Mark Morford on the gay heathen hordes freaking out the

Post #307,102 by Ashton 4/10/09 4:40:48 AM Reply	Mark Morford on the gay heathen hordes freaking out the various other heathen hordes.. http://www.sfgate.co...0/notes041009.DTL Fear the rainbow! A storm is gathering. Are you afraid, Christian? Are you afraid enough? By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist Friday, April 10, 2009 My favorite part has got to be the lightning. The fake lightning, that is, flashing just off to the side, a cheap 'n' cheesy special effect that momentarily lights up the actors' faces in the most sweetly melodramatic way as they stand there against the dark 'n' stormy backdrop like devout Christian zombies, delivering delightfully weird and wooden lines about being openly terrified of those openly terrifying gay married people. Yes, it's merely another series of strange, alarmist, deeply homophobic ads [http://www.nationfor...gious_Liberty.htm] from yet another seething anti-gay group you've never heard of (the National Organization for Marriage, or NOM), ads which are running right now in five states in response to two stunning, watershed gay marriage upheavals in Iowa and Vermont, AKA two more states now shamelessly roaring down the highway to hell. Have you heard? Turns out the married gays are still on the march. No longer merely a coastal phenomenon, undeterred by the economic recession, as yet unsmited by God's redneck fury, these bizarre, relentlessly loving creatures are now invading the heartland. Will the nightmare of love never end? You just gotta see these strange, hateful little ads (as of this writing, the unintentionally hilarious audition reels of the terrible actors reciting the fake lines have been, alas, taken down). The ads emphasize how the gays are moving closer to Christian homes, businesses, schools and genitalia, and many terrified citizens with souls the size of marbles clearly don't know what to do or how to protect their children -- or their crotches -- from the onslaught because, oh my God, I think I just saw two men kissing on the mouth! Help me, Jesus! But something is different. Unlike the comparatively sophisticated Proposition 8 ads funded by huge amounts of Mormon "panic cash" here in California, these low-budget spots reek of something else, something a bit more briny and stale and, yes, ultimately enlightening. What's most striking, what sets these ads apart from most homophobic campaigns of the past, is the palpable tone of desperation. It's a feeling that these groups are, more and more, clutching at straws, scraping bottom, leaning on the most absurd, least tenable arguments imaginable, each one more shrill and desperate than the last in a losing effort to appeal to an ever-shrinking audience of increasingly indifferent, bored homophobes. [. . .] Shall we make a leap? A grand transition? Here goes: As it is with right-wing homophobes who think they know something of God but only really know something of fear and sexual hysteria, so it is with giant, heartless multinational megacorporations. Check it out: Here is Big Oil, suddenly in deep freak-out mode over what they see as nothing short of a blasphemous assault on their religion of choice, an attack on their own miserable, archaic God, otherwise known as the almighty petrochemical. Here they are, trying to convince anyone who'll listen that, while green energy is charming and quaint and a nice hobby for do-gooder Obama liberals, nothing can possibly replace the Great God of Oil.[http://www.nytimes.c...t/08greenoil.html] Like guns, fear, war, misinterpreting Jesus, homophobia, and pisswater light beer, petrochems are deep in our nation's lifeblood. Oil is inextricably fused to our national identity. Translation: how dare the president suggest we must evolve beyond it. It's not just irresponsible and impossible, it's downright un-American. Let's flip it around: How do you know President Obama's massive, unprecedented initiative to direct $150 billion toward alternative energy and green tech over 10 years as it chips away at the grimy pillars of unchecked Bush-era oil cronyism, is on the right track? Easy: Because Big Oil is bitching like an overpampered schoolgirl who just lost access to all the free coke she used to get from the fat, lecherous gym teacher. [More ... ] Oh Dear -- two bugaboos with one shot? But What..? Shall we Do with the legions of creepy crooked Bankers, hmm? (I mean - besides the bonuses and parachutes. So much to do; so few prison cells not occupied with pot smokers a few grams over the Limit. Ahhh ... build more; it's what we Do.
