Centerfield

Boy + Girl = Marriage. Boy + Boy = 2Boy or Civil Union. Boy is different than Girl. If you are one to call me a gay basher, I am one to call you stupid.

Posted by: Tom Baumer at April 26, 2005 04:24 AM

Wow Tom, thank you for that enlightened thought. I get why people have very strong feelings against gay marriage, what I don't get is why we have to pass more laws against it. I have family in Texas and love the central part of the state, especially the hill country. What I love about Texas most of all is that, probably more than anywhere else in the United States, you have freedom to do pretty much as you choose as long a you aren't hurting anyone else. I guess that liberty is only for some.

Posted by: Mathew at April 26, 2005 06:58 AM

Personally, for the sake of peace, I am willing to accept a semantic distinction if that is ALL it is.

If the difference is only semantic, and gays are allowed a legal state-recognized contractual union that includes all the legal privileges of heterosexual marriage, I can live with that. Even though, if the distinction is purely semantic, it's a pointless exercise.

But if something called a civil union is made legal, but it does NOT include all of the same legal contractual privileges as heterosexual marriage provides, then I have questions. What legal protections would NOT be afforded to gays, and WHY not? Separate and unequal is pretty clearly discriminationbefore the eyes of the law on the basis of sexual orientation, and I'm absolutely not down with that.

Posted by: bk at April 26, 2005 08:26 AM

I'm not quite sure what to make of Tom's comments, so I'll just leave them alone.

I understand the sensitivity of the word "marriage," but when it comes to rights, I'm sorry, I just can't budge. Civil Unions (or whatever name you choose to give them) should feature the same rights, benefits, and privliges that heterosexual marriages do. How we can justify a 2nd class status for anyone just boggles the mind.

Posted by: AH at April 26, 2005 09:05 AM

This issue would be simpler if the state were not involved in "marriage" in the first place. Civil unions for all, gay or straight, would take the sacrilige out of the equation. Let churches marry people. Many churches don't recognize heterosexual marriages performed by the Justice of the Peace now, nor do they have to. The state can be gracious enough to recognize a church marriage as the basis for a civil union while not forcing the reciprocal recognition on churches.

Posted by: WHQ at April 26, 2005 09:17 AM

That's "sacrilege." I hate misspellings. Ironically, I had a hard time spelling "misspellings."

Posted by: WHQ at April 26, 2005 09:20 AM

I'm with you WHQ. I'm on record here multiple times as supporting the idea that states acknowledge only the legal conractual conponent of any union, and that the business of declaring or not declaring such a union as sacred in the eyes of whatever god you worship be left up to the individual churches. This would even give people a good deal of help in choosing the church where they belong.

It's just that I have zero expectation that the people would support this, despite its logical elegance. That's why I'm willing to support a different status for each case as long as the difference is ONLY semantic, not substantive. But I am dumbfounded that anyone would find this semantic distinction appealing.

Posted by: bk at April 26, 2005 11:20 AM

Link.

"There are some people out there who are Christians...who believe that homosexuality is a sin. You know what? I'm a Christian. I do believe that it's a sin. You know what else? I believe divorce is a sin. Guess what? I've been divorced. Guess what? Jesus talks about divorce a lot more than he talks about homosexuality. I don't know why people obsess over it so much, but they do. Wait a second, I do know why they obsess over it. Because they get votes bashing gays."
--Joe Scarborough

Posted by: Todd Pearson at April 26, 2005 12:46 PM

You realize that Henry Hyde's youthful indiscretion, Chenowith's promiscuity, Rush and Newt's 2 or 3 divorces are all because of homosexuals.

Dang gays causin' too much of a ruckus.

Posted by: Marcus at April 26, 2005 01:50 PM

Todd,

Thanks for the excellent quote by Joe, but I do have to take issue with Mr. Scarborough. Being raised in a minister's home, I think I'm somewhat familiar with the Bible, and I cannot recall ONE SINGLE TIME where Jesus Christ ever addressed homosexuality. Yes, he did specifically mention divorce, but I don't believe he ever discussed gays. I believe that task (in the New Testament) was left to the Apostle Paul...something Tully has addressed in the past on here I believe.

Marcus...I needed a laugh. You are so right. Damn gays! Destroying the world.

Posted by: AH at April 26, 2005 02:22 PM

You know what gays also do.

Insidious that's what it is.

They pay taxes.
Some of them are EMT's firemen and poooolice ossifers. Some of them, god forbid, are waiting tables at your favorite restaurant, sugggesting things like cured salmon on wild fennel with dill oil and croquettes of guanaja chocolat.

Shit, next thing you know they might want to vote.

Posted by: Marcus at April 26, 2005 02:41 PM

But, what they really want....drum roll please...is your children!

