Reflecting again on the momentous occasion in New York shows us both how far we have come, and yet how far we have to go. Embroiled in this debate are deep divisions over the role of faith in Government, the separation of church and state, and over who gets to set the country’s morality.
In a way, this debate played out this weekend within my own extended family.
I quickly responded, “This is precisely why the separation of church and state is essential to securing freedom. The state has to weigh equity and equal protection of the law. It cannot arbitrate between competing moral and religious values. That is the job of Church/Religious Institutions.”
She replied, “If you read the constitution it was written by God-fearing men who believed in the Bible and wrote the laws of this nation accordingly and over the years our nation has strayed from the Godly Foundation that has brought this nation many blessings from God. Now we can see God’s blessing leave this great nation because we have turned our backs on him. We see that break down in the family structure, more people in our prisons, more children damaged by parents, the list goes on and on. So you can take God out of our country and its laws and you will bring it to it knees. Makes me very sad.”
Of course the same God-fearing men disenfranchised 90% of Americans.
Her daughter noted with irony, “California does not need same-sex marriage.”
Perhaps she does not. She is married to the person of her choice. She does not need same-sex marriage.
The irony is that, under the laws set forth by the founders and their successors up until the point of the “Loving” decision, interracial partners could not marry. My sister-in-law would not have been married under those laws, and her daughter would not have been born.
While this dialogue illustrates the divide that still binds us, other evidence shows that the world is changing, and people are voting with their feet towards social change… whether they like it or not.
While the New York Times executive editor Bill Keller was trying to divide the baby, still on the issue of civil unions, he noted the sea of change.
He wrote, “Even before New York passed its law last week, the move toward legalization of same-sex marriage in America had become inexorable. It may feel excruciatingly slow for those who are waiting their turn, but it’s just a matter of time until the country lives up to what it believes.”
Look no further to than the latest Gallup Poll. For the first time a majority of Americans support same-sex marriage at 53-45.
The question they ask was, “Do you think marriages between same-sex couples should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriage?”
I realize that the poll disbelievers will point out that polls can be manipulated. The beauty of this poll is that Gallup asks the same question over time, although it appears in this case they changed the word “homosexual” to “same-sex” in 2005 (it doesn’t appear to have affected the trend). Therefore, what you should look at is the internal validity of the poll, which means the trend.
Gallup first asked the question in 1996 and again in 1999. In 1996 an overwhelming number of respondents were opposed to same-sex marriage. It was almost 3 to 1 opposed in 1996 with a 41 percentage point split. By the time they began tracking it yearly, it was down to 55-42 against, and this year for the first time, the majority favors same-sex marriage rights.
Still, Republicans and older people oppose it strongly, but the trend is on the side of same-sex marriage support.
Mr. Keller wrote, “And support will continue to surge thanks to demographics: among 18-to-34-year-olds, approval is now an overwhelming 70 percent. If Gallup polled high-school students, it would need a category called “Why are you even asking?””
Other trends are moving in that direction, as well. Mr. Keller noted, “The accumulation of state laws that extend marriage rights to gay couples is slow but steady. New York just doubled the percentage of Americans who live in states with more egalitarian marriage laws, to 11 percent; that percentage will double again if the California gay-marriage lawsuit prevails.”
He adds, “Already, 41 percent of Americans live in states that afford some legal recognition for same-sex couples, even if that does not include the right to marry there.”
Why is public opinion moving? In part because same-sex families are becoming mainstream.
He noted, “Two years ago, 581,300 same-sex couples told the Census they were living together. One in five of these couples is raising children. Their median household incomes are comfortably in the middle class — meaning that, unlike African-Americans in their fight for acceptance, gay people do not face a great gulf of class.”
He further noted, “The remaining bastions of resistance are evangelical Christians (including many black ministers), the Catholic Church and the Republican Party. But rank-and-file Catholics are actually far more supportive of same-sex marriage than other Christians — not to mention their own clerical hierarchy — and church leaders seem a little less eager than in the past to throw themselves on the barricades. “
“The Republican electoral base remains unconvinced — only 28 percent of G.O.P. voters accept same-sex marriage, unchanged from a year ago — and so does most of the Republican presidential field. While no one expects the 2012 election to hinge on gay marriage, the issue may have weight, especially if one of the G.O.P.’s more vociferous social conservatives gets the nomination. Those views would be a potential liability in a general election where, according to Gallup, 59 percent of independent voters favor gay marriage,” he writes.
