Today, a California court ruled that it is unconstitutional to ban same-sex marriages in the stage:
Judge Kramer swept aside the State of California’s argument that it was all right to define marriage strictly as a union between man and woman as long as same-sex couples enjoyed virtually the same rights as married couples.
“The idea that marriage-like rights without marriage is adequate smacks of a concept long rejected by the courts: separate but equal,” he wrote, alluding to the doctrine long used to justify racial segregation that the United States Supreme Court ruled in 1954 had no place in public schools.
I’ve come a long way on this issue, and believe that this decision was the right one. Initially, I was a bit put off by the idea of legalizing gay marriage for one reason - I felt like it “de-sanctified the religious covenant I entered into with my wife.”
But then I realized that I was just being an ass.
What does NOT discriminating against people who want to enter into a CIVIL marriage have to do with the RELIGIOUS covenant I have with my wife?
The answer is nothing at all.
We don’t discriminate against divorcees. We don’t discriminate against people who get angry from time to time. We don’t discriminate against people who don’t tell the truth all the time. And these are issues that Jesus ACTUALLY talks about. Why then should we discriminate against a practice (and more importantly, people) that Jesus DOES NOT talk about at all?
The answer, of course, is that we shouldn’t.
I’m still grappling with understanding what the Bible has to say about homosexuality (I don’t believe it’s as clear cut as many religious conservatives make it out to be) and how that fits in with the grace Jesus showed us on the cross. But I AM sure where I fall on the issue of making sure that gays and lesbians have exactly the same rights as you and I - they should, and they must.
March 14th, 2005 at 7:26 pm
Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! I am not a religious person, but I am a lawyer. (BTW, I’m not gay, either . . . .) The logic and legal analysis of Judge Kramer’s decision are undeniably, unquestionably correct. It took years for this country to accept interracial marriages. Bans on such marriage were first declared unconstitutional (also in California) in 1948. Today, it seems hard to believe that they were ever illegal.
It is SO refreshing to hear you say that you were at first against same-sex marriage, “But then I realized that I was just being an ass.”
It is SO refreshing to hear you say “What does NOT discriminating against people who want to enter into a CIVIL marriage have to do with the RELIGIOUS covenant I have with my wife?”
And it is SO refreshing to hear you talk about the values Jesus actually espoused (compassion, charity, forgiveness, acceptance) rather than using obscure passages in the bible to espouse hateful or discriminatory positions.
Again: Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!
March 19th, 2005 at 8:16 pm
@John
I don´t think one can compare interracial marriage and gay marriage. There is a difference between sexual preferences and skin-color.
@Steve
You say, you have gone a long way in your attitude towards gay-marriage, well I have changed my attitude, too, but the other way around.
In my country there is some legal arrangement, which gives gay couples practically the same rights as married hetereosexual couples. I think, this is quite allright, but I´m glad, it is not called “gay-marriage”.
In my opinion, marriage in the church or in a civil regestry does allways contain at least the hope for absolute fidelity between the partners and a promise “until death does part you”.
Yes those promises are often broken and every second marriage ends in divorce. But this also means, that every other marriage actually does hold for life.
From homosexual people in my family I know, that most gay people do not believe in sexual fidelity, even see it as unhealthy.
So why call something a marriage, when you do not even believe in the one fundamental condition for a marriage?
Some other thing I found out about gay people is the fixation of many of them towards outward appearances, meaning physical good looks. Of course I have only a superficial knowledge about gay culture, however I have seen a paranoid fear of getting old and a disdain for partners with physical imperfections.
Yes I know, I´m sounding like an ass here. But you see, I am kind of disappointed, since I had actually believed for a while, that gay people actually want to live in the same way as hetereosexual people. If homosexuality is actually a genetic thing, it is God-given, so of course it should be accepted this way.
But there is no way for me to believe, that promiscuity is a God-given condition.
I think promiscuity, either the homosexual or the heterosexual kind, is one of the ailments of todays society, and so is fixation on physical perfection, youth and sexual performance.