LOL! I'm sorry...probably crossed the line there, but Jerry Falwell started pounding on the keyboard for a second.

Posted by: AH at April 26, 2005 02:56 PM

Yep, not one single word in the Gospels about gays. Not. One. A few bits on marriage, divorce, and rendering unto Caeser. In fact, there's very little in the New Testament at all about gays, and that somewhat ambiguous. Paul rails about it once in Romans in a laundry-list of sinners, and gives it a very brief mention in Corinthians. All the other purported references in the NT are dubiously oblique.

The gay-haters who want unequivocal direction from the Bible have to go back to Leviticus in the Old Testament, where God says it's an abomination and they are to be killed in various nasty ways.

Of course in Leviticus just breathing can make you eligible for holy slaughter. If we are to take it as applicable in the modern day, we can't forget to slaughter our critters on the altar and fling the blood about, and burn the innards. Likewise for minor sins--kill a critter, etc. Or for almost anything else that doesn't require stoning or burning or....

I'm not sure who you ARE allowed to see naked according to Leviticus, but there's a REALLY long list of people that you're not supposed to see naked. And oh yeah, never forget--every little sperm is sacred!

But the Gospels are remarkably silent on gays. Though there is a little overlap with Leviticus....

Leviticus 19:18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

Leviticus 19:34 But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.

Contrast and compare with Matthew 19:16-19 and Matthew22:35-40....

Matthew 19:16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Matthew 22:35 Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,
36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

But hey, why ask an agnostic about such things? I'm sure you can find a good gay-hating "Christian" somewhere to explain it all! :-)

(I learned all this for arguing with the Phelps crowd. Not that it made any impression on 'em, they're still raving lunatics.)

Posted by: Tully at April 26, 2005 03:22 PM

Which reminds me--I hear Falwell was released from the hospital after his condition was upgraded from "critical" to "judgemental."

Posted by: Tully at April 26, 2005 03:26 PM

Tully,

I knew I could count on you! LOL!

There's no wonder that a significant chunk of the world's populace thinks all Christians are stark-raving mad. Some certainly are.

The words of Jesus that you mentioned are what I hold to as the basis of how I try to live my life. "Love the Lord your God with all of your heart" and "Love your neighbor as thyself."

Nothing about hate, nothing about can't do this, can't do that, etc. Just a call to love...both God and your fellow man. What a noble undertaking. Too bad so many have tried to bend it to fit their own existance.

Posted by: AH at April 26, 2005 04:21 PM

A very wide-ranging discussion. A few random comments. Tully, if you begin to argue the merits of the bible justifying or not justifying homosexuality then it seems you're ackowledging the bible as a point of reference for judging the validity of gay marriage or civil unions etc. While many citizens highly value the bible I don't think it should be used as a basis for laws in our country. And I've heard many biblical scholars point out the bible's pretty clear about homosexuality. I don't think you want to get into that argument/discussion

I find the debate on gay marriage confusing. On one hand the argument is over fairness, that gay couples don't have the same privileges as heterosexual married couples. On the other hand I hear arguments about civil rights and equality. These seem to be on "different plains". Now on the privileges granted to/restriction of marriage, it seems we're comfortable with some restrictions on what one could simplistically call a mutually consensual social contract. You can't be married to more than one person, you can't marry immediate family etc. Now granted there are historical religious factors behind those restrictions but they seem to be widely accepted. So it seems placing restrictions on who can and can't be "married" is an accepted role of government.

The related question is why would government want to encourage marriage by assigning tax breaks, survivorship benefits etc. to it. Again granted there are historical precedents for those that may be less relevant today. But is there a reason government would want to encourage a heterosexual coupling versus a homosexual coupling?

Finally, I personally believe Christians and others of others faiths will need to decide what about the state sanctioning of marriage is important versus their specific sanctions and/or prohibitions around a religiously sanctioned marraige.

This discussion doesn't occur because many on the right don't want to be seen as eroding family/traditional values and many on the left don't want to be seen as restriction equal rights. Once again playing to our bases. Although I have to admit there is a streak of libertarian Republicanism that would say "sure that fine" although they would question the state providing any economic advantage to any civil union, homosexual or heterosexual.

Posted by: c3 at April 27, 2005 12:59 AM

No, Chris, I'm not arguing for the justification or non-justification of gaydom through the Bible, I'm pointing out the absurdity of using the Bible as justification for the hatred and oppression of homosexuals. The New Testament pretty much ignores homosexuality entirely, save for one passage in Romans that can just as easily be interpreted as Paul's condemnation of the bisexual group orgies of the Roman bacchanalia. (And what the Church did to derail Bachanalia is another interesting story...)

