Morning Read: Is gay marriage debate about religious freedom or bigotry?
Albany is down to the wire this week on a wide range of issues and one of the biggest is same-sex marriage. The state Senate is one vote away from a deal that would make New York the sixth state in the country to approve gay marriage.
This morning’s newspapers offer sort of the two faces of what this debate is about. The one side looks and sounds like a reasoned debate among civilized people. This from the AP via the Adirondack Daily Enterprise.
Will the Knights of Columbus be required to open their halls for gay weddings if New York lawmakers legalize same-sex marriage?
Will Catholic adoption agencies be forced to choose between placing children with gay couples or leaving the business?
As New York moves closer to a vote on legislation that would make it the sixth and largest state to allow same-sex marriage, some Republicans want stronger legal protections for religious organizations that object to the practice.
That, I think, is a pretty reasonable conversation to be having, especially in a state like New York where religious institutions — from hospitals to drug treatment centers to job programs — are often run by religious groups.
What happens when a gay couple wants services from such an organization? And what happens if that organization is using taxpayer funds? Can they still choose not to serve gays or lesbians?
(I actually think this part of the discussion needs to be broadened. What happens if a taxpayer-funded religious group chooses, based on their beliefs, to deny serve to anyone, on grounds of race or religion or sexual orientation?)
As always, it’s a bit dodgy that Albany has left these questions until the last minute, but that’s the way things work in New York state.
But it’s only fair to point out that there’s another side to this debate, one with a much uglier face. The Press Republican is reporting this morning that Clinton County legislator Sam Trombley from Ellenburg uncorked a doozy of a rant this week against gay couples.
“You don’t see two male dogs sleeping in the same dog house together,” he said [during a public meeting]. “It blows my mind to think of it.”
Trombley went on to describe gay couples as diseased, suggesting that “we are going to have an HIV epidemic if this passes.”
I think it’s hard to dismiss the fact that this kind of bald-faced Jim Crow style bigotry fuels a lot of the opposition to marriage equality, in New York state and around the country.
According to the Press Republican, Trombley suggested that New York state has better things to do with its time than debate the civil rights of the human beings he he describes as diseased dogs.
But I think his comments prove that this is exactly the right time to have this discussion, both in our homes over the dinner table, in our churches and other places of worship, and in our civic forums and legislature.
This is a tough subject, so please keep it civil and thoughtful.
Tags: gay marriage, glbt
hermit and Dave:
I guess you are both equating being gay to being black, for example.
I disagree with that assertion. I don’t see gay behavior as being more similar to excessive drinking than being black.
Given that we disagree with the underlying cause of gay behavior, our conclusions will, of necessity, reflect that difference.
I am not alone in this belief, by a long shot. Neither are you.
I think that granting legal status to gay behavior is somewhat analogous to granting permissible driving rights to excessive drinking behavior.
Both are bad for society.
JDM, you may believe that “gay behavior” is a choice and you may know or know of many people who agree with you but the people who really count, the people who are gay themselves seem to pretty much be in agreement that it is not a choice.
I have heard many testify that they wish it was a choice because being gay can be very difficult in a society where the way you are is treated as a slur, where you can be assaulted for being who you are, where you may find that friends and family abandon you because of who you are.
Your comparison of being gay and excessive drinking would be laughable if it wasn’t so hurtful.
bigotry comes from smiling people and people in suits. The worst comes from people who cannot even see it in their own words.
jdm,
of course i wouldn’t equate being gay with being black. and anyway you’re referring entirely to dave’s words, not mine. but while we’re at it, yes i do think there’s a good analogy between being gay and being black in the example he talked about. just as you seem to think there’s a good analogy between being gay and drunk driving, or, as you said in another thread, between being gay and being addicted to drugs (but don’t worry, nothing bigoted about that).
for someone whose stated purpose is to persuade people to adopt his point of view, it’s very confusing why you continue to be so evasive.
here’s the big question again: why is gay marriage bad for society?
in the thread i linked to above, i and others practically begged you explain yourself. but all you managed were mealy-mouthed platitudes like “it’s against nature” or that “there is harm to the individual” without ever specifying what the harm is. and i don’t know if your new analogy between gay marriage and drunk driving is intended as an answer to my question. but it again doesn’t actually explain anything; its only content is that you think gay marriage is bad.
again, why is gay marriage bad for society?
what are examples of the harm it causes? how does it make anyone worse off?
if you are genuinely are trying to convince people, then surely you can easily answer these questions.