Post #307,104 by beepster 4/10/09 8:21:21 AM Reply	Wow...not too reactionary... ...and can this ilk actually let go of a grudge? as it chips away at the grimy pillars of unchecked Bush-era oil cronyism If I didn't know better, "big oil" now, too, is Bush's fault? This is absolutely priceless in a very, very sad way. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #307,106 by boxley 4/10/09 8:45:45 AM Reply	well look at the bright side :-) "as it chips away at the grimy pillars of unchecked Obama-era financial cronyism" code reuse for future columns
Post #307,112 by beepster 4/10/09 10:07:07 AM Reply	:-) I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #307,109 by drook 4/10/09 9:46:26 AM Reply	Interesting point there In the text under the ad, they mention a New Jersey church that lost its tax-exempt status because they wouldn't allow same-sex marriage in their church. I suspect it's not a simple as that, but raises a point I've been making for years: Is marriage a civil event or a religious one? Pick one, it can't be both. If you want to perform a religious rite, you don't get to have it recognized by the state. I actually think that Mormon guy with seven wives and dozens of kids was legally correct. The state told him he can't be married to multiple women at once. So every time he took a new wife he divorced the last one. Of course he and his wives didn't recognize divorce as valid, so they considered themselves to still be married. The state agreed ... and declared the divorces to be a sham. And that's what bugs me about the government position on marriage. We can call you married -- common law -- if you've been living together long enough. So you can accidentally get married. We can decide that you "didn't really mean it" when you got a divorce. So you can accidentally stay married. Oops, spinning off into a rant. Point is, the state should have nothing to say about "marriage". Sure, they have an interest in making sure people support their children; that there's an equitable way to assess taxes on people living together; that there's some reasonable definition of "joint property". But none of that requires interaction with a religious ceremony. -- Drew
Post #307,110 by boxley 4/10/09 9:49:32 AM Reply	I have said that for years, the state has no business licensing religious ceremonies especially since the state's interest in inheritance identification is rendered moot by dna testing
Post #307,115 by drook 4/10/09 10:45:27 AM Reply	Is it? I keep seeing this statistic tossed around that 10% of us don't really have the father we think we do. I think that's one of those numbers that started as speculation and everyone picked up on it as fact, but I know it's got to be true sometimes. So let's say someone dies without a will, and with enough of an estate that people are willing to fight over it. If someone was raised as a son, the deceased is listed as the father on the birth certificate, no one ever challenged paternity until the probate fight ... what does the law say? -- Drew
Post #307,116 by boxley 4/10/09 10:50:14 AM Reply	Current law is the name on the birth certificate is the father, people have been using dna testing and suing over not paying child support on kids that are not theirs. Courts have consistently ruled against them
Post #307,124 by jay 4/10/09 12:01:58 PM Reply	Re: Interesting point there Oops, spinning off into a rant. Point is, the state should have nothing to say about "marriage". Sure, they have an interest in making sure people support their children; that there's an equitable way to assess taxes on people living together; that there's some reasonable definition of "joint property". But none of that requires interaction with a religious ceremony. Other way around. What happens in the church is a religious ceremony that can be called anything, but it's the legal part that is a marriage. Either way though, you are right. It's the ugly overlap between the religious and civil that makes marriage a problem. Jay
Post #307,138 by drook 4/10/09 3:28:30 PM Reply	Words count See "Defense of Marriage" ... "redefinition of marriage" ... etc. People are really hung up on the fact that they are "married" and don't want "those people" to be able to call what they do marriage. The way I see it, your religion can be whatever you want it to be. Like you said, call your ceremonies whatever you want. But if so many people want to get stuck on the word, to the point that they spend millions of dollars fighting it? Fine, call it something else. "Civil union" seems to have some traction. You can have a civil union and a marriage. A marriage or a civil union. Either/or, neither/both. Your church can have whatever rules they want about who can do it to/with whom. But the state doesn't get to have anything in the rules about gender, race, religion ... you know, that list they came up with in the 60s. -- Drew
Post #307,139 by beepster 4/10/09 4:26:55 PM Reply	bing bing bing! That's the hang-up. Its all in the word. If we have silly laws that keep a partner from sitting with his/her significant other because they don't have the right paperwork...then there needs to be a way for them to get the right paperwork. Its when you equate it to the M word that everyone get's their panties in a bunch. Mind you, I think the caucus somewhat enjoys getting the RR's panties in a bunch. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #307,144 by Another Scott 4/10/09 7:13:23 PM Reply	I view it differently. It's not just a battle over a word. The word is more than just short-hand. It wasn't that long ago that mixed-race marriages were illegal in many parts of the US. While analogies are always imperfect, making an analogy to that from the present situation is instructive, I think. Why couldn't there have just been a Civil Union for Obama's parents? Traditionally, many people believed that the races shouldn't mix. Why not just call a mixed-race union a Civil Union since so many people were upset about mixed-race marriages? Why not? Because "equal protection" is a vitally important concept. It must not be subordinated to religious doctrines. We tried "separate but equal" - it doesn't work and it's not good enough. Many of those who are most vociferous in their opposition to gay marriage are intent upon restricting the rights of others based on a world-view that is ultimately grounded in their religion and in their ignorance and fear of those who are different. Their fear of gay marriage has the same root as their fear of gay teachers or gay soldiers or ... As the Iowa court pointed out in their ruling in Varnum v Brien - http://www.iowacourt...arnum/07-1499.pdf - , unless there's a compelling state interest for an exception, then the law must apply equally to adults. The child-rearing argument holds no water, as the court pointed out. Neither do the other usual arguments against gay marriage. Nobody is forcing a church to perform a marriage ceremony for anyone. Civil Union laws aren't good enough. Gay Marriage needs to be permitted. My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.
