Gay Marriage and Religion

This is a great little discussion of the legal issues involved with the intersection of religion and gay marriage. I'm fascinated by this sort of thing, but I understand if you're not.

It brings up a couple of really good points, though. The institution of marriage is both religious and secular. The religious folk are free to put whatever restrictions upon marriage they would like--there is no guarantee of equal opportunity in religion, and there never has been. And probably never will be. They are allowed specific first-amendment protection against being forced to do things they don't want to do. Catholicism is free to keep women and married men out of the priesthood, for example.

I personally have never heard the argument that if GLBT folks are afforded the right to marry then churches will be forced to marry them against their beliefs. I agree with the response that it would never happen. But it's a great argument if you want to get even socially moderate religious people to vote against allowing that to happen.

Secular institutions (like the courts and the law) have an obligation to serve all people equally. When it comes to the law, people should be equal. And I think someday they will.

you, too, might be turned into pillars of who-knows-what-spice

Has anyone else noticed that gay marriage legislation seems to be snowballing lately? New Hampshire, Vermont, Iowa, D.C., and Colorado have all recently passed positive legislation either legalizing same-sex marriage or protecting the rights of same-sex couples who are unmarried or married in other states. Well done.

Of course, this has all the religious nutjobs waving their desexing sticks most unsexily. What are the crazies going to do when it doesn't rain fire and brimstone?

p.s. there are crickets chirping around here. What's up with that?

all riled up!

so dave sent me a link....
and things worked out from there in my head all day. now i do not know the person in question, but his post is here on facebook
this is my response
feel free to comment on your own!

Marriage:
-A bond of two people in love, declaring each other for one another alone.
Marriage:
-A contract signed between two parties cementing inheritance , rights and property. A merging of assets in two families.

Which do you think is more important?
It depends on when you lived, or where you live. If you think both are true for the average American family, you are kidding yourself. Love matches, or what we think of when we think white dress wedding bells, is a verymodern idea. Meaning the idea that you can choose your mate, and not only choose, but love them. This was completely unheard of just a few hundred years ago. You cite Judaism as the start of marriage, right area of the world, off by a thousand years. Look to the creation myths of the ancient Sumerians, Enki and Ninhursag, a precursor of the genesis myths. And yes, genesis is a myth, a story, with thousands of variations and interpretations. Meaning, you can’t find the definition of marriage in Adam and Eve. If you do, you’re forgetting Lillith. Marriage as it was known then was contracted selling of one sex to another family. It was never a merger of equals, never a merger of rights, never about love. Sex was often forced. Young girls often as young as 12 were sold off by their families to another, to unite grazing areas, political influence and cash value for dowries.
Using the bible as a scapegoat for marriage is fine, if you are only talking about religion. But this is not the case in modern marriage. This is sanctioned by the church and the state. You need a license from the government as well as a religious ceremony to seal the deal as it were. You can however have a wedding without involving any religion whatsoever. That is the appeal of keeping it simple or having a judge or captain wed two people.
Civil law should have the right to marry two equals, no matter what the laws. Recent marriage laws had to take into the fact that women were not the equal of men. they were “other” “ non-male” why should people who happen to love someone of the same sex be treated any differently under the eyes of the law? Laws change, they are beyond religion and faith of one person, or a group of people. They have the responsibility to hold values for all. Not just Christians. Or if this is purely and economic issue, would you deny marriage to two Buddhist lesbians? Two Shinto gay men? Santeria? Aboriginal? If this is a religion issue, we must avoid the use of ONE religion as the foundation of values. And I do not accept the argument that western culture is Christianity, because it could just as easily be Baal or Juno we worship rather than Yahweh. Thought it would be completely fitting to put this denial of equal rights of some over the comfort of others. That is fitting with the treatment of “non conformists” with the Christian tradition. Burn the heretics, kill the Jews and Muslims, convert and pray. Is this really what we want? Conformity? By denying some the rights of all, it is what we are doing. Pressuring some to conform, or in this case deny who they are in order to receive “fair” treatment.

