It's Not Just Mormons - Gay Marriage

[peter_mary]

Found this on the news today:

Bishop Calls for PM's Excommunication

Mar 3, 10:51 AM (ET)

TORONTO (Reuters) - The Roman Catholic Bishop of Calgary says that if it were up to him, he would consider excommunicating Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin for his plan to legalize same-sex marriage.

Bishop Frederick Henry said that Martin's politics clash so severely with his religion that the two cannot possibly be reconciled.

"You're either with the (Roman Catholic) Church or you're not," said Bishop Henry during an interview with a Toronto radio station on Tuesday.

Bishop Henry has previously said that former Prime Minister Jean Chretien should be excommunicated for his role in bringing same-sex marriage to the forefront of Canadian politics.



Eh...we're all alike...

Paul

[Born Free]

Found this on the news today:

Bishop Calls for PM's Excommunication

Mar 3, 10:51 AM (ET)

TORONTO (Reuters) - The Roman Catholic Bishop of Calgary says that if it were up to him, he would consider excommunicating Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin for his plan to legalize same-sex marriage.

Bishop Frederick Henry said that Martin's politics clash so severely with his religion that the two cannot possibly be reconciled.

"You're either with the (Roman Catholic) Church or you're not," said Bishop Henry during an interview with a Toronto radio station on Tuesday.

Bishop Henry has previously said that former Prime Minister Jean Chretien should be excommunicated for his role in bringing same-sex marriage to the forefront of Canadian politics.

Eh...we're all alike...

Paul

And there is a debate about separation of Church and State?

Down here I get jaw-boned by fundies railing on about the "Divine State of Marriage". They get disturbed when I point of the short history of same, have obviously some internalised fantasy of marriage instituted by God when Adam and Eve got their marching orders from the Garden for playing Snakes and Apples.

The Catholic Church only got into the marriage business in the 1600s, well after notions of romantic love grasped the public imagination, as a replacement for marriage as a financial and power manouvre, primarily between men.

So their deep abhorance for same-sex-marriage sits on very thin ice. Bishop Henry obviously has great confidence he has a unique capacity to interpret the Divine Will, which includes to all in his power to stuff his beliefs down everyone elses throat.

THese guys really miss the days when they could run empires and really wield power with a vengence.

[mutleydog]

Found this on the news today:

Bishop Calls for PM's Excommunication

Mar 3, 10:51 AM (ET)

TORONTO (Reuters) - The Roman Catholic Bishop of Calgary says that if it were up to him, he would consider excommunicating Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin for his plan to legalize same-sex marriage.

Bishop Frederick Henry said that Martin's politics clash so severely with his religion that the two cannot possibly be reconciled.

"You're either with the (Roman Catholic) Church or you're not," said Bishop Henry during an interview with a Toronto radio station on Tuesday.

Bishop Henry has previously said that former Prime Minister Jean Chretien should be excommunicated for his role in bringing same-sex marriage to the forefront of Canadian politics.



Eh...we're all alike...

Paul

Man!! These sort of attitudes drive me insane! :Crazy:

[bigeddy]

Would someone please explain to me what the knotheads mean with all this "We need to protect the institution of marriage" crap. I don't get what they are protecting or what they are protecting it from. How is my marriage in jeopardy because 2 gay males are married? How is any marriage in jeopardy from that? I've thought that they may think that somehow it "waters-down" the committment thing, but this doesn't make sense either. Do they fear that then many, many people who would marry heterosexually will run off into a homosexual marriage? If so, they completely fail to understand homosexuality. Do they fear that their marriage will somehow mean less because Adam and Steve are also married? If so, I don't see their thinking on this (let alone their "logic"). I often am at a loss to deal with the whole issue because I see that I do not understand their stance at all. On most issues with which I disagree I can at least understand the stance someone comes from. But, this one leaves me blind.

Ed

[mutleydog]

Would someone please explain to me what the knotheads mean with all this "We need to protect the institution of marriage" crap. I don't get what they are protecting or what they are protecting it from. How is my marriage in jeopardy because 2 gay males are married? How is any marriage in jeopardy from that? I've thought that they may think that somehow it "waters-down" the committment thing, but this doesn't make sense either. Do they fear that then many, many people who would marry heterosexually will run off into a homosexual marriage? If so, they completely fail to understand homosexuality. Do they fear that their marriage will somehow mean less because Adam and Steve are also married? If so, I don't see their thinking on this (let alone their "logic"). I often am at a loss to deal with the whole issue because I see that I do not understand their stance at all. On most issues with which I disagree I can at least understand the stance someone comes from. But, this one leaves me blind.

