hard for understanding between these (not mutually exclusive) groups.

Kristi

[Suzy]

You can't have your cake and eat it to.  This is essentially what I feel your argument is boiling down to.  If religious folks need to take one extra step to get married so that ALL people have marriage, I'd say that's better than leaving things as they are and allowing only some people marriage while outright denying others.  No one is denying religious folk their church ceremonies.  I hear France makes you have a civil ceremony before you can have a religious one, and so far they're still around.

Oooh cake.  Please make mine angel food!

France does indeed have this dual marriage.  What they do not have is our concept of separation of church and state.  They have a history of being dominated by a strong Roman Catholic monarchy until relatively recently in their history.  No thanks.

I still like our system better and believe it to be the most fair and equitable.  Just for clarification, and for the benefit of those in other countries, here in America, every couple who desires to be married must first get licensed by the state.  There are no exceptions.  Then and only then, they have their choice of a religious or non-religious ceremony.  That is our system, and I can't imagine what you see as unfair about that. 

Kristi

[Stealthgrrl]

Ah am not so shore about this Jaysus feller. I mean, he's 33 and aint married, uh huh, a wink's as good a nod to blind bat, yessiree bob. And look who he hangs out with, a buncha dudes. Wears sandals and a bedsheet. Oh yeah, froo-teeee, if ya ask me. And he goes around tryin to make upstandin church bigwigs look bad. Love yer naybor, uh huh, he aint foolin nobody. Thats whut I thank.

[Kaitlyn]

Either way, I just cannot respect any argument which resorts to taking away rights and/or privileges from any class of people as its solution.

I'm sure you don't mean it this way, but that nixes any struggle for civil rights, for anyone.

If you wish to accuse others of unfairness in your own struggle for equality, all well and good.  Just at least be consistent.  Either you believe in free rights or you do not.  Try to see this from the other side for just a moment:  "Sure you can get married in the church, it will just not be a legal union any more."  I realize it sounds good to you, but trust me, it is quite odious to those for whom this is an integral part of their faith.

It's always unpleasant for people to give up an unjust privilege they've taken for granted all their lives.  What does their discomfort have to do with the justice of it?

Take this tack if you want, but you are playing right into the hands of those in the Christian who are feeling threatened by your assertion for equality.

That's exactly it.  They're threatened by the idea of equality.  If they don't feel threatened, we're doing something wrong.

In fact, they might just have a point.  And this I regret very much, because I have worked very hard for understanding between these (not mutually exclusive) groups.

What is that point, exactly?  That we make them uncomfortable, so we should stop?

[Suzy]

Oooh cake.  Please make mine angel food!

I still like our system better and believe it to be the most fair and equitable.  Just for clarification, and for the benefit of those in other countries, here in America, every couple who desires to be married must first get licensed by the state provided they are of the correct gender combinations, else they are denied outright.  There are no exceptionsexcept for people outside of the correct gender combinations.  Then and only then, they have their choice of a religious or non-religious ceremony.  That is our system, and I can't imagine what you see as unfair about that. 

Kristi

This sounds more like it.

On that we agree that it should be changed.  If we work to change that, the rest will have taken care of itself.

I'm sure you don't mean it this way, but that nixes any struggle for civil rights, for anyone.

Of course that is not what I mean.

It's always unpleasant for people to give up an unjust privilege they've taken for granted all their lives.  What does their discomfort have to do with the justice of it?

Of course it is.  And sometimes making people comfort is appropriate.  I'm not talking about their (our) discomfort.  I am talking about fairness.  I am talking about equality.  You say you want true separation of church and state?  Then give people a choice.  To take away some people's choice in favor of your own is neither just nor fair.  Please think that through.  As I have said, you could be next.

What is that point, exactly?  That we make them uncomfortable, so we should stop?

Remember the question that started this whole thing?  Will homosexuals silence America's Christians?  That is what I am talking about.  Being unfair and unjust and fighting to take away others' religious liberty simply because you disagree with it will not get the TG community where it needs to be.  I do believe a person can be tough and firm without being mean, nasty, and condescending.  And I believe that a consistent ethic of freedom is the only way to bring about a just society.

Peace,
Kristi

[Kaitlyn]

To take away some people's choice in favor of your own is neither just nor fair.

But that's exactly what I'm arguing against.  Why do Christians get to set the definition of marriage and have the state enforce it?  Why do people who aren't Christian, or who have different interpretations of Christianity, have to accept that definition?  If it's right and just for one religious group to enforce their definition of marriage, then why not enforce one definition of God while they're at it?

