Thursday, January 27, 2005

Gay Marriage Settled

How to deal with the "question" of Gay Marriage:

I am looking forward to the first Sunday in February. In a church meeting, surrounded by priests and high priests and probably a bishop, my grandson will be given a name and a blessing Were he a Catholic or an Anglican he would be christened. Where he a Jew he might even have been circumcised as part of a religious ceremony. When I was in Japan I saw some wonderful Shinto naming ceremonies complete with beautiful silk kimonos for mother and child. It was a beautiful and meaningful ceremony to all who honor the teaching of that ancient religion, but like all of the ceremonies referenced above, it had absolutely no force of civil law. Almost two months ago my grandson was already given a name. It was chosen by his parents and will be printed out on his birth certificate. Along with the name he got his social security number and all the rights and privileges of American citizenship. Why the two ceremonies and the redundant certificates?

I was baptized into my church years ago. There was not official government document, but I didn’t feel badly about that. My baptism was sacred sacrament of my religion; the state had no business there. My Catholic friend did not consider me baptized and he told me I would end up in Hell, but I didn’t care. I didn’t believe him or in his particular version of baptism. I know many people who were never baptized and frankly they don’t care that many "religious" people think they are somehow incomplete with out the process. And the government of my country takes no note of either condition at all.

I see in this separation of church and state the perfect solution to the "question" of gay marriages now dividing America. Get the state out of the marriage business. Let the state sanction civil union contracts only. Such unions would follow all the same legal forms and standards as what is now called "marriage" but would require only government documentation or certification or whatever now puts into place the legal obligations of man, wife, and parent.

Now turn marriage ceremonies over to religions institutions or party caterers or wood elves. I suppose that since the Pope does not recognize the priesthood of the bishop presiding at the "blessing" of my grand baby, he is not officially named in the view of the Catholic Church. I don’t care, my grandson wasn’t named as a Jew or a Shinto either. I don’t think that will ever bother him But he has a name on the records of the Government of the United States. And civil unions could serve the same purpose in uniting people under law who want to share their lives together. If ones church doesn’t want to marry gay people they will never be required to. And all who believe that gay marriage is a sin will be able to know in their hearts that gay people cannot be married in the church the people who don’t believe in gay marriage belong to. The same thing will then apply to gay people who want to get married. They can find plenty of churches or party caterers or wood elves to preform the ceremony for them. If the gay couple is motivated by the protection of their union and not by the desire to "in your face" people who they don’t agree with; they should be satisfied. Everyone will be happy, everyone will have the privileges and responsibilities now required of men and wives under the obligations of the government and everyone will be satisfied that their sacred ceremony of marriage has not been violated.


Apollo said...

I completely agree that government is not to be involved in certain "sacraments." Neither do I think that Lysus is going to hell for not being baptized in a certain religion. As for gay marriage, let them have them, but with certain stipulations. I think it should be entirely up to their religion to whether or not they can be married in their churches, temples, synogouges, or whatever else. Gays are just people who are a little messed up and will keep making a fuss about whatever is against them until they die, go straight, or get their way. Give this one to the gays I say. They're like the hippies of the 70's, they just can't be ignored.


A_Shadow said...

I think I'm going to, in the sense of good taste, try and ignore that other comment... But I would ask, "What stipulations should there be for a gay marriage?" If you could find it in you to answer, that would be grand.

I have to say that Lysis has hit my feelings square. I have thought about how best to end the situation and came back with this same thing, more or less, shortly before the elections of 2004. I would have it much the same way, but he neglected the same thing that I haven't found an answer for, as of yet...

I think that a lot to do with the union of gays in the eyes of the law is that they want to be able to perform as a couple, meaning that one will have power of attourney should the other be hospitalized or otherwise incappacitated. The other major point that I have heard thrown around is that of taxes. Some gay couples feel the need to be recognized so that they can gain the same tax exemtions and benefits that straight couples, and families, do. I don't know really how to confer that to them. But I would have those disolved, I'm sure it would ruffle the feathers of millions of Americans, but I don't really know how else to do it.

I believe in the power of choice, and since they aren't harming anyone else by being so, let them marry. If you have a problem with them being married, rest assured that you won't burn in hell because you are the neighbor to a gay family. There isn't really any harm in letting them marry, so why would you stop it. I have plenty of arguments about the wisdom of being gay (both natural and religious), but I can't find anything that should permit them from being married. Can you?

Apollo said...

