Trying to impose majority rule on any minority is discrimination however it's redefined or rethought if it's unequal treatment.
.
And we hear from the pope yet again:
http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2004/02/28/pope_same_sex_unions_degrade_marriage/
With all due respect, John Paul, I think you and your church might have other issues to deal with.
But nice try at diverting attention anyway.
.
Catholics do not believe in birth control, and yet, their preisthood have damaged the lives of over 10,600 (this is a low estimate) children through heterosexual and homosexual relationships. Why are they worried about what other consenting adults wish to do with their lives?
No question, the behavior of so many priests in so many places, and the institutional protection of these men, and the church's failures towards the victims, have all damaged the church's credibility immensely.
But, even if none of that had happened, what rational reason would there be to grant this man some special access to moral truth, or even moral insight?
His wording...same sex unions 'degrade' marriage... is so silly in it's presumption that I just want to slap the bugger.
blatham wrote:A bit earlier, BillW said...
Quote:...there is an attempt in America today to redefine marriage as being religious.
Now, that IS an interesting statement. I suggested it earlier, but I don't think anyone has said it outright. Thanks Bill.
The rationale, or at least the for-public-consumption key talking point (this one is a two-headed beast) of those voices pushing the constitutional ammendment, is:
1) a few activist judges
2) are REDEFINING marriage
It's an interesting ploy. The first part is pretty simple; use of the helpfully pre-demonized 'activist judges' notion, along with (additional bonus points here) the suggestion there are only a few of these weirdos, making them even weirder.
The second part, "they are 'redefining' marriage", is the really interesting element. First of all, let's be clear that this phrase didn't simply fall from the sky, it is ubiquitous in the statements of supporters. Several nights past, Larry King interviewed several guests on the gay marriage issue, including the mayor of SF and Republican Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave (she introduced the ammendment). In the (approximately) two minutes where Musgrave was talking, she used 'activist judges' three times and she used the phrase 'redefining marriage'
thirteen times (transcript available on line). If you listen carefully to the folks backing this ammendment, you'll find that phrasing typical...it's a strategy of constant repetition of a talking point, as both Gingrich and marketing theory advise. People begin to assume it must mean something, or that it's true, and then they repeat it, as Brand did earlier.
But just what might 'redefining marriage' actually mean? It would make more sense and be more accurate to say 'rethinking marriage', as that is effectively what happens in the process of cultural change. In the case of racial integration, people slowly began to question their assumptions, to question the ideas and values they had simply absorbed growing up in an segregrated society which held blacks to be inferior, animalistic, uncivilized, etc....not quite human. Would we find it useful to describe that process of cultural change as 'redefining humanness'? In the case of sufferage, would it be appropriate to refer to it as 'redefining citizen'?
So, what's the advantage gained by using 'redefining' rather than 'rethinking'? Well, if we can 'rethink' something, that suggests that the choices up for consideration are relatively equal - eg., we might check a weather forecast and rethink which ski hill to go to on a Saturday. But 'redefine' suggests change away from something basic or fundamental, certainly change leading away from something traditional. So, it's likely more dangerous, more liable to be false. At least, that is an implication, particularly if one tends to conservativism.
More to the point however, the phrase 'redefining marriage' suggests that opponents to same-sex marriage are making a legal objection, rather than a moral objection. It's really a rather sneaky attempt to smuggle in the falsehood that 'marriage' is, and always has been, defined in law as a union between a man and a woman. Of course, that isn't true (but we'll note that these same opponents are busy as beavers trying to make it retroactively true, by pushing for such a definition of marriage at all levels). Another false claim piggy-backing on the 'logic' of the redefining phrase is that marriage is and always has been a 'sacred' institution, as if marriages in America had always taken place under the auspices, codes and values of religious institutions - but not just any old religious institution, only the fundamentalist-leaning christian churches such as the protestors belong to presently. There's a link earlier which I posted, and historical information which Setanta posted, showing how false such a suggestion really is.