What does all of this mean for us? It means that at some point, whether the courts roll back Proposition 8 or the people do, same-sex marriage will be a reality in California too. The numbers show it could happen as soon as 2014.
At some point, people will realize that this is not the end of Western Civilization as we know. Just as the founders disenfranchised the majority of the American population, history has undone that oversight. We continue to move on a trajectory towards equality and social justice.
As Martin Luther King, Jr. once said, “Let us realize the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice.”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
The “state” should get out of the ‘marriage’ business… as far as the “state” is concerned, there should ONLY be civil unions… it should only be a ‘contract’, applied equally whether same or different sexes. Contracts can be voided (divorce). Same-sex contracts should be equal in rights and responsibilities to traditional marital ‘contracts’. It should be left to faith communities to define ‘marriage’. The concepts of fidelity, life-long commitment, etc., are essentially spiritual, and have no place in the secular (“state”) realm. Those who would impose everyone acknowledging “marriage” for their relationships are, IMHO, wrong. Marriage, to me, is a ‘sacrament’… the only one (in Catholic terms) that those directly involved actually perform… the church is only a witness, not the ‘creator’. If gays, etc. demand to be “equal”, fine, I support that. But the “state” has no right to call it “marriage”.
The state has not only the right, but the authority.
It should not. The authority is not “just”. You appear to assert the authority of the “state” when it suits your view, and deny it when it does not fit your “world view”.
The only basis for which you can argue it is not just is that you disagree with it. That’s not the basis of whether authority and law are just.
[quote]Of course the same God-fearing men disenfranchised 90% of Americans.
[/quote][quote]The only basis for which you can argue it is not just is that you disagree with it. That’s not the basis of whether authority and law are just. [/quote]Your own words betray you. You argue that the “state” (founding fathers) were wrong. Look in the dictionary for words that start with “hypo-“.
Hpierce said -But the “state” has no right to call it “marriage”.
Why do you presume the “Church” somehow owns the word marriage? Certainly the “Church” has been involved in marriage for a long time, but the “State” has been involved much longer. Is your marriage diminished in any way if a same sex couple gets married?
Without arguing the legality or the morality of this subject, I’d like to point out that my unabridged Webster’s dictionary say’s “the state of being united with a person of the opposite sex”. Maybe this could be resolved by coining a new word that means “the state of being united with a person of the same sex”
“Of course the same God-fearing men disenfranchised 90% of Americans.”
non god fearing men created the soviet union and stuffed god fearing men in gulags.
[quote]Of course the same God-fearing men disenfranchised 90% of Americans.[/quote]
I stopped reading this article after this statement. Why? This to me appears to spell out an intense dislike for those who are religious/believe in God – in short it smacks of religious bigotry. I’m not particularly religious, but frankly I despise the attacks/almost persecution of anyone who does not follow along with the policy of wanting to completely sanitize the Christian religion from American life. Our traditional institutions are under attack, and about to be wiped off the face of the earth, while other belief systems are in the ascendency. Where is the tolerance for all?
[quote]The “state” should get out of the ‘marriage’ business… as far as the “state” is concerned, there should ONLY be civil unions… it should only be a ‘contract’, applied equally whether same or different sexes. Contracts can be voided (divorce). Same-sex contracts should be equal in rights and responsibilities to traditional marital ‘contracts’. It should be left to faith communities to define ‘marriage’. The concepts of fidelity, life-long commitment, etc., are essentially spiritual, and have no place in the secular (“state”) realm. Those who would impose everyone acknowledging “marriage” for their relationships are, IMHO, wrong. Marriage, to me, is a ‘sacrament’… the only one (in Catholic terms) that those directly involved actually perform… the church is only a witness, not the ‘creator’. If gays, etc. demand to be “equal”, fine, I support that. But the “state” has no right to call it “marriage”.[/quote]
Nicely said!
Did it ever occur to any of you “anti same-sex marriage” people that if God had any problems at all with this issue, there would have been an 11th. commandment? And please don’t quote the bible because we all know God didn’t write the bible … and the dudes that did write it (sometime in the 16th. century) wouldn’t have had a clue what God actually thought about anything.
It’s a question of language. Marriage by definition is between a man and a woman. (The dictionary owns that definition, not the state.) If you want to make it a question of legal rights, yes, any two same-sex persons may have the rights connected to this special relationship, but don’t call it marriage. How about ‘domestic partnership’?
