Slog
News & ArtsThursday, September 20, 2012
2012 / LGBTQITSLFA Will Churches in Washington State Be Forced to Perform Same-Sex Weddings?
Posted by Dan Savage on Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 10:21 AM
Just got this letter...
I thought I would bounce this off you since you have contributed to my quandary in a small way.
My initial instinct and plan was to vote to approve R-74 and legalize same-sex marriage in Washington state. But when the First Lady spoke at the DNC she used a phrase that bothered me. Every word in her speech was carefully chosen. She could have said something to the effect of a future “where we share the same rights no matter who we love.” I am all for that. But she said something to the effect of “stand before the altar with whomever we love.”
That set of big red flags for me. The same Libertarian streak that tells me that opening up the legal definition of marriage to same-sex couples also tells me that there are people who have very little respect for any religion that doesn’t agree with them. So when I heard Michelle Obama use of the word “altar,” I began to worry that once marriage legally opened to same-sex couples "they" will be going after every church in an effort to force them into compliance. And that I cannot tolerate.
No one fed me this. This is my own analysis of how activism has worked recently. Don’t like Catholic stands on birth control? Enroll at one of their colleges then go after them to change their rules for you instead of picking a college that agrees with you. See what I mean? And given some of your unfortunate rants, Dan, and knowing how this game is played, I suddenly realized legalizing same-sex marriage will create a legal wedge for people like you to attack churches directly rather than taking this new right and using it to create happiness in your own life.
Now I am not sure how to vote. And it bugs me because it is not fair for those couples waiting to live their lives with the same legal protections I have to get caught in the cross fire created by those who think everyone has to agree with them.
You are a pretty straight shooter, Dan, bu you have said some pretty derogatory things about Christians. So I would like to know where will you stand on these questions if Washington state gets marriage equality.1. Should churches that take a traditional stand against same-sex relationships should lose their tax-exempt status if they won’t perform the ceremony?
2. Or will your attitude be, "I got what I want, so it's not my battle if some churches disapprove and I will remain on the sidelines"?
3. I want my rights protected I sure as heck will take a stand for the religious freedom of all faiths, even if some disagree with my lifestyle choices?
Just wondering.
K. H.
My response after the jump...
·······················
Dear K.H.,
As I'm sure you know, K.H., Opposite-sex couples can legally marry right now in Washington state. And they've been free to do so for as long as there's been a Washington state. But Catholic priests can and do refuse to marry opposite-sex couples. They do it all the time. And it is perfectly legal for Catholic priests to discriminate against opposite-sex couples even though straight people are have a legal right to wed. A priest can refuse to marry a straight couple because they're not Catholic, or only one member of the couple is Catholic, or even if both are Catholic but not Catholic enough in the priest's opinion (they're using birth control, they're not regular church goers, etc.). Catholic churches turn away straight couples who want to marry and they do it all the time. And yet no Catholic church has ever been sued by a straight couple and the state has never attempted to force a Catholic church to marry a straight couple.
And the state won't force Catholic churches—or any churches—to marry same-sex couples.
And remember: there are churches that are willing to marry same-sex couples right now. And they do marry us right now—so same-sex couples, even as same-sex marriage remains illegal, are already "standing at the altar" in churches all over Washington state. But they are only standing at the altars of churches that wish to marry them. (And what of the religious freedom of churches that do marry same-sex couples?)
Nothing will change for churches that disapprove of same-sex marriage once same-sex marriage is legalized. Same-sex marriage has been legal in Massachusetts since 2004 and there have been no lawsuits. No jack-booted government thugs have dragged away priests that refused to marry same-sex couples. The same rules that apply right now to interfaith couples, or non-believers, or insufficiently Catholic/Mormon/Jewish/Muslim/Hindu couples will apply after same-sex couples are allowed to wed: civil marriage will be open to all, i.e. the right of marriage. Churches that want to marry us will be able to marry us—and these marriages will be recognized by the state—churches that don't want to marry us won't be forced to. Churches that disapprove will have the freedom to deny us the rite of marriage.
In November you can approve R-74, which will legalize same-sex marriage in Washington state. And when you vote to approve R-74 you'll be writing this language into state law:
"No regularly licensed or ordained minister or any priest, imam, rabbi, or similar official of any religious organization is required to solemnize or recognize any marriage. A regularly licensed or ordained minister or priest, imam, rabbi, or similar official of any religious organization shall be immune from any civil claim or cause of action based on a refusal to solemnize or recognize any marriage under this section. No state agency or local government may base a decision to penalize, withhold benefits from, or refuse to contract with any religious organization on the refusal of a person associated with such religious organization to solemnize or recognize a marriage under this section."
So when you vote to approve R-74, K.H., you'll be creating the very protections you want to see in place.
Oh, and...
1. I don't think churches should lose their tax-exempt statuses for opposing same-sex marriages.
2. That will be my attitude. That's my attitude now. And the only reason gay people are "attacking" churches—or arguing with political opponents who happen to be wearing Roman collars or fronting suburban mega-churches—is because they're attacking/oppressing us. I would have no beef with the Catholic hierarchy if they were content to tell Catholics what to do. But they want to control the lives and limit the freedoms of non-Catholics. And so I have to respond. If the church would leave me and my family alone, I would happily leave the church alone. But the church is attacking me and my family. Please don't mistake self-defense for aggression.
3. I believe that everyone's rights should be protected. People living their lives as they wish and enjoying equal protections under the law are not attacking on anyone else's religious freedom. Conservative Christians who argue that legal gay marriage somehow oppresses them—that the legal existence of marriage they don't have to celebrate, attend, officiate at, or approve of somehow interferes with their religious freedom—are like orthodox Jews arguing for a ban on pork because they feel oppressed by your BLT or Mormons arguing for a ban on alcohol because they feel oppressed by your martini.
Thanks for writing and I hope you'll vote to approve R-74 in November.