Ed

I agree with you 110% Ed!! I have never understood those people who oppose gay marriage. All your questions are soooooo valid!! People who oppose are definitely ignorant or misguided about what it means to be gay. I do not see how myself and my partner could possibly have a negative affect on the institution of marriage. In my mind it strengthens the whole idea. Basically, its making a legal or religious commitment before witnesses to eachother. What about all those people that live together (hetero and gay) that don't want to get married, but still have strong, healthy and committed long-term relationships? If you are not religious the only reason for marriage is a legal one really....I would love to marry my partner to openly show/prove to people that we love and are committed to eachother, however, we do not really need a ceremony to do that - we have specifically acknowledged how we feel and one day we hope to make it a public mark of our relationship. Whats so wrong with that I cry?!!!

[silverfox]

Gay Marriage. Where is the threat? They are already living together, adopting children together, etc. Has this impacted us negatively? I don't see it.

Here is what I think....it should be legalized. Let them marry, legally adopt their kids which in turn HELPS everyone else. Why? Because then each parent of the child is held legally responsible financially and otherwise. The child can be covered under medical, life insurance, etc of one of the spouses just like "normal" people.

Legalize the hell out of it so that those children and spouses are privy to all the benefits we are. This will lessen, IMHO and with my limited knowledge, the burden on society. If a couple splits, hey, the partner gets to pay child support. Both partners have legal rights to the child. etc, etc, etc.

Some worry this can cause polygamy to be legalized. Who cares? Hell, we've got polygamist compounds popping up EVERYWHERE it seems. There was a special on the news about this (that I missed, darnit). It's all very mysterious.

So it's illegal and is anyone doing anything about it???? NO!!!! So why make it illegal? Again legalize the hell out of it and then you can finally ENFORCE the laws that apply to "normal" unions. This means forcing child support, having more control over teen bride marriages (hopefully anyway), getting a lot of those kids off welfare and making their stud daddies responsible. A lot of polygamist families live off OUR tax money. Again it's illegal? So why isn't anyone doing anything about it? Because there is no piece of paper stating that they are "legally" married or what? I dunno. These women are all just living there? Hey, that's okay, too, polygamists don't need to legally get hitched...common law marriage, baby. You can make these people responsible either way, IMO. There are many laws regarding children from common law marriages.

But no one enforces the laws as they are today. So they are allowed to gain more power over innocent people.

I say legalize it all. That gives our law enforcement more power.

Of course here is my famous disclaimer...what the hell do I know?

What are other's thoughts on this?

[peter_mary]

Would someone please explain to me what the knotheads mean with all this "We need to protect the institution of marriage" crap. I don't get what they are protecting or what they are protecting it from. How is my marriage in jeopardy because 2 gay males are married?

But, this one leaves me blind.

Ed

Ed,

Couldn't agree more. One of our State Senators recently published an editorial in our local paper about the need to "constitutionaly protect the sanctity of marriage" by ensuring that it is a union between a man and a woman. That battle rages today in the papers, with one of the local zealots ranting about how "there is no basis in Christian holy writ or European mysticism to accept homosexuality as right." I guess Christian holy writ or European mysticism are the be-all, end-all when it comes to determining what should be legislated.

:Puking and still more :Puking

When I see what a mockery of marriage so many of our illustrious celebrities seem to engage in, I wonder where is the concern for sanctity there? (Here Brittney Spears and Jennifer Lopez spring to mind, and I can't help but wonder what our UK members think of the Prince Charles/Camilla Parker Bowles shenanigans of the past decade or so.) I am amazed that we worry about the sanctity of 2-5% of possible marriage unions when 50% of our hetero unions can't seem to be made to work. When I consider the number of children who are left in poverty as a result of hetero fathers who can't take responsibility for the children they've helped produce, I'm left to wonder what is the real threat to the traditional family? Can we really say hetero unions are the only ones God ordained, when they seem to be so fraught with failure? And when I consider the evolution of the family anyway, I really have to wonder what's the big friggin' deal? Families are not now what they once were, and they are in fact evolving right before the fundies eyes.

The reality of the situation is that societies are systems, and systems do not stay static. They can't. Was it Seargent Schultz in that silly WWII sitcom "Hogan's Heroes" who always used to say, "Resistance is futile!" Well, that's how I feel. To resist the natural evolution of systems is indeed futile. That's part of the problem with the geriatric leadership of the Church...there are ALWAYS cohort effects in their leadership, because they want to have things NOW the way they used to be back when they were raising families. Ezra Taft Benson was trying to recreate Ozzie and Harriet and the Cleaver family (1960's era sit-coms for those of you not familiar with American television) because that's what felt to him like the ideal family situation.