Stipulations should be chosen by their religious leaders. Since I am not a religious leader, I have no idea. I'd sure like to hear your solutions A_Shadow.


A_Shadow said...

I'm not really understanding still. Are you talking about religions deciding or not if it is possible within the religion, or what? Stipulations to me say that "It would be ok if..." then finish the statement. Stipulations come in if, then, statements... And you don't have any example of one of these "stipulations"?

I don't think that posting my ideas would mean much, other than what I did, since I feel that Lysis did a wonderful job of it. I'm just curious as to how he would address the economic issues that accompany the decision as well.

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

Lysis, How could you post such rediculous nonsense on this site? Everything you say is an outragoes lie! And what isn't a lie is either stupid or greatly exaggerated. You should be ashamed for all the things you have posted. Please do us all a favor and stop posting on this site. It sickens me to read your postings. You are further right then Mike Moore is left. I myself am a republican and you are a disgrace to our great party.

Dan Simpson said...

Anonymous, in what possible way is this post leftist? He is advocating gay marriage.

Lysis said...

Dear Anonymous,

You ask how I can post such ridiculous nonsense on this site? Well although I gladly share this site with all my friends, including you, it my site.

Please tell me the lies I have told; I didn’t do it on purpose.

You say everything I say is a lie and then say that what aren't lies is either stupid or greatly
exaggerated. I would love some examples of the non lie stupid exaggerations.

I am not ashamed of anything I have posted, because I have always done so in good faith. If I have posted something shameful, show me what and I will humbly apologize.

I will not stop posting on this site, and I hope you can endure the pain my posting causes stoically enough to continue reading and posting yourself.

How am I so far right? I offer a comprise by which everyone can have the protection of law and at the same time preserve their religious sensibilities and you compare me to Mike More!

I am afraid I have long been a disgrace to many parities - but I have usually benefitted from the
open mindedness of people who’s opinions about things, including myself, I value most.

I hope you will take the time to read and post and make me better.

Silver Lining said...

"Patronization and Adhominem do not good arguments or rebuttals make."

Are we hearing from the same Anonymous??

Dan Simpson said...

I meant far right, not leftist.

Anonymous said...

I am not the same "Anonymous" that posted above, but unlike him (or her) I agree with everything posted on this site. Especially the comment on gay marriage. The state should be COMPLETELY out of gay marriage. I like your analogy of your baptism with the state having no buisiness there. Gay people can find a church that will marry them. I myself do not believe in gay marriage, but that does not mean the I should restict the rights of the people I disagree with. But Lysis, you said you were a high school teacher right? Then perhaps you would consider my opinion on this anonymous poster: I believe there is a 99.9 percent chance that "Anonymous" is one of your students. Two words: practical joke.

A_Shadow said...

While I respect the right of those under the alias of "Annonymous" to remain with their identities ambiguous. I figured something like this was bound to happen... Isn't it about time to put a "name" to the words? At least then an honest "Annonymous" won't be construed with a practical joker...

Silver Lining said...

I have now re-read everything here. I think I am the only one who doesn't have a complete understanding of the argument, so I will pose my question hoping to be enlightened.

Lysis mentions the fact that the name for his grandson was chosen in the hospital and appropriate paperwork filled out. That satisfies the government requirement and gets the birth certificate and social security number (evidences of citizenship).

When you say take the government out of marriage completely Lysis, does that mean getting rid of the government interest in marriage? What I mean is that currently one applies for a marriage license through the state and then gets married by someone who has been granted authority (by the state technically) to marry. For those who chose religious ceremonies, they take their state issued license and then are married. The state, in turn, recognizes the marriage after the papers are signed appropriately, and a marriage certificate is issued. At the same time, those married in a religious ceremony have whatever religious meaning attached to that union that they believe (similar to the blessing of your grandson). Afterward, there are the state interests of taxation and of inheritance that come into play.

By getting the state out of the marriage business altogether, it seems to me that we would all have to have a civil union (birth certificate etc. to stick with the analogy) and a separate ceremony if so desired. Otherwise, the state would have to relinquish giving authority to marry, its interest in taxation according to marriage, etc. and leave marriage and the meaning and ceremony associated with it entirely up to the non-governmental sphere. Am I understanding your argument correctly?

A_Shadow said...

I can't, and thus won't, answer for Lysis. But I feel that our views are nearly identical enough to voice a bit of opinion here.