A fun mad-lib?

Today I went grocery shopping. On my way home, I saw a man standing on a corner waving a sign at cars that said "Abortion kills [noun]." I was driving, so I didn't catch the bottom. You can fill it in as you desire. I like "Christians," personally, but I'm an optimist.

As most of my acquaintances know, I am unflinchingly pro-choice, in all situations, the end. Seeing this guy made me wish a little bit that I still had those giant "Vote Pro-Choice" signs so I could stand on the corner opposite him and balance things out a little bit. It also raised my heart rate a tad, but I just went home.

It did, however, trigger a memory that I now realize is my earliest memory of having an opinion about this issue. I didn't know the term "pro-choice," and I probably barely understood what abortion was, but looking back, even if I couldn't name it, that was it.

I was on the school bus home. I was sitting with a girl named Jessica somebody who lived a few houses down from my grandparents. We were friends for part of elementary school. I remember it was close to election time, and it was definitely a Clinton election. So I'm guessing it was his second term in 1996. Somehow, as unlikely as it sounds that ten-year-olds would be discussing politics, it came up.

Jessica said (obviously regurgitated from her parents) that Clinton was bad because he was for abortion. She explained that abortion is where a woman is pregnant and someone gives her a shot or a pill (inaccurate, but prophetic) or something and it kills the baby. My approximate response was, "Only if that's what you want. It's not like he wants to do that to everybody."

Even at ten, it seemed perfectly reasonable to me that someone might get pregnant by mistake, and might choose not to actually have the child. Not just reasonable, intuitive. I don't know where I got that attitude; it isn't as if my parents were terribly forthcoming about sexuality or pregnancy or politics. But it was there, and it hasn't wavered.

So, vote pro-choice.

Just doing my part...

I pretty much hate politics pundits these days.

Mc Cain is Pirate!

I do not like to think of myself as knowing who I would like of the stupid men running for president. But I must say, that I'm beginning to hate Mc Cain. first off, his very famous celebrity ad is essentially mud throwing, something only the weak, and fearful do in my opinion. it means that he has nothing good to say about why he is worthy of the job, nor his plans once he gets there- mind you, none of them will happen, as we are not a dictatorship and the congress is still Democractic for the next year- good luck !
Anyway to add fuel to this very familliar fire, as an Ohio resident i get blessed to see this ad every time i turn on the television, let alone the olympics, you know that old yarn of brotherhood, peace and a sense of fair play. Never mind ad space is up to 750,000 . i would love to have just the funding of one ad!
and finally, John McCain is no better than the musical pirates that as, a GOP hes supposed to hate- oh wait, that's supposta! It seems his ad, not only uses images of celebrities like Paris or Britany, now hes on the RIAA's most wanted, or at least he should be. Wired has a great article on how much Mc Cain sucks- even more than what i said. I think we should so a photoshop contest or find one that shows either McCain as a pirate or a theif. Both look good on a resume of the next president.

Spread Freedom and Democracy

The Zimbabwe Crisis Continues
So here's a chance for our freedom and liberty and brotherhood and democracy president to do something good for the world and leave an existing system that would probably work (they have a new leader elected already). Bush remains remarkably complacent.

I've been interested in African politics/economics for a while now, and every time something like this happens (which is fairly often if you listen closely enough) my heart sinks a little. There's been people around that say Africa is a lost continent, which is not a sentiment I share. But like most ideas I've encountered, I can understand why someone would be lead to that conclusion. Once Africa becomes a net contributor to world GDP on a non-monoculture (generally oil) basis, we will all be better off. It will bring a new level of stability and peace to a very large segment of the world, and encourage the investments of Americans in a very underdeveloped part of the world, probably resulting in a very large payoff for those who choose to get in early. In all likelyhood, the change will take place following the current Asian development, but who knows for sure.

Anyways, I found this just before hand via Pharyngula. I'm still looking for a connection, but perhaps the two apexes serve their own purposes sufficiently by themselves.