And using the (very) few references in the Old Testament? Almost ALL of the "clear" Biblical condemnation of homosexuality is in two single verses in Leviticus. Even if we were willing to allow the breach of the seperation of church and state in order to impose Levitican standards (over my dead body, and I'm armed) the use of Leviticus to justify almost anything in the modern age is absolutely ridiculous. I regularly cut my hair and shave my beard--should I be arrested? I've eaten pork and seafood and rabbits--should I slaughter a sheep on the altar and burn the innards to atone? The LORD says he finds the odor pleasing, but my neighbors disagree. If I don't eat up the whole sheep on the sacrifice day as directed, do I have to burn the leftovers or can I keep a nice mutton chop or two for breakfast? I've worn cotton/poly blends--should Fred Phelps picket me, or use the pickets for my pyre instead?

Egads, my neighbor had an adulterous affair! Must we put him to death right away? His wife protests--she wants the alimony instead. Oh no! I know some pagans. What's the best time to schedule their stonings? Not too soon, I hope, 'cause I really like these folks. My minister married a widow instead of a virgin--do we have to cast him out? Maybe so--he hasn't been oiling his head like he's supposed to! Leviticus says I can have extra wives. My wife disagrees, and says the attorney general is on her side. Can I just buy some immigrant children as slaves instead, as Leviticus suggests? After all it's not a sexual thing, I just need the extra labor around the house. And I can pass the slaves on to my kids as an inheritance....

My point is that those who wish to use Leviticus to condemn gays are completely ignoring the message of the Gospels that so many of them claim to follow. And if the simple words of Christ are too difficult for them to live by, if that ONE piece of Leviticus that we DO actually find in the Gospels ("Love thy neighbor as thyself"!) is too much for them to handle, why do they call themselves Christians at all? Most importantly, if Leviticus is to be some kind of source for modern law, how come so many of the Leviticus-citers are clean-shaven with nice haircuts?

Posted by: Tully at April 27, 2005 12:06 PM

Tully, can I go out on a limb and guess that Mosquito Coast is your favorite Harrison Ford flick?

Posted by: bk at April 27, 2005 12:36 PM

He he. A miss! I thought it was kinda so-so because of a weak script and mediocre directing, though Ford showed great skills as a nutjob and carried the film. My favorite Foprd performance is in one of his early folms that he played a much smaller part in--American Grafitti, where he showed awesome early talent before being cast as Han Solo and spending most of a decade digging out from the image.

And WITNESS, of course, which showed everyone that Ford really could act. Too bad about Kelly McGillis' chewing the scenery. Ford's shown a lot of talent in some mediocre films, it's always nice to catch him when he gets a good one.

Posted by: Tully at April 27, 2005 01:27 PM

Oh yeah, absolute worst crime ever committed by Hollywood against Ford was The Star Wars Holiday Special. Do not EVER pay money to obtain this unless you're a true masochist. It's so bad that everyone involved denied it existed for years, until Lucas succumbed to terminal greed and re-released it this year.

Posted by: Tully at April 27, 2005 01:32 PM

I'm pointing out the absurdity of using the Bible as justification for the hatred and oppression of homosexuals.

I'd agree with you about the hatred. I'd still dispute the opposition part. You bring up some good points regarding putting any opposition within the perspective of other commandments and prohibitions. This is (or at least should be ) a tough one for all Christians. I agree that we're far harder on gays than on adulterers; we don't seek laws against adulterers.

Anyway, as my previous post suggests I think the undiscussed issue is what's the interest of government in sanctioning and/or supporting any civil union, be it homosexual or heterosexual?

Posted by: c3 at April 27, 2005 02:00 PM

Yup, yup, yup. For lots of people, it's easy to hate the gays. It's much harder to hate the "adulterers", women who wear make-up, women who speak up in church, women who fail to cover their heads, etc. The point is...whatever your cause, if someone wants to make a case for interpretting the Bible literally, it has to be done across the board. If that's done, many who currently lead the "Christian" movement will find that they themselves aren't subcribing to everything. So, who decides what to take literally and what to overlook? Obviously, men have assumed these roles, and many take that opportunity to tweak things to promote themselves, purpetuate their power, and hold others down.

Posted by: AH at April 27, 2005 02:27 PM

I think the undiscussed issue is what's the interest of government in sanctioning and/or supporting any civil union, be it homosexual or heterosexual?

Including marriage, or in addition to marriage? The interest of government in marriage is what it's always been--sanctioning and giving legal protection and official support to a mechanism of social stabilization. That was an unquestioned role since "civilization" began. The idea that social institutions such as marriage can be seperate from the church is fairly new in historical terms. Then again, in historical terms the church was usually an arm or partner of the state.

Only since the Enlightenment has the idea of the church NOT having a very palpable legal (and enforceable) authority come about.

Posted by: Tully at April 28, 2005 11:22 AM