Use the proper terminology, recognize the rights, and end the argument. And stop interposing the church and state issue– that’s a red herring.
Solo Menso
[i]”I’d like to point out that my unabridged Webster’s dictionary say’s ‘the state of being united with a person of the opposite sex.’ Maybe this could be resolved by coining a new word that means “the state of being united with a person of the same sex.” [/i]
We don’t need a new word. The meaning of words evolves all the time. Very few words don’t change meaning or don’t add some new definitions over time. Some even become opposite what they once were.
A great word in this regard is [i]gay[/i]. It started out meaning, “joyful, happy; pleasant, agreeably charming; forward, pert.” However, over hundreds of years it took on in some uses a suggestion of being lewd. That is, the happiness of gay was derived from a sexual suggestion. In the late 19th C. there was a new usage in the term, a ‘gay cat,’ which was used for some itinerant laborers who went from job to job and ‘slept around.’ But it was not for another few decades that homosexuals started calling each other ‘gay cats,’ and then ‘gays.’
The word girl, also, had an interesting start in English. It used to mean a child of either sex. But over time it evolved to mean only a female child. A kid, of course, was once only a young goat, not a young child. Someone who was called ‘brave’ at one time would have been insulted. It originally meant ‘a coward.’ Long before the word counterfeit meant a fake, it meant ‘a legitimate copy.’
It really does not make sense to get agitated over a contemporary dictionary definition for the word marriage. It has meant up to now a contractual, usually sexual and emotional relationship between a male and a female. (You can’t really say a man and a woman, because for most of history people were married as juveniles.) In the next few decades, when gay marriage becomes commonplace, dictionaries will accommodate the change. The definition will include “a union between two adults who love each other and are bonded by a contract.”
Correction: The definition will include “a union between two adults who love each other and are [b]bound[/b] by a contract.”
Here’s the definition of marriage that I just found online:
[quote]marriage (noon) a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage
[url]http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage[/url]
[/quote]
In English, I understand that dictionaries are intended to be descriptive, not prescriptive.
[s](noon)[/s] should read [b](noun)[/b]; spelling error is my mistake. I had to type the first part in.
Dictionaries and encyclopedias are edited by people. They are not infallible or immutable. When the practice changes, so will the definition — assuming the editorial board of the dictionary you consult decides the change has become commonplace and implements it.
David, which is it?
[quote][b] Of course the same God-fearing men disenfranchised 90% of Americans.[/quote][/b]
or
[quote]“Just as the founders disenfranchised the majority of the American population…[/quote]
Alphonso, care to substantiate your claim?
[quote]…the “State” has been involved much longer.[/quote]
(Al, the 58th State of Utopia doesn’t count, either)
“Alphonso, care to substantiate your claim? “
The institution of marriage predates Christianity by thousands of years. For the most part the institution has not been about religion – it has had more to do with property rights (owning the partner) and building alliances. There were no church ceremonies until the 16 century.
[quote] David, which is it?
Of course the same God-fearing men disenfranchised 90% of Americans.
or
“Just as the founders disenfranchised the majority of the American population…[/quote]
There is no contradiction or even tension between those two statements, one is simply more specific than the other.
[quote]The institution of marriage predates Christianity by thousands of years. [/quote]Ok… by how many years does the concept of ‘marriage’ pre-date Judaism, Hinduism, and other faith systems?
People who are pulling up dictionary definitions miss a point that language is not static, it evolves over time. In fact, I would argue that a dictionary is a lagging rather than leading indicator of definitions of words and concepts.
Hpierce: I think you miss a point in your question and that is that the concept of marriage has greatly evolved over time in terms of function from legal contract to assign assets and insure inheritance and sometimes political power and alliances, to an institution of love. It has a legal component and a religious component. It has both bound women and liberated women in various ways. At one point divorce was impractical for women and they lacked rights outside of marriage, now with suffrage and women’s rights, it has empowered women. At the same time divorce has been a detriment to marriage as well. Finally the ability to marry individuals has not been static, in some societies the family controlled who the individual could wed, the government as well. It has expanded to allow interracial marriages and it is likely it will expand to allow same sex marriages.
DMG: [i]People who are pulling up dictionary definitions miss a point that language is not static, it evolves over time. In fact, I would argue that a dictionary is a lagging rather than leading indicator of definitions of words and concepts.[/i]
Agreed.
