August 2006 Weddings
Dear Community,
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Re: I still struggle with gay marriage
Why do you think I posted it here and not E08!?
Now before we get too huggy huggy here, I have to let you know that I'm off to watch O'Reilly! :-P
I think it's also worth considering how this whole discussion came about - a very slight majority of voters has decided to amend the state constitution to enforce discriminatory legislation.
What if some fringe group in a low voter turnout year was able to get a ballot initiative to ban women from driving? Or to outlaw the wearing of religious jewelry in public schools? Or to ban the public display of crosses? All it would take to get those passed is a simple majority of voters.
In 2003, there were 26 million adult residents of California, and just over 5M of them have now successfully codified discrimination. It seems really unfair. What about the other 80% of those adults? (yes they should have voted, but it's still wrong).
I am a runner, knitter, scientist, DE-IVF veteran, and stage III colon cancer survivor.
I can't add anything that hasn't been said already, but I just have to say that this thread warms my little heart.
First, Pesca - I think the facebook note written by your friend is great. There were a few points when reading I found were not all that solid, but overall, kudos.
I'm going to take a slightly different approach than most of you on here.
First, I don't think the choice argument is relavent or important. They should still have the right even if it's 100% a choice. The choice argument is a distraction, so let's just set that aside.
Now, a lot of people on here have witnessed about their friends, and that's great, and beautiful. For a lot of people, that personal experience will make it click. But you haven't had that experience (and neither have I - none of my gay friends nor many of my straight friends are ready for marriage yet).
So let's just look at this on a basic, fundamental level of what roll marriage plays with respect to federal, state, and local laws. It is a contract, made between two consenting adults (or sometimes minors of a certain age with parental consent) that joins them together in a family unit. This family unit designation allows them the rights listed by others above.
I work in Corporate Knowledge Management at a law firm, which means I'm constantly organizing precident and articles about corporate transactions. Many of these transactions are types of marriages. Companies will legally join together. So companies can get married, but two consenting adults cannot because of their gender.
In your wedding ceremony, you made a covenant (a contract) with your husband, but also with God. The covenant you and your husband made with God is protected within the church. Only those married by, in your case, Catholic clergy can take part in that covenant. The Catholic church has the right to refuse to marry divorcees and non-Catholics. The religious denomination bases its definition of its covenant on its understanding of the Word of God. I imagine this covenant was made by speaking it, pronouncing it.
But the other covenant was with your husband recognized by the state. For that one you applied for a license, which you signed on your wedding day in order to receive your state-issued marriage certificate.
That's not about love. That's not about faith or religion. That's paperwork. It's beauracracy.
Now if you're like me, the religious part matters so much more than the legal part. That's the true union, but we still did the paperwork. Why is that? We would still be married in God's eyes if we didn't do the paperwork. So take a moment to think about why you signed that license, why you bothered getting that marriage certificate. And if you and your husband can get those benefits, and if heaten heterosexuals can get those benefits, why should they be denied to homosexuals?
That makes complete sense; that's all we're asking. The two should be separate, as our federal constitution guarantees (the gov't shall make no establishment of religion).
Also, I
2V and A06.
I don't have much to add. Except that this is an awesome thread and kudos to 2V for seeking points of view on this.
I just see this as an equal rights issue. These couples deserve the same right to unite in a partnership recognized by the government as my husband and I do.
Two of my closest friends are a lesbian couple who have been together for 9 years. They are fully commited to each other, but they are treated as second class citizens in the eyes of their government and that is just wrong. They deserve for their relationship to be validated and recognized. They want the same things we want...to spend their lives together and have children.
Deductive reasoning isn't a conservative or liberal attribute. ~epphd
I've read reports to the contrary, so I'm curious about that part...
OR cases like the photographer in NM (also from above link)
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486340
On January 28, 2008, the New Mexico Human Rights Commission heard the case of Vanessa Willock v. Elane Photography.
Willock, in the midst of planning her wedding to her girlfriend, sent the photography company an e-mail request to shoot the commitment ceremony. Elaine Huguenin, who owns the company with her husband, replied: "We do not photograph same-sex weddings. But thanks for checking out our site! Have a great day!"