Yes. I think the state should basically step out of marriage. The biggest question that I couldn't answer is that of power of attourney. Doctors need certain permissions to perform some operations, and usually that is deferred to the spouse or parent. Otherwise I think that all of the economic benefits should be thrown out if it would create a just unity and peace with people in the community.

Marriage is, and has been always, a concept of religion. The state noticed certain trends of married couples (such as the trend that they're going to have children) and adjusted taxation guidelines to accomodate that. I don't think that the state really needs anything like that. Especially when it begins to dictate whom a persons percieves that they love. Let them express their rights to the extent of everyone else. It's only right to do so.

Dan Simpson said...

So, A_shadow, are you advocating that all tax laws that give benefits for children be stricken?

Lysis said...

Silver Lining:

I think you did get my point. But please let me clarify and I hope this will make my thoughts
clear to Shadow as well.

It comes down to the difference between a marriage "contract", and a marriage "ceremony". I just
would no longer call the legal contract a marriage, but a civil union. I would transfer the term marriage exclusively to the ceremony one by a religion or some other non governmental entity.

To go back to the analogy of my grandson’s naming. Most religions have a title for the ceremony I will be participating in Sunday. Some call it a Christening, some Baptism. In my religion it is called a “Blessing”. This religious blessing ceremony allows blessings and before God covenants to be done in a church without any binding force in civil law. If my grandson’s parents had not filled out the birth certificate application and the Social Security Card
information, but solely relied on his blessing ceremony in church to give him a name; he would not legally have an name. In the same way a church marriage ceremony would not constitute a leally binding union. That legal union would not be called marriage, but civil union.

State authority would still be granted to put in place all the “legal” contracts and obligations, but we would not call it marriage. Marriage would be done or not done at the desire of the couple and under the authority of whom ever they choose. Thus some churches could refuse to marry gay people but they could not be denied a Cival Union. It would be the civil union that would carry all the interests and legal obligations: taxation, divorce obligation, child support, etc. And the marriage would have no legal weight, only a “religious” one.

***A further note to answer Shadow’s questions:

Marriages have not always had religious connotations especially to the nonreligious. For example my parents were “civilly” married by a Justice of the Peace in Burly Idaho long before they were “religiously” married in the Salt Lake temple. As I have tried to explain above - all legal obligations and privileges: taxes, insurance, who gets to turn off the life support machine, would be under to the legal authority of the state and granted by a “Civil Union”!

A_Shadow said...

I realize that, but I doubt many of the Greeks worried about power of attourney. I'm talking farther back than even America, farther than Europe was known to history. I'm a little fuzzy on the details, but I don't think that power of attourney and the like was as big a problem, but I don't know how much religion had to say, either.

I think it's a good time to let your knowledge of classical greece shine in on the subject.

Beef Jerky said...

Gay marriage does in fact affect others besides the two love birds. Being legally married, a gay couple would then be allowed to adopt children, therefore affecting the lives of the innocent. If we as a nation believe its okay to indoctrinate children with the idea that such a relationship is acceptable, then by all means let's allow it. But I personally have a problem with that. I don't feel like gay marriage is acceptable no matter what pretext is given. Therefore, why should a child be forced to be raised and indoctrinated in such a situation? I do hope this argument does not sound relativist.

A_Shadow said...

"Being legally married, a gay couple would then be allowed to adopt children, therefore affecting the lives of the innocent."

I'm going to take exception to this argument based on if I were pro-gay. Which I'm not, but I am for the justice of the people. Anyways, here you are asserting that all married couples may adopt, including gay ones. But if that were the case then children would never be taken by child services in the first place. Adoptees have to go through intensive screening, don't they? I would think that our legal system would be a decent judge on the safety and wellbeing of an adopted child. I'm advocating for the right for people to get married, whatever that means to them. As far as I know there isn't anything to stop even a single mother or father from adopting a child. And at least the female half of the race has been known to be artificially inseminated at times. I don't know how we could stop all of that. But yes, I don't agree that a child should grow up with that level of circumstance. But that's from the thoughts conjured in my own mind, not from any real, tangible proof. If you could show me some gay couples that have children and show me a detriment, then I would solidify my case. But right now it just would make the most sense for a child to be persuaded by a family in that case, just like if the child had parents who smoked or drank.

Perhaps to sate your concerns, should we ever broach the subject of child adoption and gay couples, you could voice your concerns to your representative and have it attempt to legislate your cause. I, personally, would think that in the case of the child being forced there would be something that could intervene. But I think that any child in that situation would just want to be loved. So it's hard to say. I find it difficult to see single mothers and their attempt to raise children. But having two mothers can hardly be much different, I'd imagine.