Post #307,145 by drook 4/10/09 7:48:24 PM Reply	You missed the implication of what I said (Some) people are hung up on the word "marriage". I think for the most part they're hung up on the reality of what that word represents, and if we don't call it that it's like not recognizing China. It's a way of denying reality. So basically, I think they're wrong. However ... the fact that those people exist is the reality I have to deal with. I could pretend they don't exist and say, "Just call it marriage." But that doesn't seem to be working so well. So what could we do that achieves equality and pisses off both sides just about equally? (Usually the hallmark of an effective solution.) The state doesn't get to use the word "marriage" for anyone. Fundamentalists want to say, "You (the state) can't call that a marriage, because my religion says only a man and a woman can get married." Fine. You've just claimed "marriage" as a religious term, not a legal one. Then the state can't call what you have a marriage either. So gay couples don't get to call themselves "legally married". But neither do straight couples. They all get the same civil union as everybody else. And if they can find a church willing to perform a religious ceremony for them, and they call that a marriage? Then they're married. -- Drew
Post #307,146 by Another Scott 4/10/09 9:00:25 PM Reply	But the horse left the barn and is in the next county. I've said before that I think that the benefits and responsibilities that we associate with "marriage" should more objectively be associated with "family". My grandfather and his elderly sister lived together (with my uncle) for decades after their spouses died. There was nothing sexual going on, but they were a family as much as any other. Why shouldn't they have been able to file a joint return or claim all of the other benefits of married couples? Fixing that wouldn't involve abolishing the civil term "marriage", it would involve instead more formally defining "family" and adjusting the legal code as appropriate. I think "marriage" is a perfectly good term and there's no reason to give it up. Those who have no religion should not have to give up the term, either. Finally, I think there is less chance of disruption in applying a broader interpretation of "marriage" than in eliminating the term. I don't think that giving in to those who say "no marriage for you!" is a good solution because, as you say, it's not the word that really matters. They would (and they will) find another "tradition" on which to hang their ideology of excluding those who are different. FWIW. Cheers, Scott.
Post #307,147 by drook 4/10/09 9:17:55 PM Reply	Good idea, but DOA They'd just do a global search-and-replace on "marriage" and sub in "family". Defense of Family Act, etc. By changing the debate from "What counts as marriage?" to "Why is the state defining this in the first place?" you can at least (try to) have a better discussion. -- Drew
Post #307,193 by boxley 4/12/09 10:57:53 AM Reply	marriage is a religious term not a legal term the legal history all deals with inheritance and taxes not rights or abilities. With dna testing and civil unions the state gets out of the religion business remember that separation of church and state thingy?. Any one can claim they are married regardless of the state. I remember two guys from my youth that were married, introduced themselves as such. Were respected as such by people that knew them and that was in the late 1960's. They didnt need obama to walk them down the aisle to feel right. thanx, bill
Post #307,203 by drook 4/12/09 11:51:48 AM Reply	So they were covered on each other's insurance? They could visit in the hospital? They got the inheritance if someone died suddenly without a will? Yeah, that's the legal stuff, not the religious. And it's the stuff that the state hasn't (yet) decided to say can happen any other way than marriage. -- Drew
Post #307,208 by boxley 4/12/09 12:13:40 PM Reply	actually neither had insurance :-) they did discuss having wills, and general poa on each other so yes they were covered and it does cover the same things marriage does. A marriage license is similar to a general power of attorney confering many of the same rights and responsibilities
Post #307,192 by boxley 4/12/09 10:51:16 AM Reply	nope, my marriage was illegal in virginia when did I ever give a fuck about what was legal? The law in virginia could have determined that my marriage was a civil union, why would I care?