The political representatives pushing the ammendment are limited, for public relations reasons, in how they present their argument. They can't (publicly or prudently) say homosexuality is evil, nasty and perverse, a base degradation of God's plan (though surrogate voices can and are saying this) as evidenced by (highly selective) biblical passages, because such statements are so patently violations of the existing constitution.
As the Mass. SC found, liberty means freedom from any imposed moral code, whatever its historical or religious pedigree.
This is an exceptional post.
blatham's quote, "His wording...same sex unions 'degrade' marriage... is so silly in it's presumption that I just want to slap the bugger." Couldn't agree with you more. Make the slap double the force!
truth
I think that gay marriage would benefit society. Here's why. It is very likely that the fact that the institution of marriage (in its various forms) is found in ALL societies is because it promotes social order. The institution gives legal or moral sanction to the sexual monopoly between a man and a woman (monogramy), or between one man and two or more women (polygyny) or between a woman and two or more men (polyandry). Imagine the increase in violence between males for women if there were no such socially sanctioned monopoly. This does not mean that all violence is limited, there is always the possibility of adultery. But if there were no institution of marriage the frequency of violent competition for women would undoubtedly be MUCH higher.
Now, I know gays who have lived for many years as if they were married. These individuals do not prowl the gay bars and bath houses and public restrooms and parks in search for love or gratification, spreading aids and competing violently for sexual partners. They live stable lives much as do conventionally married straights. And I can't imaging how their marriages, sanctioned by society, could threaten the stability of heterosexual marriage. If anything married gay men would have less opportunity to seduce latent bisexual but heterosexually married men.
jlN;
a wee bit stereotyped there, but no matter;
i wish to differ, however; if there were NO institution of marriage, it would be less likely that some men would treat their partners as 'property' since there would no longer be a paper (tradition) trail to back them up.
They might just have to (i hesitate to suggest this) be decent human beings, and treat their partners with respect, and kindness, in order to maintain a reason for them to remain somewhat 'interested' in staying in the 'partnership'! (ditto for women).
BoGoWo, But I think "respect and kindess" should refer to all of our relationships with our human brothers and sisters - and all living things.
what do we have to do (C.I.) to convert "should" into does???
When marriage between gays was by rite
Tuesday, August 11, 1998 - Irish Times
When marriage between gays was by rite
RITE AND REASON: A Kiev art museum contains a curious icon from St Catherine's monastery on Mount Sinai. It shows two robed Christian saints. Between them is a traditional Roman pronubus (best man) overseeing what in a standard Roman icon would be the wedding of a husband and wife. In the icon, Christ is the pronubus. Only one thing is unusual. The "husband and wife" are in fact two men.
Is the icon suggesting that a homosexual "marriage" is one sanctified by Christ? The very idea initially seems shocking. The full answer comes from other sources about the two men featured, St Serge and St Bacchus, two Roman soldiers who became Christian martyrs.
While the pairing of saints, particularly in the early Church, was not unusual, the association of these two men was regarded as particularly close. Severus of Antioch in the sixth century explained that "we should not separate in speech [Serge and Bacchus] who were joined in life". More bluntly, in the definitive 10th century Greek account of their lives, St Serge is openly described as the "sweet companion and lover" of St Bacchus.
In other words, it confirms what the earlier icon implies, that they were a homosexual couple. Unusually their orientation and relationship was openly accepted by early Christian writers. Furthermore, in an image that to some modern Christian eyes might border on blasphemy, the icon has Christ himself as their pronubus, their best man overseeing their "marriage".
The very idea of a Christian homosexual marriage seems incredible. Yet after a 12-year search of Catholic and Orthodox church archives Yale history professor John Boswell has discovered that a type of Christian homosexual "marriage" did exist as late as the 18th century.
Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has evolved both as a concept and as a ritual. Prof Boswell discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient church liturgical documents (and clearly separate from other types of non-marital blessings such as blessings of adopted children or land) were ceremonies called, among other titles, the "Office of Same Sex Union" (10th and 11th century Greek) or the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century).