Dan
1
Sorry, but that email struck me as pretentious. This person in no way was actually considering voting for same-sex marriage. The letter is a pretense. The red flag was the whole "attacking Christians" thing. It's not libertarians spreading the lie that the Liberals want to force churches to do anything. It's always been the religious right and their media.
3
The "Catholics refuse to marry straight people all the time" argument is not just a rhetorical device. A friend of mine, a lifelong Catholic, married for the first time at 40. Her fiance was divorced, so the church refused to marry them -- sad, because she really wanted to be married in the church.
4
This is a common smoke and mirrors argument that I consistently deal with, especially in Utah when they talk about why the Mormons were right about aggressively funding Prop 8.
You see, Blacks were unable to hold the priesthood in the Mormon church, and then the government stepped in and said "If you keep that shit up, we will revoke your tax exempt status."
And so the church now allows blacks to hold the priesthood. They fear the government will do the same thing about gay marriage. In fact, it was one of the major reasons so many Mormons supported Prop 8. I was told, "I would've supported same sex marriage if it didn't force the LDS church to allow gays to temple marry."
They make this argument and then wonder why I'm so mean to them...you know, by calling them bigots at times.
You see, Blacks were unable to hold the priesthood in the Mormon church, and then the government stepped in and said "If you keep that shit up, we will revoke your tax exempt status."
And so the church now allows blacks to hold the priesthood. They fear the government will do the same thing about gay marriage. In fact, it was one of the major reasons so many Mormons supported Prop 8. I was told, "I would've supported same sex marriage if it didn't force the LDS church to allow gays to temple marry."
They make this argument and then wonder why I'm so mean to them...you know, by calling them bigots at times.
5
Yeah, the message of this letter, very clearly, was, "You see? Totally rational people who had orginally planned on supporting marriage equality can--simply through the power of deductive reasoning and without negative input from fundamentalists--arrive at the conclusion that to support marriage equality would mean stripping the churches of their rights. Therefore it's simply not worth it to indulge your 'lifestyle choice.'"
You sly, anti-gay dog, you.
You sly, anti-gay dog, you.
6
My parents couldn't be married in a Catholic church or Catholic ceremony because my father had been previously divorced. They got married somewhere else. Saying that legalizing gay marriage will force religious groups into betraying their principles or in any way erode religious liberty is a giant straw man.
Also, as Dan mentions, there are churches--Christian and otherwise--that marry gay couples in ceremonies that are recognized by the congregation, if not by the government. Several of them are operating in my town, in a very red state. So essentially, the state is saying we recognize SOME Christian denominations but not others---now remind me whose right's are in danger?
Also, as Dan mentions, there are churches--Christian and otherwise--that marry gay couples in ceremonies that are recognized by the congregation, if not by the government. Several of them are operating in my town, in a very red state. So essentially, the state is saying we recognize SOME Christian denominations but not others---now remind me whose right's are in danger?
8
That's what really gets my goat about religion. They are never satisfied to tell their followers what to do, they think they can tell everyone else what to do. Don't like gay marriage? Don't get one. Don't like abortion? Don't get one. Nobody's forcing you to. But that's never enough for them.
7
Something so sweet about a polite response to a moronic question. I think that Emmy's got someone in a good mood...
9
dan i haven't read your answer, but 5 years ago i asked a good friend who is an episcoplian minister ( i'm a baptist ) to bless and offciate our union. he told me he wasn't sure he could, he wasn't sure where his church stood on the issue, he might not be allowed he told me that he would love to take that journey with me , but he didn't know where he would end up. he thought he might be in danger of losing his rural parrish. he told me a great deal of things.. and they were all about him. nothing about blessing our journey. never offered so much as a prayer for us. at the end of his long lists of misgivings and doubts, i told him' no i've changed my mind. thanks, but 'no i don't have an affinity for your difficult moral and spiritual dilemma.' i then found another altar, another church - all pilgrim's christian church on the corner of broadway and republican- and another reverend.. it was a beautiful day.
oh .. and my priest friend managed to attend he was very very embarrassed that he had stood at the wrong side of what was so what was now so obviously right for us.
oh .. and my priest friend managed to attend he was very very embarrassed that he had stood at the wrong side of what was so what was now so obviously right for us.
10
We had to just through hoops to get married in our church even though we were both registered members.
But I agreed with the church; want to get married in a beautiful building? Ours is available. Are you ONLY using this building because it's beautiful but otherwise has no meaning to you? Then no.
Do people really think that every nearly church is forced by law to perform ceremonies for them?
But I agreed with the church; want to get married in a beautiful building? Ours is available. Are you ONLY using this building because it's beautiful but otherwise has no meaning to you? Then no.
Do people really think that every nearly church is forced by law to perform ceremonies for them?
12
@1 -- I think you might be underestimating the sheer dumbness of a lot of people whose hearts are in the right place but whose minds aren't very developed (see comment 4). They're like "but my church told me they'll be forced to perform gay marriages, and if my church said it, it must be true, right?"
(Not to mention the people who use this stance as a beard for "I hate gay people and will never support gay marriage because it's gay.")
(Not to mention the people who use this stance as a beard for "I hate gay people and will never support gay marriage because it's gay.")
13
I don't see how anyone can fail to understand the simplest argument: Denying ME the right to a same-sex marriage because YOU are Catholic is like a Jewish person denying YOU the right to a ham sandwich. How would you like that? You wouldn't. (So shut the fuck up.)
14
"Altar" is often used colloquially* to mean the place or even just time of marriage. I have used it myself when referring to non-religious weddings.
It might also help to know that a mandate telling a religion what they must** do is certainly unconstitutional. We on the left understand that as much as those on the right. No intelligent liberal would want to include something so clearly unconstitutional in a law he or she was crafting because we would want to law to stand. Writing laws that are wholly or partially unconstitutional on their face is not a winning strategy and we know it.
* I can't believe I spelled that correctly on the first try
** This is as distinct from forbidding certain practices on otherwise neutral grounds. This is how polygamy got outlawed and how Rastafarians are denied their pot. This area of the law doesn't make just tons of sense though.