Today's church is no different. 50 years ago, discriminating against homosexuals was not only the norm, it was socially expected. The Church leadership is a product of 50 years ago, not today.

Bottom line is, there really is no sound argument for the prohibition of same-sex marriage. It is change that people fear more than anything...and yet it is change that inevitably comes. Seems to me that intelligent people participate in the change rather than try to stand in it's way. You either ride it, or get smashed by it...those are the choices.

Paul

[mutleydog]

Ed,

Couldn't agree more. One of our State Senators recently published an editorial in our local paper about the need to "constitutionaly protect the sanctity of marriage" by ensuring that it is a union between a man and a woman. That battle rages today in the papers, with one of the local zealots ranting about how "there is no basis in Christian holy writ or European mysticism to accept homosexuality as right." I guess Christian holy writ or European mysticism are the be-all, end-all when it comes to determining what should be legislated.

:Puking and still more :Puking

When I see what a mockery of marriage so many of our illustrious celebrities seem to engage in, I wonder where is the concern for sanctity there? (Here Brittney Spears and Jennifer Lopez spring to mind, and I can't help but wonder what our UK members think of the Prince Charles/Camilla Parker Bowles shenanigans of the past decade or so.) I am amazed that we worry about the sanctity of 2-5% of possible marriage unions when 50% of our hetero unions can't seem to be made to work. When I consider the number of children who are left in poverty as a result of hetero fathers who can't take responsibility for the children they've helped produce, I'm left to wonder what is the real threat to the traditional family? Can we really say hetero unions are the only ones God ordained, when they seem to be so fraught with failure? And when I consider the evolution of the family anyway, I really have to wonder what's the big friggin' deal? Families are not now what they once were, and they are in fact evolving right before the fundies eyes.

The reality of the situation is that societies are systems, and systems do not stay static. They can't. Was it Seargent Schultz in that silly WWII sitcom "Hogan's Heroes" who always used to say, "Resistance is futile!" Well, that's how I feel. To resist the natural evolution of systems is indeed futile. That's part of the problem with the geriatric leadership of the Church...there are ALWAYS cohort effects in their leadership, because they want to have things NOW the way they used to be back when they were raising families. Ezra Taft Benson was trying to recreate Ozzie and Harriet and the Cleaver family (1960's era sit-coms for those of you not familiar with American television) because that's what felt to him like the ideal family situation.

Today's church is no different. 50 years ago, discriminating against homosexuals was not only the norm, it was socially expected. The Church leadership is a product of 50 years ago, not today.

Bottom line is, there really is no sound argument for the prohibition of same-sex marriage. It is change that people fear more than anything...and yet it is change that inevitably comes. Seems to me that intelligent people participate in the change rather than try to stand in it's way. You either ride it, or get smashed by it...those are the choices.

Paul

Here Here Paul!!

[dogzilla]

As Chris Rock suggests, I believe this national "discussion" on gay marriage is merely a red herring meant to distract you from the War For Oil and from the War On Americans (BushCo seems pretty bent on taking money, retirement and other tax-paid entitlements away from we every day Americans.) While our jobs are outsourced overseas, our Social Security safety net is dismantled, our civil rights are being destroyed in the name of "homeland security" (Hitler did the EXACT same thing), our environment is being destroyed, hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis are being murdered daily... I could go on and on about all the crimes against humanity this administration commits on a daily basis. This Administration does not want you to think about those things. They want you to focus on Steve and Adam getting married and be outraged by that. This gives you the opportunity to explain the situation to your children and pass your bigotry and homophobia on to a new generation! You are all so lucky! :rolleyes:

Gay Marriage, IMHO, should be about #9,678,453 on Americans' list of priorities to worry about. We give the Republican/Christian Right more power when we even debate this issue. They have our attention, now safely distracted from the real issues about which we should be REALLY outraged.

That said, I was a witness in my best friend's gay wedding. I escorted the "broom" (Or maybe it was the "gride." We never did quite define which was which! :p ) down the "aisle." Of course, we had to do the wedding illegally in someone's backyard and it is not recognized by this State. But the boys do have each other stipulated in their wills, they have Living wills, they have named each other as beneficiaries and have created Durable Power of Attorney for each other. This allows them to visit each other in the hospital, for example, when one had surgery. If one dies, the other inherits the business, the house, the cars, everything. This couple is also strongly supported by their families, who would never dream of taking anything away from the surviving partner. Most gay couples wish to be so lucky. Hell. Many STRAIGHT couples wish to have a loving environment like that, supported by their families. We should all be so lucky.