I’m hoping that JDM will respond to Hermit’s 4:04 PM inquiry. I am genuinely baffled by the ‘harm to society’ argument.
We would surely benefit from fewer people engaging in high risk lifestyles and we tend to approve of people in committed relationships, buying homes, mowing their lawns, paying taxes, and all that. Goodness knows that the planet doesn’t really need lots more babies to sustain. So, what’s the danger to society that I’m overlooking?
Ahh, the comfort of being enshrined in the wisdom of the past! Ancient fables directing todays’ societal issues….isn’t it wonderful. We’ve come so far.
Okay, first off- Mayflower: “We would surely benefit from fewer people engaging in high risk lifestyles and we tend to approve of people in committed relationships, buying homes, mowing their lawns, paying taxes, and all that. ”
Please, just how does a piece of paper ensure in any possible way that suddenly married gays will stop engaging in high risk behavior, buy homes, mow their lawns, pay their taxes, etc? I believe the popular definition for such a thought is “strawman”. There is nothing stopping any gays from doing anything you listed now. The only arguments I can think of that follow your line of reasoning would be the “hospital rules” type of thing where only relatives can be with a patient. That is an administrative decision the affected hospitals could fix in a heartbeat!
Secondly, as I’ve stated, more or less, over the past few days this isn’t about equality. This is about special privileges for a select group. If this was about equality then the issue would be removing any bar to any couple or group that wished to marry any other person of legal age. That’s not what this is about. I maintain this is as much about legislating acceptance of the gay community as it is about desire to marry. If passed this will give legal recognition to the entire gay community as a legitimate group, a minority if you will.
I would also agree with JDM that this is detrimental to to heterosexuals currently married. By changing the definition of marriage form one man/one woman you effectively disenfranchise and de-legitimatize heterosexual marriage. Maybe that’s a stretch to some, but look at it this way- if you tried to pass a law that stated the legal term for gay men was “X” and for gay women “Y” then wouldn’t that alter the meaning and value of the term male and female? Or if you stopped calling hetero men and women that and gave them the “X” and “Y” and called continued calling gay men and women “men and women” then wouldn’t that also alter definition and value of the terms?
We’re changing a fundamental term to fit something it never has before. I think that alters the value and meaning of the word and the institution. I also think it’s gov’t pushing beyond it’s mandate. The idea of marriages being approved by gov’t goes back to having to get permission from the Master/King/Reeve of the Shire to marry…and to pay a fee to do so! I think marriage should be left to the church. There is no effective difference between a co-habitating couple and a married couple these days, other than the penalties via taxes and the issue of communal property. With that in mind this becomes even more clearly a poilitical move.
If gays are given rights, then people who hate gays will have to find another group to hate. This, in my opinion, is discrinatory and bigoted against people who just want to hate someone.
You may have a different opinion, and if you do, you are by definition a bigot.
(discriminatory)
Why do people keep trying to redefine marriage to include gay people in the name of equality? Marriage is a sacred institution, not by man, but by God, as the union between a Man and a Woman. The purpose is for the continuity of life. How can gay couples do that? There is not even a possibility. That IS the substantial difference, so why claim equality where there is none?
Those who advocate gay marriage do not believe in God. If they do, as most of them would claim they do, then why are they disobeying God and trying to change what God said marriage is supposed to be? If God meant marriage to include people of the same sex, surely He would have said so when he instituted it. We cannot say we believe in God and yet not obey Him, or obey only whenever it’s convenient, or only if it’s popular. That’s hypocrisy. Where is integrity (something a lot of people and politicians don’t understand)?