I am a lawyer who took a class on religious freedom in law school with a lawyer who practiced in the field and it doesn't make a lot of sense to me either. It has a lot in common with pornography law in that judges would just as soon stay away from it and definitions are squishy and hard to pin down.
What you can count on though is that no judge is going to mandate the content of a religious ritual and any judge who sees a law which tries to mandate the content of a religious ritual will strike it down. Legislators know this and those who are serious about their laws actually accomplishing something aren't going to tangle with this reality.
It might also help to know that a mandate telling a religion what they must** do is certainly unconstitutional. We on the left understand that as much as those on the right. No intelligent liberal would want to include something so clearly unconstitutional in a law he or she was crafting because we would want to law to stand. Writing laws that are wholly or partially unconstitutional on their face is not a winning strategy and we know it.
* I can't believe I spelled that correctly on the first try
** This is as distinct from forbidding certain practices on otherwise neutral grounds. This is how polygamy got outlawed and how Rastafarians are denied their pot. This area of the law doesn't make just tons of sense though.
I am a lawyer who took a class on religious freedom in law school with a lawyer who practiced in the field and it doesn't make a lot of sense to me either. It has a lot in common with pornography law in that judges would just as soon stay away from it and definitions are squishy and hard to pin down.
What you can count on though is that no judge is going to mandate the content of a religious ritual and any judge who sees a law which tries to mandate the content of a religious ritual will strike it down. Legislators know this and those who are serious about their laws actually accomplishing something aren't going to tangle with this reality.
17
my parents were refused a Catholic marriage. Dad was no Catholic, mother was from a Catholic family (her adopted family), but she was not an active member, aslo mother was pregnant, and she had a kid as a teen that was put up for adoption.
19
Shorter answer: "to stand at the alter" is a common idiom in American English that means "to get married."
20
Washington House Rep Joe Fain (R-47) added wording to the WA ME bill saying that religious groups would not be "forced" to change their beliefs about who and how people marry.
This helped kick it over with the needed votes for passage.
22
There have been a couple of recent, well-publicized incidences of churches disapproving of straight relationships on the basis of race and if I'm not mistaken, their positions were reprehensible, but not against the law. Churches that refuse to marry same-sex couples will surely be increasingly tagged as intolerant, and there may be societal consequences, but not legal ones.
23
And given some of your unfortunate rants, Dan, and knowing how this game is played, I suddenly realized legalizing same-sex marriage will create a legal wedge for people like you to attack churches directly rather than taking this new right and using it to create happiness in your own life.Uh ... I'm going to call it a fake, though it's a good one, trying to squeeze in the desire to vote in favour with the exception of this teensy problem that turns out to be a huge one, based on the sudden pearl clutching fears despite knowing the protections that are written into the law regarding not being forced to marry anyone, opposite or same sex.
Well, that, and those unfortunate words "lifestyle choices". Anyone who would still use those two words in this century and decade is not a supporter, just a practising pretender.
24
So this is like a Santorum-libertarian then? Or a Huckabee-libertarian?
Because only by protecting government-subsidized institutions from individuals can we safeguard liberty.
Because only by protecting government-subsidized institutions from individuals can we safeguard liberty.
25
Excellent answer on Dan's part. Just one more point: when interracial marriages were declared constitutionally protected in Loving v. Virginia, were churches forced to perform them? The answer, of course, is no. To this day, churches are free to refuse to perform interracial marriages--very, very few actually do refuse, of course, but they still legally could. So it's all the more absurd to think that same-sex marriages would ever be required.
26
I’ve always found the “choice” argument from religious folk strange, since the argument is that its OK to discriminate as long as the reason is something some person chooses, because while its very true that no one chooses to be Gay, a person DOES choose their religion, so in short being Gay is not a lifestyle choice, but being Catholic (or Moslem, Hindu, or what have you) is…
27
Every word in her speech was carefully chosen. [...]. But she said something to the effect of “stand before the altar with whomever we love.”
Couldn't the letter writer have recorded her words more carefully? "to the effect of" is somewhat nebulous here.
Couldn't the letter writer have recorded her words more carefully? "to the effect of" is somewhat nebulous here.
28
@26, except Jews, Jews don't choose their religion. They have it guilted deeply into them from birth. :D
29
@26 - It depends on whether we're talking about belief or observance. One certainly chooses what one observes or practices, but I'm not particularly convinced that one chooses what one "believes" so far as we take the word "believe" to mean "to hold a posit to be true," which is how it's typically defined in philosophy. I cannot "choose" to believe that I am made of cheese; in the same way, one who sees the universe as created--or, conversely, one who sees the universe as arising solely through undirected natural processes--does not choose that belief, though she certainly may choose how she is to act (or not act) in light of that belief, or what epistemic threads he will follow from that hypothesis.
For all that, I think arguments from choice represent a (perhaps subconscious) dodge, a way of avoiding admitting, even to oneself, that one is simply attempting to legislate according to subjective moral findings, which are, themselves, borne of personal revulsion and merely justified by religious doctrine in which one holds non-chosen belief and to which one offers fully volitional active fealty.
For all that, I think arguments from choice represent a (perhaps subconscious) dodge, a way of avoiding admitting, even to oneself, that one is simply attempting to legislate according to subjective moral findings, which are, themselves, borne of personal revulsion and merely justified by religious doctrine in which one holds non-chosen belief and to which one offers fully volitional active fealty.
30
My dad was almost excommunicated from the Catholic Church for marrying my mother because she refused to convert. This shit happens all the time. If this person doesn't know by now that people cannot demand any church or religious entity officiate their marriage they are pretty fucking dumb.
31
@9: as someone who has seen pictures of riz and rob's wedding, it was indeed a beautiful day, and totally loaded with love. they married at a church that has been performing commitment ceremonies since 1992 and belongs to a denomination that was the first to ordain gay and lesbian ministers.
32
Why aren't churches taxed? If they were non-profits that used all their money on charitable works, that might make sense. As it stands, they use their money to influence legislation, buy property and invest. I should start a church.