[quote]Hpierce: I think you miss a point in your question and that is that the concept of marriage has greatly evolved over time in terms of function from legal contract to assign assets and insure inheritance and sometimes political power and alliances, to an institution of love. It has a legal component and a religious component. It has both bound women and liberated women in various ways. At one point divorce was impractical for women and they lacked rights outside of marriage, now with suffrage and women’s rights, it has empowered women. At the same time divorce has been a detriment to marriage as well. Finally the ability to marry individuals has not been static, in some societies the family controlled who the individual could wed, the government as well. It has expanded to allow interracial marriages and it is likely it will expand to allow same sex marriages.[/quote]
This is YOUR WORLD VIEW OF MARRIAGE…
ERM: [i]This is YOUR WORLD VIEW OF MARRIAGE…[/i]
I think DMG’s points are reasonable and valid. I’d be interested to read YOUR WORLD VIEW OF MARRIAGE…
David Frum: I was wrong about same-sex marriage
[url]http://edition.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/06/27/frum.gay.marriage/index.html?&hpt=hp_c2[/url]
[i]”People who are pulling up dictionary definitions miss a point that language is not static, it evolves over time. In fact, I would argue that a dictionary is a lagging rather than leading indicator of definitions of words and concepts.
“[/i]
Now I understand the mindset that would lead Bill Clinton to question the meaning of “is”. Seems the left-leaning folk can just make stuff up and then demand the dictionary be changed.
The problem with the progressive worldview is that it has lost appreciation for the roots of a binding culture that allow it to sway so precariously with the wind of desire. Without opposition to their agitation for change, they would topple over and take the rest with them.
[i]”Of course the same God-fearing men disenfranchised 90% of Americans.”[/i]
I urge anyone believing this type of nonsense to read up on the actual debates that occurred in 1787. Forgetting for the moment the irony demonstrated by applying modern day concepts like political correctness to history, while also demanding we rewrite the historical meaning of words to suit modern day interests… this statement indicates a complete lack of understand or appreciation the value of the work these predominantly white men accomplished. The principles of the “Great Experiment” that launched the greatest society in the history of humans had never been tried before. The men that debated and ultimately decided on the words that we rely on to continually remind us who we are and what we should continue to be, were more “progressive” than any modern day political activist… who, by the way, is afforded substantial social security resulting from those words.
These same men that framed our great nation, if placed in today’s society would surely feel disenfranchised. However, after recovering from their amazement at what they had wrought, they would likely grow to appreciate the value of their original intents specifically for this reason. Whether from the minority or the majority, tyranny is tyranny and it was the distaste for it that drove most of these men toward our designs of American governance. Following the raging debates during that sweltering summer in Philadelphia, they expected debate to continue; but based on some foundation of piety, morality and social conformity to bind us as a whole. Previous attempts at democracy had failed when societies lacked this and splintered into too many selfish special interests.
Our founders expected we would debate and progress. What they could not have foreseen is the dominant power and corruptive influence of modern media. Having seen it first hand, they surely would have made some modification to our designs of governance, and possibly had some second thoughts about our First Amendment rights. They would see the gay rights movement as tyrannical minority exploiting the bias of media power to force change a profound tenet of our binding American culture. It would raise hackles of recognition for the previous failures of democracy where a minority was able to force its will on the majority.
JB: [i]Seems the left-leaning folk can just make stuff up and then demand the dictionary be changed.[/i]
Do you suggest then that I stick with my 1950’s edition Merriam Webster unabridged dictionary that my parents handed down to me, that doesn’t seem to have any terms and definitions connected to modern laptop computers, the internet, modern astronomy and genetics, among other things?
To the other end of the spectrum, an extreme characterization of cultural conservatives is that they are unappreciative of the way human understanding changes over time. That we should stick to traditions the way they have worked in the past up until now. That gets you interesting pieces like the well-known letter to Dr. Laura Schlessinger as a satirical attack on using a literal interpretation of the Bible as an authority to determine that homosexuality must be a sin.
[quote]Dear Dr. Laura,
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.
a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?
e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
etc.