Post #307,160 by jay 4/11/09 12:47:49 PM Reply	I don't think it would really work If there was a way to make that work, I would be for it. But for it to work, you would have to convince everybody in the US that the distinction is a good idea and get them to use the correct terminology when they are talking about their relations. Otherwise, it would simply create a wonderful setup for verbal abuse of people who are not really "married". Jay
Post #307,169 by drook 4/11/09 6:52:43 PM Reply	People are lazy, I'm counting on that When someone today says they're married, do we ask if they said "I do" in a church or a courthouse? Nope. If they say they're married, they're married. Except when a gay couple says it, then the fundies say, "Oh no you're not!" Unless it was in Vermont ... or California, for a while ... or ... is it Idaho now? Can't remember. But if we "gave" the word to religion, then people could say they're married, and no one can tell them they're not. And people who have a civil union will also say they're married. And since there's no legal definition of the term, no one can say they're not. Similar to "lite mayonnaise". There's no legal definition of "lite" so anyone can use it. -- Drew
Post #307,180 by jay 4/11/09 11:32:44 PM Reply	There would be But if we "gave" the word to religion, then people could say they're married, and no one can tell them they're not. And people who have a civil union will also say they're married. And since there's no legal definition of the term, no one can say they're not. Similar to "lite mayonnaise". There's no legal definition of "lite" so anyone can use it. There would be very quickly, or we would be right back where we are now. Because either the two are legally defined to be entirely separate and that distinction is somehow forced on the public. Or the religious would be right back trying to outlaw civil unions for certain people, because the marriage word is only allowed to be used in certain ways. To separate the two, you have to change the language. And doing that by government fiat is very hard. Jay
Post #307,201 by drook 4/12/09 11:48:53 AM Reply	I'm not trying to change the language people use Just the language the government uses. Strike all references to marriage and all its permutations from all laws. Ooh, here's an idea for an ad campaign: Can a government bureaucrat define "love"? No. So why do we think they can define "marriage"? Let the government stick to taxes. I'll decide for myself who I love, and who I want to marry. -- Drew
Post #307,209 by boxley 4/12/09 12:15:10 PM Reply	can we use a fade away shot of a guy calling his german shepard? cause if you dont the whack jobs will
Post #307,217 by jay 4/12/09 2:47:42 PM Reply	Which isn't enough My point was that just changing the language of the government isn't enough. Lets say Dan and Bob decide to get a civil union. Dan refers to it as getting married at work. A fundy coworker sends a complaint to management and Dan gets fired. Now a suit can't be raised on discrimination, because Dan was't fired for being gay or being in a gay marriage, he was fired for telling a lie at work. And because marriage is a purely religious matter in your system, the state doesn't get a say in deciding what definition of married will be accepted or not. Jay
Post #307,218 by boxley 4/12/09 3:14:26 PM Reply	in the real world the fundie gets fired for insulting Dan's religious beliefs. What a fundie calls marriage is his definition, Dan has his own and they are allowed to be different. Can a muslim be fired for talking about his marriage to his 3rd wife back in pakistan? Dont think so
Post #307,219 by boxley 4/12/09 3:22:44 PM Reply	actually a real world example link picture http://www.firstpeop...-three-wives.html about half way down the link http://www.indianz.c...=1377&whichpage=4 One of my favorite stories of Quanah though is that after he surrendered, the Indian agent told him that he had to cut off his hair and that he could only keep one wife. According to the story his wives were standing around giving that good mean woman look when the agent told him this. Quanah said, "I will NOT cut off my hair. As to my wives...you tell THEM that." Quanah kept his hair and his wives.
Post #307,220 by beepster 4/12/09 3:39:28 PM Reply	What? telling a lie at work?? You gotta do better than that. There may be a few good examples...this isn't one of them. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #307,191 by boxley 4/12/09 10:48:13 AM Reply	bassackwards legal part is just that, a contract. Its the religious ceremony that means whatever to the participants. If the religion allows bob to marry rex, then they are married and the rest of the world can get over it
Post #307,154 by static 4/11/09 1:27:01 AM Reply	Interesting discussion. "Marriage" as a practice has been around a very very long time. As far as I know, it predates all existing legal frameworks. So the legal definition has very much come out of the religious definition. A lot of people wed to the religious practice forget that - sometimes willingly, I might add. Church-based officiators can be at pains to distinguish between the bit that makes a marriage legal in the eyes of the law from the bit that makes it valid in the eyes of a religion, but that doesn't mean that a) all are or b) all getting marriage appreciate that. Wade. "Ah -- I take it the doorbell doesn't work?"
Post #307,156 by Another Scott 4/11/09 9:12:03 AM Reply	I think that where you stand depends on where you sit. :-) Like you, I suspect that marriage predates written history. If that's the case, then how does one decide whether the framework it took place under was "legal" or "religious" or "social" or ...? I don't think the conclusion is that religion wins. The Code of Hammurabi (reigned 1795-1750 BCE) http://www.commonlaw.com/Hammurabi.html [...] 128. If a man has taken a wife and has not executed a marriage contract, that woman is not a wife. [...] 