These ceremonies had all the contemporary symbols of a marriage: a community gathered in church, a blessing of the couple before the altar, their right hands joined as at heterosexual marriages, the participation of a priest, the taking of the Eucharist, a wedding banquet afterwards. All of which are shown in contemporary drawings of the same sex union of Byzantine Emperor Basil I (867-886) and his companion John. Such homosexual unions also took place in Ireland in the late 12th/early 13th century, as the chronicler Gerald of Wales (Geraldus Cambrensis) has recorded.
Boswell's book, The Marriage of Likeness: Same Sex Unions in Pre- Modern Europe, lists in detail some same sex union ceremonies found in ancient church liturgical documents. One Greek 13th century "Order for Solemnisation of Same Sex Union" having invoked St Serge and St Bacchus, called on God to "vouchsafe unto these thy servants [N and N] grace to love one another and to abide unhated and not a cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God and all thy saints." The ceremony concludes: "And they shall kiss the Holy Gospel and each other, and it shall be concluded."
Another 14th century Serbian Slavonic "Office of Same Sex Union", uniting two men or two women, had the couple having their right hands laid on the Gospel while having a cross placed in their left hands. Having kissed the Gospel, the couple were then required to kiss each other, after which the priest, having raised up the Eucharist, would give them both communion.
Boswell found records of same-sex unions in such diverse archives as those in the Vatican, in St Petersburg, in Paris, Istanbul, and in Sinai, covering a period from the 8th to the 18th centuries. Nor is he the first to make such a discovery. The Dominican Jacques Goar (1601-1653) includes such ceremonies in a printed collection of Greek prayer books.
While homosexuality was technically illegal from late Roman times, it was only from about the 14th century that anti-homosexual feelings swept western Europe. Yet same sex union ceremonies continued to take place.
At St John Lateran in Rome (traditionally the Pope's parish Church) in 1578 as many as 13 couples were "married" at Mass with the apparent co-operation of the local clergy, "taking Communion together, using the same nuptial Scripture, after which they slept and ate together", according to a contemporary report.
Another woman-to-woman union is recorded in Dalmatia in the 18th century. Many questionable historical claims about the church have been made by some recent writers in this newspaper.
Boswell's academic study however is so well researched and sourced as to pose fundamental questions for both modern church leaders and heterosexual Christians about their attitude towards homosexuality.
FOR the Church to ignore the evidence in its own archives would be a cowardly cop-out. That evidence shows convincingly that what the modern church claims has been its constant unchanging attitude towards homosexuality is in fact nothing of the sort.
It proves that for much of the last two millennia, in parish churches and cathedrals throughout Christendom from Ireland to Istanbul and in the heart of Rome itself, homosexual relationships were accepted as valid expressions of a God-given ability to love and commit to another person, a love that could be celebrated, honoured and blessed both in the name of, and through the Eucharist in the presence of Jesus Christ.
----------------------------------------------
Jim Duffy is a writer and historian. The Marriage of Likeness: Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe by John Boswell is published by Harper Collins.
I think, I really
must share this delightfully absurd take on gay marriage here (by G. Saunders in the New Yorker):
SOURCE
Frank Apisa wrote:blatham wrote:A bit earlier, BillW said...
Quote:...there is an attempt in America today to redefine marriage as being religious.
Now, that IS an interesting statement. I suggested it earlier, but I don't think anyone has said it outright. Thanks Bill.
The rationale, or at least the for-public-consumption key talking point (this one is a two-headed beast) of those voices pushing the constitutional ammendment, is:
1) a few activist judges
2) are REDEFINING marriage
It's an interesting ploy. The first part is pretty simple; use of the helpfully pre-demonized 'activist judges' notion, along with (additional bonus points here) the suggestion there are only a few of these weirdos, making them even weirder.