Marriage in my opinion means “for better or worse, in sickness and health” and of course even in old age, and sex being not the main, but just a minor part of the equation. My husband of 20 years and I believe in this principle and practice it and so do many religious people we know. But even non-religious heterosexual people most often believe in this when they get married, even if it does not allways work out like planned.
So could it be, that what some american Christians disagree on in the gay-marriage debate, is not homosexual people per se, but a propagation of a promiscous life-style and a sexualisation of public life?
Like in this Christopher-Street-Day parades, where there are not only people dressing up funny like for carnival, but people engaging provocatingly in sexual games in public, showing everybody else the middle finger, because they believe their ethics are better than ours.
And where I live, the gay people are the most uppity libertarians of all.
Because they have no children, they see child-benifits or tax-breaks for families with children as some kind of ripping them off. Many do not believe in a solidaric society and just love neoliberal economics. They see poverty is a fault of the poor individually or of poor countries. And while they are being obsessed with being discriminated against, they have nothing against discriminating Muslim immigrants. They think America´thousands of nuclear weapons are no problem, but Iran getting a nuclear weapon would be a catastrophy.
So where I come from, homosexuals are not a embattled and discriminated minority, but an upper-middle-class group with very little compassion towards others not like them.
Sorry, just ranting and sounding like a right-winger.
March 19th, 2005 at 8:19 pm
@John
I don´t think one can compare interracial marriage and gay marriage. There is a difference between sexual preferences and skin-color.
@Steve
You say, you have gone a long way in your attitude towards gay-marriage, well I have changed my attitude, too, but the other way around.
In my country there is some legal arrangement, which gives gay couples practically the same rights as married hetereosexual couples. I think, this is quite allright, but I´m glad, it is not called “gay-marriage”.
In my opinion, marriage in the church or in a civil regestry does allways contain at least the hope for absolute fidelity between the partners and a promise “until death does part you”.
Yes those promises are often broken and every second marriage ends in divorce. But this also means, that every other marriage actually does hold for life.
From homosexual people in my family I know, that most gay people do not believe in sexual fidelity, even see it as unhealthy.
So why call something a marriage, when you do not even believe in the one fundamental condition for a marriage?
Some other thing I found out about gay people is the fixation of many of them towards outward appearances, meaning physical good looks. Of course I have only a superficial knowledge about gay culture, however I have seen a paranoid fear of getting old and a disdain for partners with physical imperfections.
Yes I know, I´m sounding like an ass here. But you see, I am kind of disappointed, since I had actually believed for a while, that gay people actually want to live in the same way as hetereosexual people. If homosexuality is actually a genetic thing, it is God-given, so of course it should be accepted this way.
But there is no way for me to believe, that promiscuity is a God-given condition.
I think promiscuity, either the homosexual or the heterosexual kind, is one of the ailments of todays society, and so is fixation on physical perfection, youth and sexual performance.
Marriage in my opinion means “for better or worse, in sickness and health” and of course even in old age, and sex being not the main, but just a minor part of the equation. My husband of 20 years and I believe in this principle and practice it and so do many religious people we know. But even non-religious heterosexual people most often believe in this when they get married, even if it does not allways work out like planned.
So could it be, that what some american Christians disagree on in the gay-marriage debate, is not homosexual people per se, but a propagation of a promiscous life-style and a sexualisation of public life?
Like in this Christopher-Street-Day parades, where there are not only people dressing up funny like for carnival, but people engaging provocatingly in sexual games in public, showing everybody else the middle finger, because they believe their ethics are better than ours.
And where I live, the gay people are the most uppity libertarians of all.
Because they have no children, they see child-benifits or tax-breaks for families with children as some kind of ripping them off. Many do not believe in a solidaric society and just love neoliberal economics. They see poverty is a fault of the poor individually or of poor countries. And while they are being obsessed with being discriminated against, they have nothing against discriminating Muslim immigrants. They think America´thousands of nuclear weapons are no problem, but Iran getting a nuclear weapon would be a catastrophy.
So where I come from, homosexuals are not a embattled and discriminated minority, but an upper-middle-class group with very little compassion towards others not like them.
Sorry, just ranting and sounding like a right-winger.