33
Wow. A legit question from someone who's actually thinking about the issue. It's a good day for faith in humanity.
It's as it should be: Religious institutions should have full discretion over what religious rituals to perform.
It's as it should be: Religious institutions should have full discretion over what religious rituals to perform.
35
I'm inclined to give the letter writer a break. Yes, his worries look a bit like they're cribbed from anti-marriage equality talking points, but I think some people sincerely share his concerns and misconceptions.
Therefore I endorse the decision to address the LW's points in a thorough and courteous manner.
Therefore I endorse the decision to address the LW's points in a thorough and courteous manner.
36
@4
I can’t tell - do YOU believe this claim of the tax exempt status revocation threat?
Just as this LW seems to be fishing for arguments to, say, prepare election rebuttals or use the statements later in political propaganda, I imagine that this “LDS being strong-armed by the feds” claim is a myth used to justify the church’s involvement, and position, in political battles like Prop 8.
Try clearing the smoke, instead of resorting to ad hominem attacks. As already noted, the case in point: interracial, heterosexual couples with a legal right to marry regularly are denied ceremonies in churches – as recent as this year – not just in the south – and with no governmental interference.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=96577&…
Ask: Where is there credible evidence of this previous federal threat? Why would the LDS church abandon a court fight to solidify its religious position and freedom of beliefs – when there was nothing more to lose and everything to gain? If the feds’ purported demand was legal and that effective, why don’t women have equal positioning in the LDS (or catholic) church?
I target this because there is a significant LDS population in Eastern Washington. It’s hard to believe that it will be idle on R74, especially when it has a member in the presidential race.
@Mr. Savage, very well played.
I can’t tell - do YOU believe this claim of the tax exempt status revocation threat?
Just as this LW seems to be fishing for arguments to, say, prepare election rebuttals or use the statements later in political propaganda, I imagine that this “LDS being strong-armed by the feds” claim is a myth used to justify the church’s involvement, and position, in political battles like Prop 8.
Try clearing the smoke, instead of resorting to ad hominem attacks. As already noted, the case in point: interracial, heterosexual couples with a legal right to marry regularly are denied ceremonies in churches – as recent as this year – not just in the south – and with no governmental interference.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=96577&…
Ask: Where is there credible evidence of this previous federal threat? Why would the LDS church abandon a court fight to solidify its religious position and freedom of beliefs – when there was nothing more to lose and everything to gain? If the feds’ purported demand was legal and that effective, why don’t women have equal positioning in the LDS (or catholic) church?
I target this because there is a significant LDS population in Eastern Washington. It’s hard to believe that it will be idle on R74, especially when it has a member in the presidential race.
@Mr. Savage, very well played.
37
Because my mother was Catholic and my father Protestant, they were refused a Catholic Church wedding.
And in order for my mother not to be thrown out of the church herself, my father had to sign a contract stipulating that any children would be raised Catholic.
Granted, this was over 60 years ago, but interesting that not much has changed since.
And in order for my mother not to be thrown out of the church herself, my father had to sign a contract stipulating that any children would be raised Catholic.
Granted, this was over 60 years ago, but interesting that not much has changed since.
38
This would all be much clearer if the state didn't deputize religious clergy to sign marriage licenses. Other countries (godless European ones, granted) do not allow clergy to officiate for state (civil) marriages. You get a religious ceremony at a church; you get a marriage license at a government office, who signs the thing and records it.
Simple. But never in the USA.
Simple. But never in the USA.
39
I think this could be a concern troll, but I also think a lot of people who are uncomfortable with same-sex marriage are looking for reasons to vote against it that confirm their discomfort without being hateful. It's important to explain why those reasons don't make sense so that they have to make a direct choice to be hateful or tolerant. Put in those terms, without a weasely out, and many people will do the right thing who wouldn't otherwise.
I'd also like to add my two cents on Catholic policies toward opposite-sex marriage. My grandmother had an early first marriage and divorced before any children were born. The Catholic Church refused to acknowledge her divorce much less any future marriage. So she married my Lutheran-but-actually agnostic grandfather, and my Dad ended up being an altar boy at St. Mark's Episcopal Church in Seattle.
I'd also like to add my two cents on Catholic policies toward opposite-sex marriage. My grandmother had an early first marriage and divorced before any children were born. The Catholic Church refused to acknowledge her divorce much less any future marriage. So she married my Lutheran-but-actually agnostic grandfather, and my Dad ended up being an altar boy at St. Mark's Episcopal Church in Seattle.
41
I'm with the people who are questioning this letter's sincerity.
I'm having a hard time believing that this person was alllllll set to vote in favor of gay marriage in Washington State, except then Michelle Obama used the words "stand before the altar" and SUDDENLY they therefore realized that R-74 is nothing more than a nefarious plan by the gays to FORCE churches to do their queer bidding!!
Even if I accept the existence of people too stupid to realize that there exist religions other than homophobic sects of Christianity, the premise of this letter is still unrealistic.
I think this is just another run-of-the-mill homophobe making a feeble attempt to goad Dan into "admitting" that he thinks churches should be forced to marry gays.
I'm having a hard time believing that this person was alllllll set to vote in favor of gay marriage in Washington State, except then Michelle Obama used the words "stand before the altar" and SUDDENLY they therefore realized that R-74 is nothing more than a nefarious plan by the gays to FORCE churches to do their queer bidding!!
Even if I accept the existence of people too stupid to realize that there exist religions other than homophobic sects of Christianity, the premise of this letter is still unrealistic.
I think this is just another run-of-the-mill homophobe making a feeble attempt to goad Dan into "admitting" that he thinks churches should be forced to marry gays.
42
This is pretty clearly bullshit. Students will go to the best college that will admit them. There's no conspiracy to destroy the Catholic church.
What a fucking fraud.
Don’t like Catholic stands on birth control? Enroll at one of their colleges then go after them to change their rules for you instead of picking a college that agrees with you.
This is pretty clearly bullshit. Students will go to the best college that will admit them. There's no conspiracy to destroy the Catholic church.