Anyways, most of the above were recants of similar arguments that I've had from gay-rights activists. In my own thought and time on the subject I've come to the agreement that because their lifestyle has no negative impacts on the masses (especially when considered with those caused by the severe cases of drunkards and smokers, which are legal and have rights like the rest of us), I can't think of a reason to justify denying them rights. I don't advocate their lifestyle, not anymore than I advocate polygamy, I don't hold a banner with their cause for their parades. But explain to me why the should be treated differently in the eyes of the law?

Lysis said...

Beef Jerky – Shadow has given most of the arguments I would have suggested to you very clearly. I would like to follow one thread a little further. If homosexuality is wrong, why doesn’t the State inforce laws against it? When states have tried to inforce the arcaine laws against sodomy still on their books, these laws have been struck down. Why have they been struck down? Because such laws were seen to be both discriminatory and involve private concerns that are not the province of government. The State can stop people from committing crimes in private – but the State cannot prevent the practice homosexual acts – hence such acts are not deemed illegal. If homosexual acts are not illegal the law cannot punish people for doing them. Since denying people the chance to have children would be a punishment, it cannot be allowed. The remedy is to make the homosexual life style illegal. You could make such laws justly if you can demonstrate some evil in homosexual actions. As Shadow has pointed out that there are many things that should disqualify people from being parents. Few of them do, but when they do,it is because there is a demonstratable harm to a child involved. Beef Jerky, to strengthen your position, you must demonstrate a harm to children that comes from having a gay parent or parents. Saying that adoption would expose them to homosexuality will not work as a just cause for establishing civil law against gay marriage or adoption until it is demonstrated that homosexuality is “wrong”.

Apollo said...

Homosexuality is wrong and so is much more that our country overlooks, at least in my point of view. Our constitution allows it though. That's a good thing though. When the government tells us what is wrong and right, that ,my friends, is communism.

support_trondheim_bomb said...

blegh. gay people. ew.

hippies in the 70s? those people are either dead or old hippies, the mediphor should be comparing how the hippies of today cant be ignored. blegh. hippies. ew.

"get a life! get a job! cant you afford to cut your hair?"
blegh. too many people living in one house. the hippies of the seventies are nothing compared to the really real hippies of today. too many marriages with siblings/cousins/other relatives. soon enough all your kids are gonna have mental disorders and fetal marijuana syndrome. and birth defects. shut up, me. birth defects are cool and we all know it. Just forget i said anything negative about birth defects. i think we all wish we could have three arms or an excessive amount
of flesh in one heap on our back(yeah, a hump, quazi modo was gifted if you ignore his face, and having a hump would give you big arm muscles)

the only really real thing i have to say about gay marriage is, taking something so pure as the constitution, and practically patting down dead flies or ostrich crap or something else really nasty onto it. thats what making gay marriage legal be like doing. and i have a problem with that.

Ares said...

Well, although those attacks were doubtless fun to write, I somehow doubt that Mr. Trondhiem Bomb has much evidence to back up his argument, at least I didnt see any when I read his statement. I would encourage him or her to coome forward with some evidence as to how gay marraige is like putting animal excretions by the Constitution. And to say that it is the most pure document is going a little far, it has had flaws just like any other piece of law. If it was so pure to begin with, why do we have all those Amendments? Although, I will agree that it is a good and sacred document that should be protected, I for one cannont see any evidence of gay marraige tarnishing it.

Apollo said...

I've known you for a while and I must say your argument was weak, but considering that you didn't have much to go off of in the evidence field I must say welcome to the blog.

Anyways, Mr. Trondhiem Bomb-
What evidence do you have to say that the constitution is perfect? I agree with Ares in saying it is very importatnt but has its flaws, but sacred? I thought we were supposed to have sepperation of law and religion.

The constitution is very flawed as the ammendments show, but if I may, I would like to turn your attention to the Declaration of Independance. It is extremely one sided I know but it serves the purpose that I am going to need it for. We have certain unalienable rights such as life, liberty, and... THE PERSUIT OF HAPPINESS! You wish to take that last right away? If not then it is our right and your duty to alter or abolish the statement that gay marriage is crap spread over the "perfect" and "sacred" constitution! You have to be pretty narrow minded not to realize that you may be wrong with this subject. Then again you may be right, it is not my place to say.


My Blog said...

Almost two months ago my grandson was already given a name.