This is a hot button issue with me.

If gay marriage is threatening the sanctity of marriage... why aren't the Rupubbies trying to ban divorce? Wouldn't that be more effective in terms of saving the institution from being the farce that it really has become? (I believe marriage is a state of mind, papers being extraneous.)

Oh and, :Puking

[peter_mary]

If gay marriage is threatening the sanctity of marriage... why aren't the Rupubbies trying to ban divorce? Wouldn't that be more effective in terms of saving the institution from being the farce that it really has become? (I believe marriage is a state of mind, papers being extraneous.)

Oh and, :Puking

As usual, I'm on the same page with dogzilla. Your tag at the end of your post was interesting, though, because that is EXACTLY what some of our most conservative state legistlators in Utah and Idaho are trying to do. There has actually been a call lately for legislation that would make illeagal the "no-fault" divorce. In other words, you have to get a couple of black-eyes, or I suppose watch your spouse commit multiple acts of infidelity, before you could file for divorce.

Wouldn't THAT be a lovely social development?

Oh, I almost forgot, :Puking

Paul

[dogzilla]

What happened to inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? When we legislate people's sex lives... we've gone way too far.

So, now I ask myself another question: What's the motivation? Are these sexless lawmakers and deeply repressed religious leaders (who apparently possess genitalia so shriveled and sad not even their favorite Thai prostitutes can revive it) making a bunch of money by poking their shriveled and sad noses into people's lives? Is this the only pleasure the Strom Thurmonds of the world can feel?

(Sorry that was a quote in a column I read a few minutes ago that cracked me up. Ironically, the article was discussing how some stupid southern states have outlawed sex toys and what a ridiculous notion that is.)

[Born Free]

As Chris Rock suggests, I believe this national "discussion" on gay marriage is merely a red herring meant to distract you from the War For Oil and from the War On Americans (BushCo seems pretty bent on taking money, retirement and other tax-paid entitlements away from we every day Americans.) While our jobs are outsourced overseas, our Social Security safety net is dismantled, our civil rights are being destroyed in the name of "homeland security" (Hitler did the EXACT same thing), our environment is being destroyed, hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis are being murdered daily... I could go on and on about all the crimes against humanity this administration commits on a daily basis.


If gay marriage is threatening the sanctity of marriage... why aren't the Rupubbies trying to ban divorce? Wouldn't that be more effective in terms of saving the institution from being the farce that it really has become? (I believe marriage is a state of mind, papers being extraneous.)

Oh and, :Puking
Dogzilla,
I find Boy Bush as scary as most people with their head attached, but there was a "mild" exageration in your statement: "hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis are being murdered daily...?" Iraq would run out of Iraquis pretty fast at that rate.

And in case you haven't noticed, they are doing everything short of banning divorce. The only problem is, that divorce rates are highest in Repub states that in Democrat states - FACT. :cool:

Daryl

[formermormon]

OK, I think I can officially say it----I think I love you people!

Exactly! Here here, etc. to all of these posts.

It's hard to imagine exactly why people in red states, living red state lives even CARE about marriage equality for people they probably don't ever come across anyway. (well, knowingly, anyway)

If you think about it, including gays and lesbians in marriage is actually a CONSERVATIVE idea - you know, monogamy, nuclear families, white picket fences, etc. It's probably one of the LEAST radical changes possible for the old institution of marriage.

The only way any of this makes sense to me is from the point of view of George Lakoff's "Moral Politics", which argues that conservatives operate under the idea of "moral wholeness" - the metaphor for morality as fabric (that can be torn), or something that must be whole. The idea is that any deviations from the strict boundaries cause absolute destruction of this whole. There is no gray - once you start to destroy it, the whole thing is ruined!!! SO - if marriage is altered at all - especially to include queers, of all people - then the entire fabric is ripped to shreds.

It makes "sense" under that framework. I mean, I disagree 100%, but maybe that's the way they are thinking.

[elder_nomo]

OK, I think I can officially say it----I think I love you people!
ME TOO !!!

thanks for all the thoughtful, enlightened comments.
this is a HOT topic with me. i have been with my partner for 14 years and we're still trying to figure out who's marriage we would destroy if we got married.

i have never seen an argument against same-sex marriage that did not eventually boil down to religion or irrational fear. neither of which is a very good basis for law-making IMO.