The second part, "they are 'redefining' marriage", is the really interesting element. First of all, let's be clear that this phrase didn't simply fall from the sky, it is ubiquitous in the statements of supporters. Several nights past, Larry King interviewed several guests on the gay marriage issue, including the mayor of SF and Republican Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave (she introduced the ammendment). In the (approximately) two minutes where Musgrave was talking, she used 'activist judges' three times and she used the phrase 'redefining marriage'
thirteen times (transcript available on line). If you listen carefully to the folks backing this ammendment, you'll find that phrasing typical...it's a strategy of constant repetition of a talking point, as both Gingrich and marketing theory advise. People begin to assume it must mean something, or that it's true, and then they repeat it, as Brand did earlier.
But just what might 'redefining marriage' actually mean? It would make more sense and be more accurate to say 'rethinking marriage', as that is effectively what happens in the process of cultural change. In the case of racial integration, people slowly began to question their assumptions, to question the ideas and values they had simply absorbed growing up in an segregrated society which held blacks to be inferior, animalistic, uncivilized, etc....not quite human. Would we find it useful to describe that process of cultural change as 'redefining humanness'? In the case of sufferage, would it be appropriate to refer to it as 'redefining citizen'?
So, what's the advantage gained by using 'redefining' rather than 'rethinking'? Well, if we can 'rethink' something, that suggests that the choices up for consideration are relatively equal - eg., we might check a weather forecast and rethink which ski hill to go to on a Saturday. But 'redefine' suggests change away from something basic or fundamental, certainly change leading away from something traditional. So, it's likely more dangerous, more liable to be false. At least, that is an implication, particularly if one tends to conservativism.
More to the point however, the phrase 'redefining marriage' suggests that opponents to same-sex marriage are making a legal objection, rather than a moral objection. It's really a rather sneaky attempt to smuggle in the falsehood that 'marriage' is, and always has been, defined in law as a union between a man and a woman. Of course, that isn't true (but we'll note that these same opponents are busy as beavers trying to make it retroactively true, by pushing for such a definition of marriage at all levels). Another false claim piggy-backing on the 'logic' of the redefining phrase is that marriage is and always has been a 'sacred' institution, as if marriages in America had always taken place under the auspices, codes and values of religious institutions - but not just any old religious institution, only the fundamentalist-leaning christian churches such as the protestors belong to presently. There's a link earlier which I posted, and historical information which Setanta posted, showing how false such a suggestion really is.
The political representatives pushing the ammendment are limited, for public relations reasons, in how they present their argument. They can't (publicly or prudently) say homosexuality is evil, nasty and perverse, a base degradation of God's plan (though surrogate voices can and are saying this) as evidenced by (highly selective) biblical passages, because such statements are so patently violations of the existing constitution.
As the Mass. SC found, liberty means freedom from any imposed moral code, whatever its historical or religious pedigree.
This is an exceptional post.
Well, it might be if it wasn't so full of crap.
The claim that there has never been a legal definition of marriage is pure hogwash and it shows that, once again, Bernie still hasn't read the very court decision he continues to praise.
In that decision the MA SJC managed to find several references to the legal definition of marriage:
"The everyday meaning of "marriage" is "[t]he legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife," Black's Law Dictionary 986 (7th ed. 1999), and the plaintiffs do not argue that the term "marriage" has ever had a different meaning under Massachusetts law. See, e.g., Milford v. Worcester, 7 Mass. 48, 52 (1810) (marriage "is an engagement, by which a single man and a single woman, of sufficient discretion, take each other for husband and wife"). This definition of marriage, as both the department and the Superior Court judge point out, derives from the common law. See Commonwealth v. Knowlton, 2 Mass. 530, 535 (1807) (Massachusetts common law derives from English common law except as otherwise altered by Massachusetts statutes and Constitution). See also Commonwealth v. Lane, 113 Mass. 458, 462-463 (1873) ("when the statutes are silent, questions of the validity of marriages are to be determined by the jus gentium, the common law of nations"); C.P. Kindregan, Jr., & M.L. Inker, Family Law and Practice § 1.2 (3d ed. 2002)."
And contrary to the posting about how "redefining marriage", the words didn't just pop out of nowhere. Again, The MA SJC used those very words in their decision.