167. If a man has taken a wife, and she has borne him children and that woman has gone to her fate, and he has taken a second wife, and she also has borne children; after the father has gone to his fate, the sons shall not share according to mothers, but each family shall take the marriage-portion of its mother, and all shall share the goods of the father's estate equally. [...] Of course, it's known for being a framework of laws, so it's not really surprising that religion isn't mentioned in the discussion of marriage. http://en.wikipedia...._marriage_rituals Chinese marriage became a custom between 402-221 B.C. Despite China's long history and many different geographical areas, there are basically six rituals, generally known as the three letters and six etiquette [...] In my reading, marriages (and divorce) were a clan-to-clan arrangement. The state got involved in divorce if a crime had been committed by one of the people. Otherwise, there didn't seem to be a state or religious sanction. Instead it seemed to be based on building bonds between families. In Western societies, non-religious figures have conducted marriages for hundreds of years: ships captains (in some cases, see below), justices-of-the-peace, etc. And in the US, one need not even have someone else administer an oath or conduct a ceremony - http://www.straightd...rry-people-at-sea [...] Let's start with the one rock of certainty in this discussion: No state has enacted a statute explicitly authorizing ships' captains to solemnize marriages. However, in ruling on the validity of such marriages, the courts have waffled. On the one hand there is a longstanding legal presumption that if two people think they got married, they did get married, even if the proceeding by which this was accomplished was suspect. On the other hand, judges have also felt, jeez, we can't let just anybody solemnize marriages, we gotta have rules. This ambivalence has resulted in decisions on both sides of the fence. In Fisher vs. Fisher the court ruled a marriage by a ship's captain valid; in an 1898 case in California, Norman vs. Norman, the court ruled the opposite. It's important to note that in Fisher the court did not specifically single out ships' captains (as opposed to say, mailmen) as having the power to perform marriages; rather it ruled that, absent a statute to the contrary, and subject to certain other conditions, an exchange of vows between consenting parties constituted a valid marriage--as I read it, whether there was an officiant or not. In other words, marriage by ship's captain, or by anybody other than a recognized minister, JP, etc., was a type of common-law marriage. There are still some states that recognize common-law marriage. Typically all that's necessary is that the parties (1) be legally free to marry (e.g., no undissolved prior marriages); (2) properly consent; (3) "cohabit" (do it); (4) live together; and (5) let the neighbors think they're married. (Contrary to common belief, it is not necessary that the couple live together for seven years.) What's not required are the services of a minister. So while you're correct in saying "there is authority that a marriage performed by a ship's captain on the high seas is valid," captains don't have any special powers in this regard. A close reading of Fisher suggests the ceremony might as well have been performed by a waiter. [...] And so on. Whether one thinks that marriage is more of a religious or societal/legal institution, I think the "proof" of the proposition will depend on how one conducts the search. The historical record isn't complete, so the answer you get will depend on the assumptions you use. So, we're here, even if we don't all agree on how we got here. What seems to me to matter most in this context is: 1) Marriage has existed in our societies for hundreds of years. 2) Much of our legal framework and relationships with government and with the economy are influenced by whether one is married or not. 3) Equal protection arguments are compelling. My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.
Post #307,175 by Ashton 4/11/09 7:57:14 PM Reply	Yep, I've 'committed marriage' upon 3 sets, so far -- in my capacity as a Reverend in the Church of Universal Life. Signed the documents just like any other er, professional. Two didn't work out.. one in weeks, t'other over several years. Third appears to be intact, hallow'ed by each's desire to accumulate as many $$ as possible. (Is gold thicker than blood?) Just a tad worse than the National Average, eh? (And No! I didn't wear my Mad Hatter hat for the ceremonies.) But Yess! -- sorely tempted :-0
Post #307,185 by static 4/12/09 4:12:16 AM Reply	I had another thought. Why does a legal framework need to define "marriage"? For welfare. Which includes taxation. Wade. "Ah -- I take it the doorbell doesn't work?"
Post #307,194 by boxley 4/12/09 11:04:12 AM Reply	thanks for proving my point state acknoledgement of marriage has to do with who gets the goods, not what religion they are. Also point out that your link is probably transliterated as opposed to translated. if a man has taken a wife and has not executed a marriage contract I really dont believe that the word marriage as we understand it is the actual translation of the words being used. A little bit like watching the cartoon land of the lost. We attribute modern terms and conventions on an alien race.
Post #307,236 by static 4/12/09 7:56:27 PM Reply	My point, too. As far as the state it concerned, it is to do with welfare and property and taxes and such. Wade. "Ah -- I take it the doorbell doesn't work?"
Post #307,161 by jay 4/11/09 1:01:55 PM Reply	Marriage probably predates religion The modern idea of religion in the US and Europe is largely derived from the Catholic concept. But marriage existed long before the Catholic church, and probably before religion in general. The Roman concept of marriage evolved out of the the pre-Roman family/clan system. And this seems to have happened in most places, where the early governments and religions simply documented and formalized existing practices. Jay
Post #307,162 by Andrew Grygus 4/11/09 2:06:48 PM Reply	I seriously doubt . . . . . there ever was a "time before religion". Religion evolved right along with humanity. Of course, so did social order, later formulated as "law".
Post #307,181 by jay 4/11/09 11:36:55 PM Reply	Unanswerable question That is an interesting and unanswerable question. The capacity for superstition developed right along with human intelligence. But when superstition becomes religion is a paper thin distinction that probably depends mostly on how you define religion. Jay
Post #307,184 by Andrew Grygus 4/12/09 3:40:17 AM Reply	Ummm . . . paper thin? That's a lot more substantial a separation than I'd credit it with . . . even though I'm not an atheist.