Willock filed a complaint, and at the hearing she explained how she felt.
"A variety of emotions," she said, holding back tears. "There was a shock and anger and fear. ... We were planning a very happy day for us, and we're being met with hatred. That's how it felt."
Willock declined to be interviewed, as did the owners of Elane Photography. At the hearing, Jonathan Huguenin said that when he and his wife formed the company two years ago, they made it company policy not to shoot same-sex ceremonies, because the ceremonies conflicted with their Christian beliefs.
"We wanted to make sure that everything we photographed ? everything we used our artistic ability for, everything we told a story for or conveyed a message of ? would be in line with our values and our beliefs," he said.
The defendants' attorney, Jordan Lorence at ADF, says that of course a Christian widget-maker cannot fire an employee because he's gay. But it's different when the company or a religious charity is being forced to endorse something they don't believe, he says.
"It's a very different situation when we're talking about promoting a message," Lorence says. "When it's 'We want to punish you for not helping us promote our message that same-sex marriage is OK,' that for me is a very different deal. It's compelled speech. You're using the arm of the government for punishing people for disagreeing with you."
In April, the state human rights commission found that Elane Photography was guilty of discrimination and must pay the Willock's more than $6,600 attorneys' fee bill. The photographers are appealing to state court.
I wouldn't vote yes on Prop 8 and I agree with others who have made the distinction between personal religious beliefs and civil rights. But I don't agree with cases like this. So I'm just curious how you all feel about cases like the photographer?
I have to go now, but I look forward to reading more in this thread as I am really impressed by this thread and the discussion here.
Cinderella, there's a difference between churches doing a non-legally binding ceremony and a for profit business denying services. ?There are laws that say you can't discriminate in your business. ?Churces are not businesses (although, my personal belief is that if they're going to be tax exempt, they should be held to anti-discrimination laws in hiring, too, but that's another debate)
Someone mentioned divorce above as something the Catholic church believes is wrong yet is still legal.
What if we flip that around? ?Has anyone forced the church to grant divorces? ?What's happened there? ?They are permitted to run their religion the way they want and deny a religious sacrament when they don't agree with it. ??
I am really happy to see this thread, too! ?2VT, honestly you're doing a great thing letting me know that not all people who aren't all about gay marriage are bigots. ?While I believe it is wrong to vote against gay marriage, I can see that it may just be coming from a different place; maybe a place not having full understanding, etc.
In the end, I think we'll all get there. ?And good for everyone being really mature.?
2Vermont - I really haven't seen any reason's you gave for being against it - although I guess there is an inferred "because your religion is against it"." It seems fairly obvious that we can't really give you precise arguments for it until you give your specifics against it, kwim? It would help if you were able to "verbalize" you reasons for why you would want to keep it illegal.
and yes, try to remember that this is a legal issue and not a religious one, which i completely understand is harder than it sounds!!!
Dunno about that case - but I do know that most people who can perform legal marriages can also choose who they marry. Some are pickier than others. My pastor wouldn't marry anyone who hadn't been through pre-marital counseling.
I know businesses aren't suppose to discriminate but I also have a problem with a private business being forced to do a service they do not want. Especially if there are other available businesses that will provide the service. This couple could have easily found another photographer. Why would you want to force a photographer to do your wedding or commitment ceremony if he/she felt so negative about it?
And I also think these types of lawsuits with the publicity does not help the gay marriage cause. It pisses the anti-gay marriage people off even more. Legislate this issue fine but what we really want also is an acceptance of gays. Small baby steps is what is going to take. Creating a greater divide is not the answer.
Yes, essentially it is about my religious beliefs. I think my difficulties lie in the fact that because I believe that this is not something God would approve (and I'm sorry if that offends some here), then it's not something I should actively support.
I get that. I was a Christian first, then pro-gay rights, then I learned about the religious arguments against homosexuality. (As you can imagine, this all took place when I was young and sheltered).
It's been 10 years, and I still don't know how God feels about homosexuality. I can see both sides there. This is something my church as a whole struggles with as well, practically down the middle, so at least I know I'm not alone in this struggle.