What a fucking fraud.
43
My mom's family was Episcopalian and my dad's family was Catholic. The Catholic priest refused to marry them unless mom converted. Mom refused, so they ended up getting married in the Episcopal church, which caused a huge rift in the family.
This kind of thing is actually quite common. I can think of several friends and relatives who were refused by one church or another, and had to change plans for where they got married.
R-74 only changes the laws for a civil marriage license. The churches will be free to continue to set whatever kind of rules they want for their church's religious marriage ceremonies, no matter how ridiculous I might think they are. Just as they have for centuries.
This kind of thing is actually quite common. I can think of several friends and relatives who were refused by one church or another, and had to change plans for where they got married.
R-74 only changes the laws for a civil marriage license. The churches will be free to continue to set whatever kind of rules they want for their church's religious marriage ceremonies, no matter how ridiculous I might think they are. Just as they have for centuries.
44
By the way, not only divorced-not-annulled Catholic, or "living in sin" Catholics (i.e. anything that might cause "scandel"), but this is also a big issue for Jewish people. They are more open-minded in Seattle, where Jewish people are such a minority, but a friend of mine (from Seattle) who now lives in New York City, marrying a Jewish man, would not get married by the groom's regular rabbi. They basically did the "rent-a-rabbi" option.
45
I can think of a number of words to describe a question coming from someone who has given the issue so much deep thought, cared enough to write about it at some length, and who knew and used the appropriate title of reference, but which could have been answered by actually reading the language on which people will be voting. Neither "legitimate" or "sincere" makes the short list. But, as Mr Savage has said more than once, even a complete fake will be real to someone. And doubtless there are people being taken in or confused by the rhetoric of the anti-equality side. Well played with regard to tone.
But does one really want the support of such a delicate flower whose entire vote can be overturned because a national figure on the other side of the continent uses a single word which gives DF such an attack of the vapours? Such a person would likely require such cosseting and hand-holding right up to Election Day that one could get half a dozen votes or more with the same expenditure of effort. I'd likely have been tempted to tell DF that, if the issue weren't settled convincingly, that abstaining would be quite sufficient.
But does one really want the support of such a delicate flower whose entire vote can be overturned because a national figure on the other side of the continent uses a single word which gives DF such an attack of the vapours? Such a person would likely require such cosseting and hand-holding right up to Election Day that one could get half a dozen votes or more with the same expenditure of effort. I'd likely have been tempted to tell DF that, if the issue weren't settled convincingly, that abstaining would be quite sufficient.
46
Worth mentioning: because we're born everywhere across all cultures, many religions / sects do have contingents of folks raised in that tradition who disagree with the leadership about scriptural interpretation. There are gay (and straight!) Muslims who are fighting within that religion for a more inclusive view just as there are gay (and straight!) Catholics who believe that being gay and finding love are not a sin. These discussions usually happen in a different forum than the national debate about specific marriage / employment rights.
47
@23 I will probably be attacked for this, but here goes. I do NOT belive that being gay or straight or bi is a choice. I am bi, I never got a choice. My husband is bi, no choice there either. My mother is straight, I am fairly sure she never chose, ditto one daughter, my son. My youngest daughter is a lesbian and I KNOW she didn't get a choice. Who would choose that at 12 which is when she came out.
That said, "lifestyle" is a choice. Straight people can "choose" to marry or stay single. They can "choose" to marry someone they are sexually attracted to and love, or they can "choose" to marry someone they do not love, or are not sexually attracted to. Gay people can "choose" to stay single, or they can choose to marry someone of the opposite gender who they are not sexually attracted to. What they CANNOT do in most states is "choose" to marry somone of the same gender whom they are actually attracted to. And that is WRONG. Just plain wrong.
That said, "lifestyle" is a choice. Straight people can "choose" to marry or stay single. They can "choose" to marry someone they are sexually attracted to and love, or they can "choose" to marry someone they do not love, or are not sexually attracted to. Gay people can "choose" to stay single, or they can choose to marry someone of the opposite gender who they are not sexually attracted to. What they CANNOT do in most states is "choose" to marry somone of the same gender whom they are actually attracted to. And that is WRONG. Just plain wrong.
48
A real libertarian would vote for the ideology and not worry about how it would be misused. If the writer is pro-gun or anti-regulation, this is a really hypocritical question to ask.
49
I agree with #2. Churches should pay taxes. THey ARE engaging in the political. And to some extent I understand that they have to. But they should be a part of the solution here and not just big hoppers of money.
52
How's this for Catholic wedding rules?
My father, who is not a Catholic and never went to church of any kind, has been married TWICE in a Catholic church.
My mother was raised Catholic, so that's how he got through the first time. The second time, God appears to have overlooked how he cheated on wife #1 with wife #2 while wife #1 was dying of cancer. But since wife #1 had died, the Catholics welcomed him back to be married with them a second time.
Talk about getting away with a technicality.
My father, who is not a Catholic and never went to church of any kind, has been married TWICE in a Catholic church.
My mother was raised Catholic, so that's how he got through the first time. The second time, God appears to have overlooked how he cheated on wife #1 with wife #2 while wife #1 was dying of cancer. But since wife #1 had died, the Catholics welcomed him back to be married with them a second time.
Talk about getting away with a technicality.
53
@36 sorry it took me so long to notice this. No I don't believe the threat is real because it's difference circumstances.
The LDS church has gone on record to say that the threats of losing their tax exempt status had nothing to do with the coincidental timing of them allowing blacks to hold the priesthood.
The underlying part there is that the church HAD been threatened with the loss of their tax exempt status.
The comparisons we make to this civil rights issue makes people believe it will happen again. It won't. I tell people it won't, but that's what they think. Sorry if I was unclear.
The LDS church has gone on record to say that the threats of losing their tax exempt status had nothing to do with the coincidental timing of them allowing blacks to hold the priesthood.
The underlying part there is that the church HAD been threatened with the loss of their tax exempt status.
