AFA says gay activists are "hypocrites"

[sjbouza]

Originally Posted by Zerbie

Here's the problem: those determined to avoid recognizing gay unions use the absence of the word "marriage" as rationale for depriving them of rights, custody, benefits etc., stating that although the couple has a civil union, a civil union is not a marriage and therefore not to be recognized. Parents have lost custody of their children over this word.

Otherwise I am 100% in accord with you.

I may have mis-stated what I was trying to say. I am not speaking of the "civil unions" that we have today. What I am talking about is getting federal civil unions that will be recognized as marriage currently is. Taking the word "marriage" out of government completely. This word was wrongly adopted by the government and now the church is claiming trademark on it. Well fine, then just keep the word "marriage" to refer to the ceremony only. Everyone will have a Federal Civil Union that is recognized just as "marriage is today". That will take the religious factor out of the battle. The church can't complain anymore because same sex couples, as well as heteros, will have Federal Civil Unions. If same sex couples or hetero couples want a "marriage ceremony" then they can go to a church and have one performed. However, prior to that ceremony they will have to go down to the courthouse to apply for the license, they then will set a date with a magistrate for their union. After they have this step completed they can then go to the church of their choice and have a "marriage ceremony" performed that is religiously recognized.

That is what I am trying to say. Just take the word "marriage" right out of the governments vocabulary. If a church does not want to perform a "marriage ceremony" for anyone for any reason, they don't have to just as they don't have to today.

Peace,
Scott

[CaptainSnoopy]

Frankly as a minister, I would prefer this. This "institution" people are defending is not thousands of years old. Nowhere in the Bible or in any other ancient text do you see the government issuing a license which then gets brought to a minister who performs a ceremony and then fills out the marriage certificate which then gets mailed back to the county and may or may not be recognized in other places.

You do see in older records and texts that during ancient censuses they would ask people weather they are married so they could tax you appropriately.

Hell, in Jesus time some youngin would build a pad and when he was finished, take the girl home and start having lots and lots of sex. That was marriage...today we would call that living together and pinheads like Dobson would not recognize the union that a guy like Jesus would turn water into wine over.

Marriage is not the governments place to decide. If the Catholics don't wanna marry people of same gender that is fine, but if the UCC does...cool. From that perspective, it would seem that the church is being overridden by the state and that is a violation of my first amendment right.

This upcoming June I am performing a ceremony for two women I know and I am honored to do so...but as their pastor I am restricted from calling them wife and wife? Hmmmm...ya got me thinking at an angle I have not considered with your post.

[tdogg]

I would be in favor of rewording all references to "marriage" no matter where performed, recognized or the gender of the respective spouses, and allowing the word "marriage" to be the description used for church ceremonies. however, there are some complications with this idea.

1. You are back to a word - who gets to use "marriage"? If it will be allowed to only be a description for a heterosexual marriage, then we are back to square one. I don't think you are going to get all GLBT people to quite using "marriage" and the requirement would be unenforceable anyway. If it is ok to be used by everyone, then you are back to square one because those who cry it's a 'term' issue will still not have exclusive rights to the term. But, I do see the benefit in deeming all 'civil' marriages as "civil something" as long as the rights are 100% equal and same word is used for everyone.

2. To change every legal document, statute, regulation, etc. at the federal level, state level, county level and city level is way too costly and time consuming. No one is going to want to do that. Just changing all the forms alone will be a costly and time consuming task. It's probably easier to change the laws. With the financial crisis going on everywhere, no government is going to want to deal with that. Back to square one.

3. I honestly do not think it's about a term or a word. I think that's just an excuse. I have only had a conversation with one single person who said the only problem he had with gay marriage is the word 'marriage'. He went on to talk about how he loves his gay son, but (the wonderful qualifier) his son has never asked to have a marriage with his partner. Otherwise, the conversation always ends up being about everything and not about the word marriage.

However, there could be something to think about. What if we actually appear to buy in to their 'marriage' term sanctity? What if we say ok, we believe you, it's only about marriage, let's use civil union for all government sanction unions and you can keep marriage in your church. Just make the rights, privileges and protections exactly the same for all couples. Either they will get behind that, or show their true colors and reveal that is has nothing to do with the term "marriage".

Patrick, our minister ended our ceremony with "by the powers vested in me by the church and the state, I now pronounce you legally married." It was cool.