But at the end of the day, gay people, including your cousin and his partner, are denied the right to declare each other family and therefore lose legal rights and benefits associated with that.
Now perhaps another solution would be to discard any federal, state and local laws associated with marriage. That would be fine with me - the covenant I care about is with God and cannot be broken by the State, but those things are so intertwined with society from the IRS to the credit bureau to hospital policy. And as long as there are rights and benefits awarded to committed heterosexual couples (whether that couple be you and your husband or Britney Spears and her first hubby, Jason Alexander), those same rights should not be denied to committed homosexual couples.
I understand if you reach a different conclusion, though. Just take these thoughts with you. Pray about it, and wait for an answer.
I think it's important to define what "marriage" is in order to have this discussion. Is it a legal partnership? Is it a union recognized in the eyes of God??
Do you think that when a couple goes down to City Hall and obtains a marriage certificate, that's a sacred union in the eyes of God? I'm not a terribly religious person, but I would think most religious people would say no. That's all that "gay marriage" is about, really. They aren't fighting for the right to go into a church and have the minister bless their union - they're simply fighting for the right to go to City Hall and get that piece of paper. If you believe that the true sanctity of marriage is the commitment made before God and recognized by a church or religious authority, then a gay couple obtaining a marriage license issued by the state poses no threat and has no relevancy to "real" marriage.?
Ditto, TTT. There are two separate issues here. Atheists, agnostics and even some religious people don't get married in a church or by a religious figure, yet their marriages are still legally binding. Churches can decide on their own who is worthy of getting married on their turf, but outside of that, they shouldn't be allowed to dictate based on religious beliefs who is allowed to be married by the state.
And 2Vermont
for asking for other opinions.
I don't have much to add, as PPs have said everything so well. Just wanted to give this thread and 2Vermont big thumbs up
. These civil, thoughtful discussions are so Old School E08-esque.
If I'm not mistaken, as a Christian, you are always free to err on the side of "up with people" and leave all the disapproval up to God. Especially when those people are sinners in the eyes of your church. Trying to reconcile religious beliefs with civil rights overlooks the fact that religion is a civil right, and was made one precisely because of conflicting ideology. Right now, as a pagan, I'm being told by the government that the view of my religion is illegal.
Also consider that in the Christian view, God gave us the free will to choose sin or righteousness, and homosexuality is a choice (I don't subscribe to any of this, but follow my reasoning here). Permitting gay marriage codifies the choice we were given. Christians may disagree with those that make that choice, but their whole argument has been, all along, that it is a choice. It is not specifically made taboo by the Big Ten, so it's fair game for interpretation.
I hear ya about the election talk.
Hey LaLa Lisa.....I wasn't avoiding your questions...I'm just a bit overwhelmed. No, I do not believe that my life will be personally affected if gays marry. In fact there is a couple of lesbians that live across the street and I know that if they got married that would not change my life one iota.
I think the key issue for me is voting for it...I believe that voting for it is condoning something that goes against my religious beliefs. On the other hand, if it was legal, I would not work to make it illegal.
I know it's not the same thing, but in an attempt to try to make a point......
I could not vote to make prostitution legal. I think one could probably argue that a woman has a "right" to do what she wants with her body.....but I could not vote for that right because that would be my way of saying that I condone prostitution. Am I being prejudiced against women for feeling this way..for not voting for prostitution? Having said that, (like with gay marriage) if it were legal, I wouldn't work to make it illegal either.
Interesting....no, I would not. I have to ponder this a bit because I don' think it's apples and apples, but its certainly worth thinking about it.
I get what you're saying, 2V, but it goes back to assuming that being gay is a choice. What many of us are saying is that it is not a choice. And as such, they are being discriminated against based upon an innate quality and their very being.
I don't think it's particularly Christian to discriminate against people who love each other. "The greatest of these is love", right? I think as Christians, folks need to support people who are trying to create loving families. That's all these people are trying to do. I understand why it's hard to get your head around that, but I applaud your trying.
MD..there is no doubt that you understand where I am.
But isn't God present at City Hall too?