The comparisons we make to this civil rights issue makes people believe it will happen again. It won't. I tell people it won't, but that's what they think. Sorry if I was unclear.
55
@9: I don't know what your Episcopalian priest's friend's situation is, but as a pastor's kid I'm inclined to give ministers the benefit of the doubt if they feel that their denomination wouldn't let them perform a same-sex wedding. It's not because they insufficiently support you or don't respect you but because it's literally their JOB on the line here, and I do think that's asking quite a lot in this tough economy.
One thing that I think that people don't really understand about the way churches run is that, at least with a lot of Protestant denominations, it's not the pastor who has the power to control his or her church; the pastor is employed by the congregation and, as such, they have a lot of power to take away the pastor's livelihood (in the form of his/her job) if the pastor preaches things they don't like. My dad tried to get jobs at more liberal, affirming churches where he could say what he wanted and didn't; he's stuck with this one, and he knows if he were as adamant about his pro-choice, pro-gay-rights views as he is away from the church, he wouldn't have his job anymore. All he can do is make small inroads, and look for a better job that allows him to be more open and honest about what he believes. Meanwhile, my parents are both working multiple jobs to make ends meet, and the church salary he gets is a big part of what has prevented them from such things as losing their house.
I know that, in the event that I marry another woman (because I'm bisexual), he'd happily perform the wedding; I think that's quite a lot to ask him to do for just about anybody else, though. (And luckily, I'm only 22 and not in a committed relationship of any sort right now, so it's not something that's likely to happen in the near future.) I think if my parents are not forced into homelessness by the terrible economic situation where they used to live (and are still trying to sell their house), it would mean more for their ability to support gay rights in the future than if they risk it all on one wedding.
More...
One thing that I think that people don't really understand about the way churches run is that, at least with a lot of Protestant denominations, it's not the pastor who has the power to control his or her church; the pastor is employed by the congregation and, as such, they have a lot of power to take away the pastor's livelihood (in the form of his/her job) if the pastor preaches things they don't like. My dad tried to get jobs at more liberal, affirming churches where he could say what he wanted and didn't; he's stuck with this one, and he knows if he were as adamant about his pro-choice, pro-gay-rights views as he is away from the church, he wouldn't have his job anymore. All he can do is make small inroads, and look for a better job that allows him to be more open and honest about what he believes. Meanwhile, my parents are both working multiple jobs to make ends meet, and the church salary he gets is a big part of what has prevented them from such things as losing their house.
I know that, in the event that I marry another woman (because I'm bisexual), he'd happily perform the wedding; I think that's quite a lot to ask him to do for just about anybody else, though. (And luckily, I'm only 22 and not in a committed relationship of any sort right now, so it's not something that's likely to happen in the near future.) I think if my parents are not forced into homelessness by the terrible economic situation where they used to live (and are still trying to sell their house), it would mean more for their ability to support gay rights in the future than if they risk it all on one wedding.
56
ETA: And for the record, I'm personally an agnostic, so while I'd want my dad to perform the ceremony it probably wouldn't be a religious one at his church (a thing he's fine with, as he's always been respectful of my agnosticism - he's, in fact, much happier with it than with my younger sister's conservative fundamentalism, but that's a story for another time). So I don't know whether the congregation would have to know about it and it would affect his job anyway.
57
Anyway, on the main topic: I agree with everyone saying LW's a concern troll. The way he comes up with all these "issues" from one Michelle Obama speech quote sounds way more like someone doing the talking points for an anti-gay org would come up with, than a conclusion any reasonable human being would reach on their own from that quote - which anyone with the reading comprehension level of a fifth-grader would know is an idiom, not a literal statement of how things will happen. Sheesh.
But I don't think it's necessarily bad that Dan responded to it. While most of them probably wouldn't be as stupid as this LW's fake persona, there are people out there who honestly think that forcing churches to marry gays is a real risk of legalizing same-sex marriage, and it's good to have Dan lay down the law on why that's bullshit. As he's said before in responses to fakes, it's not bad to respond to one if it's a question that a real person might have, too.
But I don't think it's necessarily bad that Dan responded to it. While most of them probably wouldn't be as stupid as this LW's fake persona, there are people out there who honestly think that forcing churches to marry gays is a real risk of legalizing same-sex marriage, and it's good to have Dan lay down the law on why that's bullshit. As he's said before in responses to fakes, it's not bad to respond to one if it's a question that a real person might have, too.
58
"I can think of a number of words to describe a question coming from someone who has given the issue so much deep thought, cared enough to write about it at some length, and who knew and used the appropriate title of reference, but which could have been answered by actually reading the language on which people will be voting. Neither 'legitimate' or 'sincere' makes the short list."
Yeah, I agree wholeheartedly. In my time canvassing and phone-banking for various political causes and candidates, I've met plenty of the sort of swing voters whose votes can turn on one stupid misconception, or quotation taken out of context. The fact that he even knows the name of the proposed legislation gives him away as a fake from the outset, because the people who can be convinced by such shallow, easily-disprovable bullshit never think (or care enough) to do that even that much research.
Yeah, I agree wholeheartedly. In my time canvassing and phone-banking for various political causes and candidates, I've met plenty of the sort of swing voters whose votes can turn on one stupid misconception, or quotation taken out of context. The fact that he even knows the name of the proposed legislation gives him away as a fake from the outset, because the people who can be convinced by such shallow, easily-disprovable bullshit never think (or care enough) to do that even that much research.