[CaptainSnoopy]

Originally Posted by tdogg

Patrick, our minister ended our ceremony with "by the powers vested in me by the church and the state, I now pronounce you legally married." It was cool.

tdogg, you raise some excellent points for consideration. The reason I quoted the above is this. It never really occurred to me until just this afternoon the thing that is wrong with the sentence. I do not want or care about the state and the weddings I perform. The powers vested in me by the church and to hell with the state. First amendment says my church is protected from the state's interference. Now, I realize we cannot sacrifice virgins or serve poison cool aid...but right now I am being told who I cannot marry in the legal sense. Really, what is the government offering? A license, a change in tax status, insurance dependent and recipient status, the ability to adopt, and some other things. I am trying to see what the state offers that is a sacred institution. What is sacred is two people who love each other and want to declare that love for life in front of their friends and family and then live that love. That is the sacred part and it is there that beauty lay. The state is defending nothing with prop 8 because they offer nothing sacred. Stupid voters.

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by CaptainSnoopy

I am trying to see what the state offers that is a sacred institution. What is sacred is two people who love each other and want to declare that love for life in front of their friends and family and then live that love. That is the sacred part and it is there that beauty lay. The state is defending nothing with prop 8 because they offer nothing sacred. Stupid voters.

Remember that song? Leslie Gore sang it. Gay icon.

Relevant here in that the state doesn't 'own' marriage, at least not in matters of faith (great post Snoppy!)

Marriage is a legal matter even though the majority of the public mixes the substance of faith into it. Folds it in like sugar into dough when making a cake. It may make it sweet, but it's really about the 'dough', that is, the 1500 benefits/rights that come with it.

I talked with my uncle some time ago about this. He was a really smart guy, all for gay rights, but couldn't see his way past the M word, saying that it was the stumbling block for straight people. That's what we're taking on. The perception of millions of people who don't understand the very institution they hold dear. Several times in fact!

[tdogg]

When government became involved in marriage, it became a civil matter. I liked what our minister said. Because for so long, we were not included in the 'civil' part. Sure, we could have our 'commitment ceremonies' in our churches, we could have the 'religious' or "sacred' rite, and eventually we were 'blessed' with having some rights via registered domestic partnerships. But we were excluded from the civil matter called "marriage". In May, we were granted inclusion into 'marriage'. On 9/20/08, my wife and I exercised our "legal" and "civil" right to become married.

That's why that statement meant so much to me. Yes, I considered our wedding and our marriage to be sacred and special and even holy, but also to be legal and civil and a right that we were able to exercise on that day. I can see your point of view, from a pastor, but from this person, the legal right was just as important as the religious rite. On a side note, our ceremony was not overtly religious, although we did include God and our rings were blessed by the minister. I didn't want it to become the church service that so many others choose to have. The was a major reason why I did not want my wedding to be performed in a church. We opted for the Capitol rose garden: roses, birds, passersby, and a lovely setting, including a couple of homeless persons observing. That's my 'church' preference.

[keltic63]

but, it's not just about the word "marriage" as proven by this story from PHB: http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=8355

They want not only to take away our rights, they want our benefits too.

[tdogg]

Some say that could never happen in California, but I've thought it was suspect that the Yes on 8 campaign NEVER mentioned domestic partner benefits at all. It was nearly unnoticeably left out of any of their messages.

Which makes me somewhat suspicious that if Prop 8 is found to be constitutional by the state Supreme Court and written into our constitution, then domestic partner benefits will be the next thing attacked. I hope the attorneys fighting to repeal Prop 8 are savvy enough to know what it will take to convince the justices that it is unconstitutional.

[Petrese]

well the threat to the whole institution of marriage is at stake here! and the hypocrites abound....LOL watch to see:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7DjSmIXyZ4

[tdogg]

The SF Chronicle (sfgate.com) reported today that the proponents of Prop 8 are splintering. There is a more 'radical' group that are attempting to take away all rights from GLBT (including civil unions and domestic partnerships, discrimination protections, etc.). The protectmarriage.com people are now attempting to distance themselves from this other group, because they want to be seen as the 'nice people who are only trying to protect the term marriage.' As far as I'm concerned, anyone who supported Prop 8 supported discrimination, whether or not they are trying to take anything else away. It is a bit funny, though, when you think about it.

[CaptainSnoopy]

Originally Posted by Petrese

well the threat to the whole institution of marriage is at stake here! and the hypocrites abound....LOL watch to see:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7DjSmIXyZ4

Vid got pulled. What did I miss?

[Petrese]

Originally Posted by CaptainSnoopy

Vid got pulled. What did I miss?

I just checked this link, it's still there. If the link here doesn't work go to Lisa Nova's YouTube channel and u can access it there, it is priceless, basically a guy telling his wife how he's gonna save their marriage yet everything that he's doing that actually threatens it he scoffs at, pretty funny & against measure 8. They should of ran it as an ad prior to the election and it may have helped defeat it.

Lisa also has a bunch of really good anti McCain/Palin vids too, a good comedian.

I think I am moving back to the east coast, maybe Conneticuit or Boston