[Jeff_Ricks]

Bishop Frederick Henry said that Martin's politics clash so severely with his religion that the two cannot possibly be reconciled.

"You're either with the (Roman Catholic) Church or you're not," said Bishop Henry during an interview with a Toronto radio station on Tuesday.


I think it's interesting that Bishop Fred didn't say that Martin's politics clashes with what HE believes but with "his religion". I find this pattern quite often when someone takes on the role of religious apologist. It’s like the religion owns them; they are its slave agents to spread its memes. Has anyone else noticed this kind of pattern with TBM family, friends, neighbors?

Jeff

[noodle]

If gay marriage is threatening the sanctity of marriage... why aren't the Rupubbies trying to ban divorce?

Oh and, :Puking

Amen sister...I, too, am on the same page. I've never understood that hype. I add it to the ever growing list of things that don't make sense to me. Sortof like the argument when the ERA was defeated..."we'll have coed bathrooms." :eek: Then there's the question that my 14-year-old asked, "why does Shrub keep demanding that other countries ban nuclear weapons when we have them?" :confused:

[dogzilla]

Amen sister...I, too, am on the same page. I've never understood that hype. I add it to the ever growing list of things that don't make sense to me. Sortof like the argument when the ERA was defeated..."we'll have coed bathrooms." :eek:

And people have men's and women's separate restrooms in their homes? At my house, all the bathrooms are co-ed! :D


Dogzilla,
I find Boy Bush as scary as most people with their head attached, but there was a "mild" exageration in your statement: "hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis are being murdered daily...?" Iraq would run out of Iraquis pretty fast at that rate.


Sorry, daryl, I just saw this. Actually, I read that something like 100-200,000 Iraqis have been killed. This was in a study published by British publication, The Lancet from a year ago. CBS News disputes this fact, citing estimates of 10-30,000 Iraqis killed. (Cite: http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2004/10/28/iraq_deaths041028.html)

Clearly, the numbers are guesses. For the sake of being unable to find clearly definitive sources, I will back off my previous statement and say, "tens of thousands," which you may be able to agree is closer to accurate. But I will state that I was not exaggerating for effect, or making up crazy bullshit to make my point (like Ann Coulter does)... I thought I had solid source material. Upon further investigation, it's clear that I didn't. Thanks for calling me on it -- I'm all about accuracy and truth in statements I make here and I appreciate the opportunity to do a little more research.

And, what, do you think there's only like 10,000 people living there? According to the CIA World Factbook, there are 25 million people living in Iraq. A couple hundred thousand isn't very much of the population. (Cite: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html)
There's plenty of Iraqis left...

[peter_mary]

Sorry, daryl, I just saw this. Actually, I read that something like 100-200,000 Iraqis have been killed. This was in a study published by British publication, The Lancet from a year ago. CBS News disputes this fact, citing estimates of 10-30,000 Iraqis killed. (Cite: http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2004/10/28/iraq_deaths041028.html)

Clearly, the numbers are guesses. For the sake of being unable to find clearly definitive sources, I will back off my previous statement and say, "tens of thousands," which you may be able to agree is closer to accurate. But I will state that I was not exaggerating for effect, or making up crazy bullshit to make my point (like Ann Coulter does)... I thought I had solid source material. Upon further investigation, it's clear that I didn't. Thanks for calling me on it -- I'm all about accuracy and truth in statements I make here and I appreciate the opportunity to do a little more research.

And, what, do you think there's only like 10,000 people living there? According to the CIA World Factbook, there are 25 million people living in Iraq. A couple hundred thousand isn't very much of the population. (Cite: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html)
There's plenty of Iraqis left...

Yo, Dogzilla baby, it's not the number that Daryl was choking on, but the fact that you said that number are killed "daily". If tens of thousands of Iraqis died "DAILY" then you would run out of 'em pretty quickly.

I can't believe I actually got to participate in pointing out an accuracy mistake on the dogzilla-nater! THAT doesn't happen every day! ;)

Peter_Mary

[dogzilla]

Yo, Dogzilla baby, it's not the number that Daryl was choking on, but the fact that you said that number are killed "daily". If tens of thousands of Iraqis died "DAILY" then you would run out of 'em pretty quickly.

I can't believe I actually got to participate in pointing out an accuracy mistake on the dogzilla-nater! THAT doesn't happen every day! ;)

Peter_Mary

[Emily Litella voice]

Nevermind.

[/Emily Litella]

Oh, and Peter_Mary? :p