59
Really? People really puzzle me. I read this and it the church forcing this on me, if I want to marry a the same sex so what. How does that affect you. Its not about the church its not about gay people its about God. And its so sad because you can see that a lot of people on here seem to be pretty smart. But don't mistake smarts for wisdom. The ten commandments where given so the we can see our sin. But when Jesus came we didn't live by those anymore. We lived by faith and the living God and the blood of His Son. Now we live in faith. So its scary to see a paster here bragging about how foolish he is. He of all people should know to live by faith mean we don't live I. Sin or we are no lo get slave to it. To talk as if it is good is just trying to justify your acts in the world which means nothing in heaven. Do you really thin there will be guys on guys and woman on woman in Gods heaven? Then you go to church and pretend to be a man of God. Lol funny. Sounds like you playing church. And does anyone remember the story of Sodom and how God took his anger out on them? Anybody remember Lot the first caveman. He was a caveman because he built his treasures here on earth. Kinda like all I here here. Now all of you people here who thinks its ok to marry same sex do you know the story of Cain and Able? Cain's offering was refused? Why? We really don't know but whatever it was God gave him a chance to make it right, but he instead didn't believe he needed corrected which turn into something way worse. Hey why don't you come to my house and crap on my couch. Oh its not bothering me? When your actions destroy my home?? How does this not affect me, my children, my family, You meenAmerica is my home and its my comfort too? So if you reading this you know right from wrong in your heart. Earthly pleasures will pass and you will be granted access or denied. If you truly think its ok and you think its cool kissing another guy in public take your actions to a remote island. There you can do as you please and don't have to worry about people telling you what to do and when it rains fire on you you can continue telling your gay lo we how much you love them in hell.
More...
60
Really? People really puzzle me. I read this and it's the church forcing this on me, if I want to marry a the same sex so what. How does that affect you. Its not about the church its not about gay people its about God. And its so sad because you can see that a lot of people on here seem to be pretty smart. But don't mistake smarts for wisdom.
The ten commandments where given so that we can see our sin. But when Jesus came we didn't live by those anymore. We lived by faith and the living God and the blood of His Son. Now we live in faith. So its scary to see a paster here bragging about how foolish he is. He of all people should know to live by faith mean we don't live in Sin or we are no longer slave to sin. To talk as if it is good is just trying to justify your acts in the world which means nothing in heaven.
Do you really think there will be guys on guys and woman on woman in Gods Kingdom? (On earth as it is in heaven)Then you go to church and pretend to be a man of God??? This is a serious matter. If anyone here can quote one passage in the bible where it says its ok to have same sex marriage or same sex, sex I will gladly acknowledge it. But to me and a lot others it Sounds like many gay people are playing church.
You can't call yourself a true disciple if you don't follow Jesus. And so many people forget that a Christian is supposed to be exactly that, a disciple. Believe me I'm not saying I'm better then anyone here I fall short from the standards of Jesus. But its grace that we are saved, and through that grace we must repent. As man, woman and a nation.
What would Jesus say to Peter if he was trying to marry Paul? Sounds crazy huh? And does anyone remember the story of Sodom and how God took his anger out on them? Anybody remember Lot the first caveman. He was a caveman because he built his treasures here on earth. Kinda like all I hear here. Now all of you people here who thinks its ok to marry same sex do you know the story of Cain and Able? Cain's offering was refused? Why? We really don't know. But whatever it was, God gave him a chance to make it right, but he instead didn't believe he needed corrected which turn into something way worse.
Hey why don't you come to my house and crap on my couch. Oh its not bothering me? When your actions destroy my home?? How does this not affect me, my children, my family, You mean America is my home and its my comfort too? You mean when God takes his anger out on our nation it has nothing to do with you and our many sins? You mean high gas prices, a weak dollar, weak school system, people killing our kids at school, at the movies, in the mall. You mean people flying planes into our buildings and more guns and drugs flooding our streets then any other country isn't a sign that the one and only living God is not angry. And what you do don't affect me?
So if you reading this repent you know right from wrong in your heart. True Christians love you either way. But love is not love without truth, discipline brotherhood. I could not call my self a Christian and not tell you what God loves. Earthly pleasures will pass and you will be granted access or denied.
But if your heart is hard and you are unwilling to hear or If you truly think its ok to have sex with the same sex then please, take your actions to a remote island. We will call it Sin Island. There you can do as you please and don't have to worry about people telling you what to do, or how to do it. And when it rains fire it will affect Sin Island not the great Nation built on Godly principles. God please forgive them for there sin for they know not what they do.
More...
The ten commandments where given so that we can see our sin. But when Jesus came we didn't live by those anymore. We lived by faith and the living God and the blood of His Son. Now we live in faith. So its scary to see a paster here bragging about how foolish he is. He of all people should know to live by faith mean we don't live in Sin or we are no longer slave to sin. To talk as if it is good is just trying to justify your acts in the world which means nothing in heaven.
Do you really think there will be guys on guys and woman on woman in Gods Kingdom? (On earth as it is in heaven)Then you go to church and pretend to be a man of God??? This is a serious matter. If anyone here can quote one passage in the bible where it says its ok to have same sex marriage or same sex, sex I will gladly acknowledge it. But to me and a lot others it Sounds like many gay people are playing church.
You can't call yourself a true disciple if you don't follow Jesus. And so many people forget that a Christian is supposed to be exactly that, a disciple. Believe me I'm not saying I'm better then anyone here I fall short from the standards of Jesus. But its grace that we are saved, and through that grace we must repent. As man, woman and a nation.
What would Jesus say to Peter if he was trying to marry Paul? Sounds crazy huh? And does anyone remember the story of Sodom and how God took his anger out on them? Anybody remember Lot the first caveman. He was a caveman because he built his treasures here on earth. Kinda like all I hear here. Now all of you people here who thinks its ok to marry same sex do you know the story of Cain and Able? Cain's offering was refused? Why? We really don't know. But whatever it was, God gave him a chance to make it right, but he instead didn't believe he needed corrected which turn into something way worse.
Hey why don't you come to my house and crap on my couch. Oh its not bothering me? When your actions destroy my home?? How does this not affect me, my children, my family, You mean America is my home and its my comfort too? You mean when God takes his anger out on our nation it has nothing to do with you and our many sins? You mean high gas prices, a weak dollar, weak school system, people killing our kids at school, at the movies, in the mall. You mean people flying planes into our buildings and more guns and drugs flooding our streets then any other country isn't a sign that the one and only living God is not angry. And what you do don't affect me?
