Lois & Clark Forums Forums General Discussion Off Topic Protecting Marriage to Protect Children

Anna,

Obviously you feel very strongly about this issue. You say the religion of one group should not be forced on society as a whole. I agree! But this isn't a case of one group forcing their religion on everyone else. First, it is not the religion of one group. The definition of marriage as a union between male and female has been the standard, throughout all societies and all religions, from the beginning of history.

And it hasn't been "forced" on society. Up until very, very recently, it was universally accepted by everyone in every society (even by homosexuals!) It is only within the past decade or so that some people have been speaking about changing the definition, and they have so far not convinced enough people to obtain a majority vote in favor of changing it. The question is still under debate. If the day comes when enough people believe as you do (as has already happened in several other countries), then the definition will be legally changed here as well.

One of the reasons I don't want that to happen is that if it does, I believe it will have a disasterous effect on our 1st Amendment rights. You disagree.

Do you really believe that no gay couple (not one!) would take the case to court if they were refused marriage in a church?

I notice you live in California, surely you have seen how high the emotions are running on this issue. You have seen the protests in the streets. Perhaps you even saw the pro-same-sex-marriage ad on TV, in which the "Mormon missionaries" forceably remove the wedding rings of a lesbian couple and rip up their marriage contract, after telling the couple that they are there to "take away your rights". You have seen protests in front of churches, and even disruptions of the services themselves. I think it is fair to say that many gays are very, very angry at "organized religion".

A young couple today being told they have to be Catholic to be married in the Catholic cathedral will most likely respond with a "duh!" Will every single gay couple who is refused a marriage in church have the same response, or will some couples react in anger and offense? Will no one decide to push the issue by taking it to court?

I already gave the example of the Boy Scouts. Like churches, the Boy Scouts are protected by the 1st Amendment (in the case of churches, Freedom of Religion; in the case of the Boy Scouts, Freedom of Association). That hasn't stopped the ACLU from suing them (and winning) based on claims of "public accomodations" (private entities which provide some service to the public must comply with Title III nondiscrimination requirements that prohibit exclusion, segregation, and unequal treatment).

I do not believe that the reasons churches currently have for refusing marriage ceremonies fall under the Title III requirements prohibiting "exclusion, segregation, and unequal treatment". I am not so sure about refusing to perform a same-sex marriage. The first suit against a church, and it is a VERY real possibility that we will be looking at federal regulations requiring churches to either perform marriages indiscrimiate of the sex of the marriage partners, or lose their tax-free status (or stop performing marriages altogether).

I hope this does not happen. If legislators do change the definition of marriage, I would hope that they specifically stipulate that churches are free to continue to perform traditional marriages without being obliged to perform same-sex marriages. And I would hope that the gay community respect the decisions of the churches. But I look at current events, and I have to say that I believe if same-sex marriage is approved, the suits against the churches are not just possible, but inevitable.

I'm not really sure in what way you think same-sex marriage will "strengthen" the separation of church and state.

What do you think about the suggestion that, since the majority of people do not want to change the definition of marriage, we leave it as it is. Instead, we create legally binding civil unions and work to guarantee rights comparable to those of married couples?

I have been following this topic with interest, but I feel it time to let my opinion be known.

I live in the country where gay marriage was first made legal. That was some six or seven years ago now. So according to you, Vicky, our society should have changed. Yet I fail to see that. Yes, society has changed somewhat, but not due to gay marriages. There are so many things influencing society and the institution of marriage, that changes are inevitable. Legalising gay marriage has actually improved our society. With everyone having the same rights in the way of marriage, there is no more need for demonstrations and the like.

I do need to point out that marriage here is only legal and approved of by the state if you marry for the state. A marriage solely made in a church is not legal. You can still marry in church, but for the government to recognise it, you also have to marry in front of them.

I bring this up because state and religion here are seperated. Why? Because there are enough people who do not believe and have any kind of religious binding. Why would they want to marry in a church? The same goes for all the immigrants we have had. With them, they brought their own religions. It would be really hard for the state to recognise all their marriages, so it is much easier to only make marriage for the state legal. Which is what happened here, and with great success, if I may say so.

So while I know you feel strongly about this, Vicky, and I respect your opinion, I just do not share it one bit. Living among it, I see everything from a different point of view, and it happens to be the complete opposite of your views.

Saskia

Saskia,

There have indeed been changes in society and marriage in the Netherlands.

According to Dutch demographer Jan Latten:

I have argued that the changing of the definition of marriage will have the effect of making marriage irrelevant, and in turn, decrease the number of marriages in society. The statistics in the Netherlands would appear to support my theory.

Six or seven years may be enough time to influence people's general view of marriage, and their decisions as to whether or not to marry, but it is not enough time to gauge the full effect on society of the drastic shift in people's view regarding marriage, parenthood, and family life. For that, you will need to wait a generation or two.

Honestly, Vicki, what others do/don't do in their personal lives doesn't bother me in the least. I think that the laws that would allow gay/lesbian marriage, again, would not affect me in how I live my daily life. Actually, I'd probably be better off - I have quite a few gay friends that would love to have that privilege!

In any case, I don't believe that gays/lesbians are physically or psychologically different from anyone else, and, therefore, would not be inherently deficient in parenting. I think that, along with quite a few on the thread, gays and lesbians should be allowed a union, and, assuming they pass the exams given by the government/agencies that adopt children out, they should be allowed to adopt.

As a sidenote, I believe the problem lies with the overly Christian/Puritan opinion of gays and lesbians fostered by a literal reading of the Bible. Darn Puritans. But to discuss that, I'd need another thread, so I won't go there.

Mind you, everyone has a different opinion. That's the beauty of our cultures and governments- that we can all live under the same laws and yet have vast differences like we do. Although I don't agree with your position, I agree that you have a right to your opinion, as I have a right to my own.

Okay, I've said what I wanted to say after following this thread, and I'll refrain from speaking and reading any longer - I have to study for finals. Have a great weekend, everyone!

~Kelly

Kelly,

I know you've said you are busy with finals (Good Luck!), and so I don't know if you will be able to come back and answer this question or not, but I will throw it out there for you, or for anyone else who wishes to address it:

How can the problem be overly puritan Christians and their literal reading of the Bible, when I have shown that this definition of marriage has been UNIVERSAL to ALL religions and ALL societies (including communist/ATHEIST societies) throughout history? Proposition 8 was passed by a majority vote. Surely the majority of people in California (California, of all places) aren't puritan Christians!

I will also take the opportunity to ask another question which I have alluded to before, but which has never been addressed.* What, exactly, do you mean by word "right"? A lot of people are throwing this term around, but no one is defining it.

I maintain that the so-called "right" to marry whomever one pleases is not a right at all. In America, no person has the "right" to marry (a) a minor, (b) a close relative, (c) a person who is already married, or (d) a person of the same sex.

I have asked why no one is fighting for the "rights" of persons who were refused marriage under restrictions a, b, or c. The answer I get is that there are valid reasons for restrictions a, b, and c.

And that takes me right back to my original supposition. If we agree that society can restrict marriage when it has valid reasons to do so, then we are implicitely agreeing that the ability to marry whomever one pleases, with no restrictions, is not a right!

If we can agree on that, then we can look objectively at the issue at hand, and determine whether or not society has valid reasons for defining marriage the way it has.


* Edited to add that this question is not specifically addressed to Kelly, who never even used the word, but to others who have.