Post #333,417 by CRConrad 9/30/10 7:37:52 AM Reply	So this thread became about who gets to define language... ...with some saying the word "marriage" should be abolished from legal texts and given to the religious to do with as they want; some saying the opposite. Seems fairly obvious to me which it should be -- and you who propose abandoning marriage to the superstitious haven't thought things through enough: 1) WHICH religion should then get to define marriage? "Oh no, I want all three of my wives to be able to visit me in hospital. Oh, and to get the tax benefits of marriage, of course!" 2) Lovely precedent. So, which special interest groups should get to define which words, so the state must abandon all use of them? Or should this go for JUST the religious and JUST the word "marriage"? Why just them, and not, say, vegetarians or feminists? How would you enforce a ban on re-defining, say, "equal" or "fair" or "lethal"? (Hey, how about "life"...?) Giving religion a veto on any one thing, is to put it above the law of the land. That's the wrong way around. Period. -- Christian R. Conrad Same old username (as above), same old GMail.
Post #333,419 by boxley 9/30/10 7:42:29 AM Reply	1. doesnt matter, tax benefits would be defined by a contractual registered agreement just like a car loan or mortgage. 2. vegans can fuck off. Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #333,510 by CRConrad 10/1/10 5:45:17 AM Reply	You're missing the point by a mile, as usual. 1. There IS already such a "contractual registered agreement"; it's been around longer than christianity, and its name has always been "marriage". Look up the English concept "common-law marriage", for instance, and reflect a bit about how old it and the institution it describes might be, compared to christianity among the speakers of English; and then on why it was coined in the first place. (Hint: To describe people who felt they "were married" just like their forebears had always been, without these new-fangled ceremonies the new faith was trying to claim were mandatory, in order to usurp the regulation of the domestic life of the populace as its sole prerogative.) 2. Yup, exactly. And if they can, then so can (other) religious nutcases, too. -- Christian R. Conrad Same old username (as above), same old GMail.
Post #333,436 by drook 9/30/10 10:02:54 AM Reply	Define "married" Then define "gender". Or "race". Or "religion". Lots of people define those things as what they're not. Usually in the form, "I am, you're not." It's hard (probably impossible) to define them as what they are. (I'm sure there are more, these were just the first ones I came up with.) Point is, there are things the state should have a say in, and things they shouldn't. Who owes what in taxes? State issue. Who is allowed to have sex with which other consenting adults? Not a state issue. What is the legal age for voting? State issue. How many times a day do you bow toward Mecca? Not a state issue. Who gets to self-identify as male, female, trans-gendered, married, single, black, white, Asian, Catholic, Baptist ... What difference do any of those things make to the state? You shouldn't tax someone more or less because they're Catholic. You shouldn't grant or deny the right to be an insurance beneficiary because someone is male, female or "other". "Marriage" is a recognized ceremony in most major religions. If there's one where it isn't I'm not aware of it. That pre-dates any currently-extant law by quite a few centuries. WHICH religion should then get to define marriage? "Oh no, I want all three of my wives to be able to visit me in hospital. Oh, and to get the tax benefits of marriage, of course!" You seem to be missing a pretty key point here. By reserving the word "marriage" to strictly religious use, the state isn't allowed to base visitation or tax laws on who is or isn't married. That would make as much sense as basing visitation or tax laws on who self-identifies as Baptist. -- Drew
Post #333,511 by CRConrad 10/1/10 6:10:50 AM Reply	Married=Living in a civil union(religious blessing optional) You seem to be missing a pretty key point here. By reserving the word "marriage" to strictly religious use, the state isn't allowed to base visitation or tax laws on who is or isn't married. That would make as much sense as basing visitation or tax laws on who self-identifies as Baptist. Nope, I didn't actually miss that -- I just disagreed with it, though I expressed that badly. So let me try again: "Marriage" is a word. Societies run on words; laws are written with words. Language belongs to everybody; letting special interest groups usurp parts of it for their own private use and declaring these parts of language out of bounds for the law is absurd. (Heck, a state couldn't even put a portal paragraph of the form you're advocating, say, "No state or county shall regulate marriage blah blah blah" in its constitution, if it couldn't use the word "marriage"!) "Marriage" is a recognized ceremony in most major religions. If there's one where it isn't I'm not aware of it. That pre-dates any currently-extant law by quite a few centuries. Bullpucky. Any currently-extant law that touches on such basic things as kinship, family, ownership, and inheritance (not to even mention taxation and other more recent concepts) is more recent than organised religion only in terms of the specific statutes; any such law now in force has only replaced an earlier version, going back to, oh, I'd guess Hammurabi's clay tablets, at least. (Those tablets are only the oldest preserved laws.) See my reply to the BOx; "common-law marriage" predates at least Christianity among the English-speaking peoples. And from all I've read of ancient Norse, Celts, and Anglo-Saxons, marriage was very much a "civil union" to begin with: You took a wife, had a party to celebrate if you could afford it, and didn't necessarily involve any shamans, priests, or druids at all. So if anyone should have to rewrite their texts and make up a new word for anything, it should be the religious nutcases, not civil society. Basically, even if history weren't on my side (though it is), this comes down to something else: Who gets to decide what. Your idea, that civil society should have to abandon parts of language and let it be usurped by the religious nutcases in order to appease them, in effect amounts to putting religion above the law. That's bass-ackwards. -- Christian R. Conrad Same old username (as above), same old GMail.