So if you reading this repent you know right from wrong in your heart. True Christians love you either way. But love is not love without truth, discipline brotherhood. I could not call my self a Christian and not tell you what God loves. Earthly pleasures will pass and you will be granted access or denied.
But if your heart is hard and you are unwilling to hear or If you truly think its ok to have sex with the same sex then please, take your actions to a remote island. We will call it Sin Island. There you can do as you please and don't have to worry about people telling you what to do, or how to do it. And when it rains fire it will affect Sin Island not the great Nation built on Godly principles. God please forgive them for there sin for they know not what they do.
61
In Hawaii, churches are forced to have same sex weddings. No particular person is forced to perform the weddings, however, they have to allow it in their church. So you see, the argument is over. Churches can and will be forced.
http://www.nomblog.com/17555/
http://www.nomblog.com/17555/
62
What's this I hear? Homosexual marriage is the new proposal? 135 years with Jefferson’s Establishment Clause and this is the extent of our social advancements? How far have we advanced from the separation of church and state with the institution of marriage (which is just as much a personal interpretation of a relationship as any religion)? Have we not yet realized the proposed "solution" will only PERPETUATE the complication it aims to eliminate? Assuming of course, the underlying motive (conscious or not) is aimed at extending an aspect of freedom to all, rather than affording it to some. An admirable utilitarian solution-which requires the humility of both sides of the disagreement-would be to petition for marriage as a government recognized (nay! regulated) institution to be abandoned altogether: a solution for dispute, documented back to the reign of King Solomon (see 1 Kings 3:16-28).
The purported dispute between religion and civil liberty would vanish if marriage as an institution was nullified; moreover, taxation would be made simpler. Disappointment would be less frequent, since those who happen to be consistently involved in a romantic relationship would no longer feel the pressure to enter into a legally binding engagement. And the genuine will be able to prove their love through faithfulness.
While the advocates for heterosexual marriage have bought into the dogma that there is an intrinsic value beyond the interpretation of relationships, the advocates for homosexual marriage are irritated by the problem of unequal treatment (and rightfully so). Nevertheless, the heterosexual advocates (those who would wish to distinguish themselves as "Moral/Righteous") have have fooled the rest into thinking the American institution of marriage is a genuine problem.
More...
The purported dispute between religion and civil liberty would vanish if marriage as an institution was nullified; moreover, taxation would be made simpler. Disappointment would be less frequent, since those who happen to be consistently involved in a romantic relationship would no longer feel the pressure to enter into a legally binding engagement. And the genuine will be able to prove their love through faithfulness.
While the advocates for heterosexual marriage have bought into the dogma that there is an intrinsic value beyond the interpretation of relationships, the advocates for homosexual marriage are irritated by the problem of unequal treatment (and rightfully so). Nevertheless, the heterosexual advocates (those who would wish to distinguish themselves as "Moral/Righteous") have have fooled the rest into thinking the American institution of marriage is a genuine problem.
63
What's this I hear? Homosexual marriage is the new proposal? 135 years with Jefferson’s Establishment Clause and this is the extent of our social advancements? How far have we advanced from the separation of church and state with the institution of marriage (which is just as much a personal interpretation of a relationship as any religion)? Have we not yet realized the proposed "solution" will only PERPETUATE the complication it aims to eliminate? Assuming of course, the underlying motive (conscious or not) is aimed at extending an aspect of freedom to all, rather than affording it to some. An admirable utilitarian solution-which requires the humility of both sides of the disagreement-would be to petition for marriage as a government recognized (nay! regulated) institution to be abandoned altogether: a solution for dispute, documented back to the reign of King Solomon (see 1 Kings 3:16-28).
The purported dispute between religion and civil liberty would vanish if marriage as an institution was nullified; moreover, taxation would be made simpler. Disappointment would be less frequent, since those who happen to be consistently involved in a romantic relationship would no longer feel the pressure to enter into a legally binding engagement. And the genuine will be able to prove their love through faithfulness.
While the advocates for heterosexual marriage have bought into the dogma that there is an intrinsic value beyond the interpretation of relationships, the advocates for homosexual marriage are irritated by the problem of unequal treatment (and rightfully so). Nevertheless, the heterosexual advocates (those who would wish to distinguish themselves as "Moral/Righteous") have have fooled the rest into thinking the American institution of marriage is a genuine problem.
More...
The purported dispute between religion and civil liberty would vanish if marriage as an institution was nullified; moreover, taxation would be made simpler. Disappointment would be less frequent, since those who happen to be consistently involved in a romantic relationship would no longer feel the pressure to enter into a legally binding engagement. And the genuine will be able to prove their love through faithfulness.
While the advocates for heterosexual marriage have bought into the dogma that there is an intrinsic value beyond the interpretation of relationships, the advocates for homosexual marriage are irritated by the problem of unequal treatment (and rightfully so). Nevertheless, the heterosexual advocates (those who would wish to distinguish themselves as "Moral/Righteous") have have fooled the rest into thinking the American institution of marriage is a genuine problem.
In an effort to keep
the
discourse respectful and on topic, commenting on this item is
available only to registered commenters.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
All You Motherfuckers Complaining That aPodments Are Too Small at 200 Square Feet by Dominic Holden
-
SL Letter of the Day: Did You Think I Was Going To Tell You Not To Come Out? (PLUS: Help Free Kate!) by Dan Savage
-
Rightwing Anti-Gay French Activist Commits Suicide at Notre Dame Cathedral by Dan Savage
-
It's Spring! Who's Ready for Street Harassment? by Cienna Madrid
-
Spoiled Rotten: Star Trek Into Darkness by Paul Constant
-
America's Epidemic of Toddler-on-Toddler Gun Violence Continues by Goldy
-
Slog Overnight by Dan Savage
-
Saint Genet Re-Creates "Shoot" by Brendan Kiley
-
Dutch Artist Turns Dead Cat into Remote-Controlled Helicopter by Bethany Jean Clement
-
New Gun Enthusiast... by Dan Savage
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (63) RSS