We tend to take our freedoms too far. Many think that being free is being able to do whatever we want. If that is so, what are we going to do next, allow those who love their dogs so much to marry their dogs? The truth is we are only free to follow God’s commandments because these laws keep things in order, and there is order because of these laws. Gay marriage clearly violates the order of things. This is not an exercise of freedom but an abuse of freedom. Keep marriage between a man and a woman. Let’s not try to change that in the name of equality because there is none.
JDM lives off a diet of apples and oranges.
Dogs arent human and so arent entitled to human/civil rights. However… Since the supreme court ruled that corporations are essentially human, perhaps we should worry about whether or not corporations can marry.
Ohdear. I agree, Bret, that a marriage certificate does not stop people (gay or not) from engaging in risky behavior — though I think fidelity is considerably more common among married couples than singles. And I agree that anyone (gay or not) can mow the lawn — though I think committed couples tend to put down roots more than unmarried or singles. Neither of your “points” distinguish between gay or hetero couples, so the relevance would be what?
Your linguistic distinctions escape me. Are you suggesting that your married gay co-worker is somehow endangering the relationship between you and your spouse? Making one or both of you a different sort of man or woman? Weakening your commitments, legal or emotional? Or is your concern confined to word definition and, if so, how does that linguistic matter affect society?
Ultimately, if as you say there is “no effective difference between a co-habitating couple and a married couple these days” why in the world are you fussing so much?
ANNF says:
“Those who advocate gay marriage do not believe in God. If they do, as most of them would claim they do, then why are they disobeying God and trying to change what God said marriage is supposed to be?”
I love it when people assume they know what God wants. Have they spoken to God? If not, then that is truly the height of arrogance. And last I checked we are not a theocracy.
JDM says:
” think that granting legal status to gay behavior is somewhat analogous to granting permissible driving rights to excessive drinking behavior.
Both are bad for society.”
Why is granting “legal status to gay behavior” bad for society? Because the Bible says so?
Also, what is this talk about “high risk behaivor” referring to? I assume they refer to unprotected anal sex? That is an issue of personal choice and not all gays engage in it, just like not all heteorsexual couples have children.
Usually I’m able to understand both sides of an issue, but in the case of same sex marriage, I found anti arguments completely unperuasive and nothing more than veiled bigotry.
Here’s a compromise: don’t like same sex marriage, then don’t marry someone of the same sex or attend a same sex wedding. It’s a simple, simple solution to the problem.
scratchy says: “I love it when people assume they know what God wants. Have they spoken to God? If not, then that is truly the height of arrogance. And last I checked we are not a theocracy.”
Aaaahh… The Bible. That is how God speaks to us. I love it too when people choose to ignore what He says when it is convenient for them.
What I understand as the height of arrogance is trying to be gods ourselves. Marriage is by God, as defined by God. Gay “marriage” is not God’s marriage, and should not even be called marriage.
ANNF, I hope you are out picketing straight married couples without kids, since they, too, violate your view of God’s law.
“Why are people afraid of homosexual behavior? It’s been around as long as humans have.”
? Could the negative reaction be just as inherent as fear of heights?
If homosexuality is a natural element of the world, then why wouldn’t a negative reaction to it be just as natural? A system of plus and minus, like the reast of the natural world?
Does humankind have a predisposed aversion to things as a self-preservation mechanism?
The bible tells us how to treat women too. Fortunately, for women, most of us ignore that biblical advice.
bret writes:
i think you’re both right and wrong. it is about equality. but as you correctly note, it’s only about equality between gay and straight couples. and that’s fine!
and i don’t think the “special privileges” line really works, for two reasons. first, right now heterosexual couples have special privileges. they’re the only ones with legal access to the institution of marriage. it’s been that way for a long long time, but so what? they’re still special privileges. so if you really think that special privileges are a problem, then i hope you’re prepared to argue that lots and lots of other people and arrangements should be given access to marriage.
second, you’ve said yourself that gay civil unions are fine. which means that either you’re in favor of “special privileges for a select group,” or you’re in favor of “removing any bar to any couple or group that wished to [form a civil union with] any other person of legal age.” now, i don’t actually think you’re favor of either, and i’m pretty sure i just copied your own logic. so something tells me this special privileges business isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.