[NicholeW.]

To take away some people's choice in favor of your own is neither just nor fair.

But that's exactly what I'm arguing against.  Why do Christians get to set the definition of marriage and have the state enforce it?  Why do people who aren't Christian, or who have different interpretations of Christianity, have to accept that definition?  If it's right and just for one religious group to enforce their definition of marriage, then why not enforce one definition of God while they're at it?

Give some of them a chance and they've shown they will make the attempt!

Nichole

[Suzy]

Why do Christians get to set the definition of marriage and have the state enforce it?  Why do people who aren't Christian, or who have different interpretations of Christianity, have to accept that definition?  If it's right and just for one religious group to enforce their definition of marriage, then why not enforce one definition of God while they're at it?

Are you really saying that it is only Christians who have the idea that the only legitimate marriage is between one man and one woman?  If you really believe this then I beg to differ.  Honey, that definition has a very long history both inside and outside the church.  It is the accepted societal norm, and the accepted model for most of the world's religions.  In this issue you are up against much more than just Christians.  If you want to change it, all well and good.  But you would do a lot better into putting your energy into making positive progress than helping to foster resentment between two parties.  It will take a lot of people talking to one person at a time until a difference is made.  It will not be easy, but I am convinced it can be done, and is being done.

FWIW, I agree that no legislation should define which God we believe in.  That should be a no brainer to us all.

Peace all,
Kristi

[tekla]

Well, to answer the original question, are Christians being silenced?  Guess not.

[Kaitlyn]

Are you really saying that it is only Christians who have the idea that the only legitimate marriage is between one man and one woman?  If you really believe this then I beg to differ.  Honey, that definition has a very long history both inside and outside the church.  It is the accepted societal norm, and the accepted model for most of the world's religions.

I don't mean to make it sound like Christianity is some unique, horrible oppressor or anything like that... I just mention Christianity because that's where the vast majority of the opposition comes from, at least in America.

You would do a lot better into putting your energy into making positive progress than helping to foster resentment between two parties.

I don't mean to offend anyone here, but I just don't understand how I'm supposed to change the minds of people who aren't basing their opinions on science or facts.  I hate getting into Scriptural debates, because I don't believe in God, and debating as if I do makes me a liar.  I can't argue morality or justice because that just links right back to religion.  I don't think I have any common frame of reference with the very religious.

[lady amarant]

... I just don't understand how I'm supposed to change the minds of people who aren't basing their opinions on science or facts.  I hate getting into Scriptural debates, because I don't believe in God, and debating as if I do makes me a liar.  I can't argue morality or justice because that just links right back to religion.  I don't think I have any common frame of reference with the very religious.

Ditto. A friend of mine is terrified about coming out to her parents, and especially her mom, because she is convinced that she will be rejected because of it. Her belief that she'll be rejected stems from this conversation about her spiritual beliefs. (paraphrased)

My Friend: I know you don't agree with me being a Wiccan mom, but I respect you as a Christian even though I don't agree with all of the teachings and beliefs you follow. Why can't you do the same for me? Why can't you respect my right to choose for myself, to be different from you?

Her Mom: Because you are possessed. Your choice is the path to the Devil, and I have to fight it.

That's the same kind of logic that drives people to slaughter entire cities, livestock included. How do you even begin to reason with that?

~Simone.

[Suzy]

Well, to answer the original question, are Christians being silenced?  Guess not.

Gee, you're all heart, Tekla.  I love you too.

I don't think I have any common frame of reference with the very religious.

This may be the most honest statement of this whole discussion, and the crux of the problem.  Of course you could change that if you want.  It would take dialogue and listening on both parts.  In short , it would take work.  It's a bit more difficult than just resentment, but it is well worth it.

Kristi

[tekla]

I don't have resentment, as much as I have 12 years before the mast in Catholic School.  Then a very liberal college.  Then grad school in science stuff at a big science school.  So its not a matter of no heart, hell, I lost heart in this stuff back in high school, somewhere in the middle of mass.

Nope, I've lost stomach for it too.  Look.  All sort of people, from all sorts of time have some sort of God deal, and some sort of 'this is how and why the world was created' stuff.  (Cosmology for short).  And you don't believe most of them.  Matter of fact you disregard every single one, but one.  That one is true to you, all the others false.

I just found room in my thinking for one more false cosmology, yours. 

Look, if you think that 99 out of 100 theories are wrong, that 99 out of 100 gods are wrong.  What's to keep me from going that extra 1% (hardly an Olympic effort or anything) and thinking that that other one has got some real serious flaws going for it too?