Post #333,520 by drook 10/1/10 9:20:19 AM Reply	Dammit, you're making a good point And I don't have a snappy comeback. Lemme think about this some. -- Drew
Post #334,191 by Another Scott 10/13/10 1:33:24 PM Reply	Well said. Here's an interesting summary. History of Marriage in Western Civilization: http://www2.hu-berli...e_in_western.html The marriage laws and customs of ancient Rome are not easily summarized, because they were rather varied and underwent significant changes in the course of time. Still, without simplifying the issue too much, one may say that marriage and divorce were always personal, civil agreements between the participants and did not need the stamp of governmental or religious approval. Early in Roman history, a husband had considerable power over his wife and children, whom he could punish, sell, or even kill as he saw fit. However, eventually women came to enjoy a better legal position and gained more and more control over their lives and property. Thus, in imperial times husband and wife approached marriage as equals. Yet it seems that there was also a decline in marriage and birth rates, since the emperor Augustus found it necessary to pass drastic laws compelling people to marry and penalizing those who remained single. There were several forms of marriage, the first of which (by usus) involved no ceremony at all. It was established simply by the couple's living together for one year. Divorce was just as informal. A more formal kind of marriage (by coemptio) began with a ceremony in front of witnesses and was also dissolved with a ceremony. Members of the upper classes usually preferred an elaborate ceremony and thus married by confarreatio in front of ten witnesses and a priest. In the case of a divorce, another great ceremony was required. However, all three forms of marriage and divorce were equally valid. All marriages were monogamous. Both men and women usually entered their first marriage in their late teens. So, as you say, history is on your side. However, fighting against changes in language is very, very difficult. :-( Cheers, Scott.
Post #334,216 by Ashton 10/13/10 7:41:02 PM Reply	Stuart Chase ceased revolving-in-grave upon this utterance ..but only for a trice (if his ephemeral 'state' is also attuned to the most modrin sources of idiot-bafflegab {--about bafflegab, even, at times. Is that recursion or just a macro-lens?} (BTW and anent the ineffable-Squishiness of all [referents] at the roots of any 'language', by-definition: it has also seemed to me to be the case that, those who digitally-dismiss any concept of the ineffable, as perhaps seeming too perilously close to trivial icons for sky-pixies -- may also have become inured to that Other aspect of human psych [dunno who said it first; assuredly it predates Snopes's grandfather]) ~Language was invented that men may disguise their thoughts from other men. So while your analyses in this thread are admirable / aka I agree with your conclusions ;^> they are indeterminant at core issues, say ~~ "what relationship does 'truthiness', in a verbal explication on a topic, bear to -- that perpetual (if foolish) search for Truth?" About any. thing. ? We may have met both the Uncertainty and the Pauli Exclusion Principles of staid old physics: and they are Us. (And if there is some soupçon of Chase's DNA within some spectre.. still.. out there assimilating the mouth-noises of various homo-saps, after all these years? I do wonder what a now-even-Smarter Chase-wraith would make of the puerile disintegration of any general Respect for Language in 2010, here in his old stomping grounds.) Oh well -- we couldn't 'ask It', in any event. Carrion, O Snip of State
Post #333,537 by mhuber 10/1/10 1:55:57 PM Reply	Each religion can define it for themselves The idea is that "marriage" becomes a church thing, or a social thing. Under this idea, you don't get or lose any legal rights by "marriage". You get or lose legal rights by civil partnership. And as such, how Episcopalians* define "marriage" makes about as much difference as when two kindergartners decide to play wedding. I actually see this as inevitable in the long run. "Marriage" has too much baggage that is utterly incompatible with how we do government. You can't have privacy and gender equality and then ban gay marriage without also banning marriage (as a legal status) in general. I don't think legal marriage is viable even with gay marriage, but it could be. You have to remember, the judges that ruled that marriage can't be straight-only were not gay activists, or even particularly liberal. They were just following the law to its inevitable conclusion. ------------------- * or any other church --------------------------------------- I think it's perfectly clear we're in the wrong band. (Tori Amos)
Post #333,595 by CRConrad 10/2/10 7:14:39 PM Reply	Sure-if they also name it for themselves.'Coz "marriage"... ...is already taken: That belongs to English, not Religionese. If each religious nutcase sect wants to make up their own meaning for the term, then OK, go ahead -- only, then they can each also make up their own private term to go with their own private meaning. The idea is that "marriage" becomes a church thing, or a social thing. The idea was very good, sure; in fact, it was almost exactly correct. But only almost: It gets the last final little detail, namely who gets to define English, and who gets to abandon it, ass-backwards. Marriage is already "a social thing". (Well, what isn't? Most everything is.) The thing is, though, since the Enlightenment, "social things" have been regulated by civil society. No, I'm not saying the weren't regulated before; they've always been. (That's pretty much inherent in the term, "social", isn't it?) I'm only saying that before, in the Dark Ages, "social things" were regulated either by autocratic fiat or by dogmatic superstition, and since the Enlightenment, they've been brought into the light of public scrutiny and (more-or-less) democratically-wrought, rationally-based, civil(ised!) Law. Abdicating the power to define the very language your laws are written in, the language which more or less is your whole society, to the religious -- that is to roll all that progress right back into the Dark Ages. (Sheesh, it makes one shiver with fear of the dark that you guys can't see that, it's so obvious. But maybe I shouldn't be surprised: It's the "boil a frog by putting him in the kettle while it's cold" phenomenon. Your United States have been slowly but inexorably religiofied for so long, you have a hard time seeing how close they are to finally becoming the United States of Christian Talebania.) -- Christian R. Conrad Same old username (as above), same old GMail.