yes that’s exactly right. it will be a major change for the better, one whose day we should all fight to bring as soon as possible. the gay community is a legitimate group, one that deserves to be recognized in the law.
sorry, messed up the formatting. the double-blockquoted stuff at the end is all me talking.
oa says: ANNF, I hope you are out picketing straight married couples without kids, since they, too, violate your view of God’s law.
no. the purpose of marriage between a man and a woman is for the continuity of life. whether that purpose materializes or not does not affect what marriage is, in the same manner that we should not abolish laws that say it is unlawful to kill anyone because people kill other people anyway.
dear annf,
of course you’re perfectly entitled to live your own life according to your own religious beliefs. but what you’re calling for is theocracy. you’re calling for the imposition of your religious beliefs on all of society, on everyone, whether they share your beliefs or not. are you sure that’s a good idea? whatever happened to “render unto caesar what is caesar’s”?
i personally think theocracy is a terrible idea and has led to horrible outcomes whenever and wherever it’s been tried.
i also can’t help but point out this:
and this:
so i take it you abide by all of the following?
ANNF said: “the purpose of marriage between a man and a woman is for the continuity of life.”
Right. Barren couples are not continuing life, and by your definition are in defiance of God’s law. So they should divorce and find someone with whom they can properly reproduce.
Got it.
I will not even go into the Bible verses because that was taken out of context.
I am not advocating theocracy. My point is simply that MORAL LAW is the basis of civil society, of its laws. We are attacking the very foundation upon which our society is built, the values which have, in the first place, brought us to where we are. Is that a sign that we “have come so far?” I think that is going backwards.
And I think I am entitled to express my own opinion just us all of you are, without being labeled a bigot.
annf,
but how can those bible verses be taken out of context? i mean, it’s the bible. it’s the word of god. if god says not to do something, then that’s all there is to it, right? we should all quit screwing around on the internet and be out picketing tattoo parlors!
but more seriously, if you claim that bible verses are taken out of context, are you sure that the six-some-odd purported mentions of homosexuality in the bible aren’t also taken out of context?
i don’t understand what you mean by that. what exactly is “moral law”? where does it derive its legitimacy from? i personally think allowing gay marriage is very moral, and indeed it’s immoral to disallow it. i would appreciate it if you could explain yourself more.
i think you’re certainly entitled to express your opinion. but if that opinion is one of obstinate intolerance and hostility towards others, then the rest of us are perfectly well entitled to label it as bigotry. i’m personally not saying that what you’ve said here actually rises to the level of bigotry, but i think that’s how things work.
if i were to start railing against jews or women or asian people, then of course everyone else would be entitled to label me a bigot, and it wouldn’t be bigoted of them to do so.
Mayflower, the point is YOU made a claim that you picked out of thin air. You said having that sheet of paper will instantly turn Phil and Mike into tax paying, lawn mowing, completely monogamous citizens. STRAWMAN!
If you and HT cannot grasp the concept that changing the concept and definition of such a basic word changes everything else, the I just don’t have the ability to get the idea across. It’s going from calling cold blooded creatures which breath water and die out of the water birds and winged warm blooded animals that fly and drown in water birds. It’s calling the color blue “blue” and the color orange “blue”. I simply don’t see how you can not understand the obvious. Interracial marriage is different because it’s a man and a woman whose only difference is skin tone. It’s not a special privilege for heterosexual couples, because that, IMO, is the only scenario the term “marriage” applies to! 2 men and one woman would not be a marriage, a man and his horse would not be a marriage and a brother and sister…well, that’s just a sickness.
Hey, it’s over and done with, my side lost. Let’s see how fast the HIV rate drops and the lawns get mowed.
Interracial marriage is different because it’s a man and a woman whose only difference is skin tone.
why should one’s ethnic background or the color of their skin make any less difference than their gender?
(sorry, the first sentence was supposed to be blockquoted.)