"Canada, like the United States, adopted the common law of England that civil marriage is "the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others." Id. at , quoting Hyde v. Hyde, [1861-1873] All E.R. 175 (1866). In holding that the limitation of civil marriage to opposite-sex couples violated the Charter, the Court of Appeal refined the common-law meaning of marriage. We concur with this remedy, which is entirely consonant with established principles of jurisprudence empowering a court to refine a common-law principle in light of evolving constitutional standards.
The MA SJC had no illusions about what they were doing. They knew they were redefining marriage in the State of MA and they fully admitted to it. Apparently the phrasing isn't just something those proposing the Amendment have chosen. It's the exact same phrase those "activst judges" have used themselves.
Thanks, fishin', for that info.
fishin' wrote:The claim that there has never been a legal definition of marriage is pure hogwash and it shows that, once again, Bernie still hasn't read the very court decision he continues to praise.
In that decision the MA SJC managed to find several references to the legal definition of marriage:
"The everyday meaning of "marriage" is "[t]he legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife," Black's Law Dictionary 986 (7th ed. 1999), and the plaintiffs do not argue that the term "marriage" has ever had a different meaning under Massachusetts law. See, e.g., Milford v. Worcester, 7 Mass. 48, 52 (1810) (marriage "is an engagement, by which a single man and a single woman, of sufficient discretion, take each other for husband and wife"). This definition of marriage, as both the department and the Superior Court judge point out, derives from the common law. See Commonwealth v. Knowlton, 2 Mass. 530, 535 (1807) (Massachusetts common law derives from English common law except as otherwise altered by Massachusetts statutes and Constitution). See also Commonwealth v. Lane, 113 Mass. 458, 462-463 (1873) ("when the statutes are silent, questions of the validity of marriages are to be determined by the jus gentium, the common law of nations"); C.P. Kindregan, Jr., & M.L. Inker, Family Law and Practice § 1.2 (3d ed. 2002)."
And contrary to the posting about how "redefining marriage", the words didn't just pop out of nowhere. Again, The MA SJC used those very words in their decision.
"Canada, like the United States, adopted the common law of England that civil marriage is "the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others." Id. at , quoting Hyde v. Hyde, [1861-1873] All E.R. 175 (1866). In holding that the limitation of civil marriage to opposite-sex couples violated the Charter, the Court of Appeal refined the common-law meaning of marriage. We concur with this remedy, which is entirely consonant with established principles of jurisprudence empowering a court to refine a common-law principle in light of evolving constitutional standards.
The MA SJC had no illusions about what they were doing. They knew they were redefining marriage in the State of MA and they fully admitted to it. Apparently the phrasing isn't just something those proposing the Amendment have chosen. It's the exact same phrase those "activst judges" have used themselves.
Exceptional post, Fishin. Of course, the two key points here are each lost on those who most need to understand them:
1) The MA court refined the meaning of marriage because the MA constitution's call for equal treatment under the law required such a refinement. This was not "activist" jurisprudence, but a reasoned and rational consideration of what the MA constitution required be done to address the inequality inherent in the standing common law definition of marriage.
2) Those who wish to amend the Constitution to "protect" the historical definition of marriage, are effectively trying to write the pre-existing common law definition of marriage into the Constitution. Personally, I don't see the point, but there is nothing inherently wrong with wanting to amend the Constitution in this way.
===
Seems to me that at least these conservatives are trying to go the proper, legal, constitutional route to push society in the direction they wish it to go. Liberals in SF and elsewhere are simply thumbing their nose at the law and seem to think that's some kind of victory. Here's a thought: why don't liberals back their own Constitutional amendment defining marriage as they would have it defined? Then we would have two competing amendments and we could see which one won out.
Quote:the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman
How do 'divorces' fit to this?
If the only natural, real, normal thing is same sex marriage, then the on natural, real, normal thing has to be same sex divorce
Divorce in a "union for life"? ('Voluntary' is to be seen as opposite to "forced".)
I just think, something must have been changed here, too.
Walter Hinteler wrote:How do 'divorces' fit to this?
Divorce = The regaining of sanity.