Post #334,185 by drook 10/13/10 11:31:02 AM Reply	FWIW, this Xian agrees with me For too long, the debate around same-sex unions has hinged on a sacrament exercised by the state, not the church, and the church has been all too willing to go along and get along, piping up here and there like a harpy polarizing the debate on both sides with different interpretations of Scripture. But I do not want a senator to offer me the bread and wine on Sunday. I do not want a governor to sprinkle water on my childrenÂs heads for baptism. I do not want the mayor to put her hands on my head in confirmation. Why would I want the state to have any say in my marriage? http://unorthodoxolo...o-be-married.html -- Drew
Post #334,195 by crazy 10/13/10 2:02:46 PM Reply	I'm dealing with this right now I'll have both a rabbi and a priest at my wedding, and neither are actually required. They are more for the family members than us.
Post #334,198 by boxley 10/13/10 2:44:56 PM Reply	I can picture the joke now there was a priest, a rabbi and box at this party Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #334,255 by crazy 10/14/10 11:16:19 AM Reply	It writes itself. Drove for 2 hours in traffic with my TL. Late by 30 minutes. Starbucks. We phone tagged during the ride, so he wasn't too worried. He didn't say please hurry, he said take your time and be careful. We grab some coffee and sit down with him. Tall. Skinny. Very little hair. Old. How old? Glance, and could be an old 50 or a young 60. He's over 70. Reserved smiles, I'm on best behavior. So, tell me about yourself? He asks specific deep probing questions, rips right into you. Gently. Offers up any information we'd like on him. Asks what we feel about religion. TL goes 1st. Warm gentle loving things said, with a bit of annoyance concerning the hierarchy. He gently agrees. Asks about my experiences and beliefs. Uh oh. Decision time. TL is holding my hand, and gives a squeeze. I'm supposed to be nice. But he ASKED! And he really seems to want to know. Oh well, if we lose him due to a conflict with me, such is life. I'll find another one and shutup during the next interview. I have time. My heart starts to pump. The adrenaline kicks in. Fuck! Physical fight or flight response. Cut that shit out. Oh well, roll with it. I explained to him that almost all of my religious conversations are pretty much spent pointing out contradictions and obvious bullshit, and they almost always ended bad, so it really wasn't something I typically did, especially with a professional representative of the religion. Him: Go for it. Sigh. So father, do you know anything about Cherry Hill, NJ? Him: Sure, that's a heavily Jewish area. Me: Hmm, well. Do you know the Down's Farm area? No? That's ok. When I was 3 my father tried to buy a house there. They told him he was not allowed, that he needed to go across the street to Woodcrest. So he did. That pretty much informs my early world view on the issue. Not that I adhere to "mine". The reason you guys are here are for the old folk, not us. I consider ANY revealed truth religion, revealed to someone else, as nothing more than a way to control the masses. I came up with a pretty good phrase, almost all the words starting with 'm', but didn't write it down. I should have. He referred to it later. And as far as the prayers you say during the ceremony, no war cries. Note: These points were made over about a 3 minute one sided conversation, as I hit various issues (that you may have seen me post about). I didn't go for the pedophile one, that would be too easy, and this was a personal experience conversation, not a generic "you guys suck" one. Him: No war cries? I assure you (blah blah) Me: (as I cut him off): No, you need to understand what my crazy paranoid brain considers war cries. Any time I hear Christians praying for peace, I'm trying to figure out who they are at war with, and just how many Jews are going to die as part of the process. At this point my TL is trying not to glare at me. She's doing a pretty good job of maintaining a poker face, and then leaning in and nodding sadly at me, trying to "emote" to the priest that I'm damaged goods but I'm still marriageable. The priest nods. And smiles. And then blows me away. His life experience easily qualifies him to understand my point of view, and he partially embraces it. As he said, it's not just paranoia. He'll do. Actually, he's far better than "do". Hopefully he'll stay for the whole party and can share some stories. I'm waiting for his book, I might have access to it a bit before physical publication. So now we have a tag team, the rabbi and the priest. And if you like, a box.

Welcome to IWETHEY!