[url]http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/drlaura.asp[/url]
[/quote]
[quote]That gets you interesting pieces like the well-known letter to Dr. Laura Schlessinger as a satirical attack on using a literal interpretation of the Bible as an authority to determine that homosexuality must be a sin. [/quote]
Now those who don’t agree with gay marriage believe homosexuality is a sin? Come on…
ERM: [i]Now those who don’t agree with gay marriage believe homosexuality is a sin? Come on…[/i]
I was responding to this comment of Jeff Boone:
[i]The problem with the progressive worldview is that it has lost appreciation for the roots of a binding culture that allow it to sway so precariously with the wind of desire. Without opposition to their agitation for change, they would topple over and take the rest with them.[/i]
I understand his criticism to be that progressives are an unrooted, anything goes group of folks, possibly lacking any moral grounding. I personally find that criticism to be extreme. What I offer is an example of how someone might view a more extreme conservative who is a little bit too rooted and unable to accept that cultural change might be a good thing every now and then. I think most of us happen to live between these two extremes, include many same-sex couples.
I was going to respond to this and got too busy. I too have a problem with the literal interpretation of the bible. I have always looked at it as a book of metaphors. My interest here is more where culture and religion intersect. Neither survives alone, but both can reinforce each to become a root of understanding that reduces misunderstanding and life stress. The concept of gay marriage is very stressful and it will cause copious misunderstandings going forward. I might be less concerned if supporters would concede some potential differences in child development. I might also be more supportive if our media-driven tendency for hyper sensitivity for every damn little difference did not exist. I can see a whole new book of protocol for how to treat gay married couples over straight married couples. For example, “Who takes the traditional mother role and who takes the traditional father role?”… is evidentially not a gay-married couple appropriate question. I am really quite tired of making everyone feel loved and accepted while they keep their language and their customs completely foreign to the base of what this country has been founded on and what it has been. I like my American culture Red, White and Blue with a hint of Christianity. Everything else is just mess in my mind. That does not mean I do not respect others with different cultural origins and life practices, I just want them to learn what American is and do a better job being it.
[i]I like my American culture Red, White and Blue with a hint of Christianity. Everything else is just mess in my mind.[/i]
Wow.
And I forgot speaking English too.
Don that is the America I grew up with and the one I love. No problem if like it different, just don’t force it on me.
JB: [i]The concept of gay marriage is very stressful[/i]
Do you find the concept of gay marriage stressful?? Why?
JB: [i]I might be less concerned if supporters would concede some potential differences in child development.[/i]
There are same-sex couples right now who are legally raising kids. And this has been going on for a while. I’m not sure why to focus on the issue now. It seems a little late. There are also plenty of same-sex couples who will never be involved in raising kids, too.
JB: [i]I can see a whole new book of protocol for how to treat gay married couples over straight married couples. For example, “Who takes the traditional mother role and who takes the traditional father role?”… is evidentially not a gay-married couple appropriate question. I am really quite tired of making everyone feel loved and accepted while they keep their language and their customs completely foreign to the base of what this country has been founded on and what it has been.[/i]
Is this what’s stressing you out?? You don’t know any same-sex couples, I take it. You know, I suggest having a healthy, polite curiosity of others, be proud of your own heritage, and just relax. You’ll do fine.
wdf1: A quote from a study from the Public Policy Institute of CA:
[quote]The fact that people said they would rather live in an area where their own group is the majority probably has less to do with bigotry and more to do with the belief that it is easier to socialize with people of similar backgrounds.”[/quote]
It is a simple fact that it is more difficult to communicate, socialize and interact with people that do not share culture and language. It adds stress to our lives simply having to work harder to effectively communicate.
Recently in the LA area for business I stopped at a convienience store for directions but none of the patrons nor the cashier could understand or speak enough English to help me. I was thinking what a bummer it would be to have to live there are deal with that language problem every day. Most of us would not do it. Most of us naturally like to hang with people most like ourselves.
For example, how many people without high-level English skills or without knowledge of American ways post on this blog? I assume zero.
I do know same-sex couples and gay individuals and people from other cultures with English as a second language. I am friendly with everyone, but my very best friends share my values and culture and speak English very well.
As an IT manager for large companies I would have the most diverse groups of employees that you could imagine. The language and cultural differences were always a source of conflict and stress. Of course I hired the best employees for the job regardless of their ethnenticity, geneder or sexual orientation… and these differences provided some value in creative diversity… however at a cost of increased stress dealing with numbers of issues. My dream was that these people from diverse cultures and diverse social perspectives would better conform to an American-style existance and speak flawless English.