God and Gay Marriage

Years ago, the compromise idea of "fine, just call it a civil union" was soundly rejected by both sides.

The constitutional ammendment in Michigan went as far as to ban any same sex civil union, no matter what it was called. The referendum passed with 59% of the vote. 63% of the population actually voted in that referendum. So, about 36% of all eligible voters were in favor of the ban, 24% were against, and 40% did not vote.

Quote: Mosca

Using the example of bakers of wedding cakes, f someone wants to profit from making wedding cakes, then they cannot discriminate. That is an economic freedom, not a religious one. They can choose to bake cakes, but not wedding cakes, and remain completely free religiously. Or, they can grudgingly bake cakes for gay people and take the money, muttering under their breath about what the world is coming to.

I still have moral questions concerning non-discrimination laws. That aside, I do not know of any religion which requires, as a practice of its adherents, denying goods or services to any class of people. I do know totalitarian ideologies that do. I'm talking about regular adherents of a religion, not officiants or clergy, who often face more stringent rules.

Therefore if a church, temple, etc or priest, reverend, rabbi, whatever doesn't want to perform a same sex wedding (or for that matter an opposite sex one, or one of mixed faiths, and so on), they can freely refuse, as far as I understand the law, and I'd have no moral objections. This includes choosing not to make their facilities available.

For better or worse, there exist laws banning discrimination on a plethora of basis. Imagine a bakery that refused, on religious grounds, to bake a cake for a mixed race couple. The condemnation for such a denial would be universal. Yet the same reason can be stated in the case of a same sex couple, and there would be defenders galore for the refusal.

I've been denied services and goods a few times for who I am. I'd like to say it's nothing more than very unpleasant inconvenience, and that I could look elsewhere. In many cases that's just what it was. And yet unpleasant doesn't begin to describe the hurt I felt at the time. On one occasion, though, it wasn't merely inconvenient. And it didn't happen at only one place, but several. In fact, I spent over a year looking for a place that would do electrolysis on me. IN the end I found one, and they were so incompetent all the managed to eliminate was my money.

Suppose Nelson Mandela was Roman Catholic, had been single but wanted to get married by a priest in prison, knowing he was unlikely to get out. Would a priest marry him? I find it hard to imagine that even if an individual preist refused the Pope would have pushed someone to do it.

He spent 27 years in prison as a political prisoner and had been sentenced to life.

I mean, how much does a marriage need to look like a traditional marriage? If such a situation is approved it sure seems a stretch to not accept the nice two guys or two women living in your neighborhood.

Quote: rxwine

Suppose Nelson Mandela was Roman Catholic, had been single but wanted to get married by a priest in prison, knowing he was unlikely to get out. Would a priest marry him? I find it hard to imagine that even if an individual preist refused the Pope would have pushed someone to do it.

What was the cuckoo South African's regime policy on conjugal visits?

Quote: Nareed

What was the cuckoo South African's regime policy on conjugal visits?

18 years of imprisonment was here:

Quote:

Isolated from non-political prisoners in Section B, Mandela was imprisoned in a damp concrete cell measuring 8 feet (2.4 m) by 7 feet (2.1 m), with a straw mat on which to sleep.[130] Verbally and physically harassed by several white prison wardens, the Rivonia Trial prisoners spent their days breaking rocks into gravel, until being reassigned in January 1965 to work in a lime quarry. Mandela was initially forbidden to wear sunglasses, and the glare from the lime permanently damaged his eyesight.[131] At night, he worked on his LLB degree, but newspapers were forbidden, and he was locked in solitary confinement on several occasions for possessing smuggled news clippings.[132] Initially classified as the lowest grade of prisoner, Class D, he was permitted one visit and one letter every six months, although all mail was heavily censored.[133

Quote:

By 1975, Mandela had become a Class A prisoner,[150] allowing greater numbers of visits and letters; he corresponded with anti-apartheid activists like Mangosuthu Buthelezi and Desmond Tu

I didn't think I would find the actual answer to that: but here it is in a Larry King interview:

Quote:

KING: Were you allowed conjugal visits? Could your wife visit you?

MANDELA: Yes, our wives would visit us, but not in the sense of a conjugal visit, where you can have physical contact with them. For a long time, you were separated by a glass wall with the wardens breathing on your shoulders, listening very carefully to what you say.

I only had the advantage of conjugal visits when, in 1988, I was then separated from the others and thus removed to a different prison, then my wife could come and sleep in prison, but she refused to do so, a decision which I fully supported.

KING: Why?

MANDELA: Because that privilege was not enjoyed by other prisoners, by my colleagues, and I saw no reason why ...

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0005/16/lkl.00.html

Quote: FrGamble

Why can we not treat same sex unions and marriage equally under the law but not confuse and frustrate everyone with using the same word? NOBODY has answered this question without reverting to fear mongering and ridiculous comparisons.

Who's confused and frustrated. And there you
go with the 'same word' thing again. Marriage
now gives a Gay couple every right a straight
couple has under the law, why on earth would
it be called something else. A human marrying
a human, what's sexual orientation got to do
with it. A straight couple can use every sexual
technique a Gay couple uses. Oral sex, inserting
something hard into any orifice that will hold it.
What's the difference which human it is.

Of course in religion, especially Christianity, it's
all the tiny things that matter. A word here, an extra
sentence there. That's why there are 3000 different
brands. Spending eternity in heaven with so many
self righteous, nitpicking, judgemental people
seems like the real hell to me. Go ahead and call
Gay marriage something else, we all know it's the
same as straight marriage. A rose is a rose..

Quote: rxwine

I didn't think I would find the actual answer to that: but here it is in a Larry King interview:

Well, then, yes, I can see a priest refusing to officiate a marriage that won't be consummated.

And the Pope overriding it.

Quote: Nareed

Imagine a bakery that refused, on religious grounds, to bake a cake for a mixed race couple.

Imagine not baking a cake because you don't feel the partners are right for each other, because by extension that's what you are doing.

Quote: Dalex64

Years ago, the compromise idea of "fine, just call it a civil union" was soundly rejected by both sides.

As you point out, even the notion of a recognized union of a same sex couple was banned in many states along with same sex marriage.

But there was also DOMA. That piece of legislation rendered any same sex unions second class permanently. One part allowed states not to recognize same sex marriages from other states. I dare anyone suggest proposing the same for any other type of marriage. But at least individual states could recognize such marriages. The Federal government was absolutely barred from doing so. This meant no Federal benefits of any kind, no joint filing of taxes, etc.

It bears repeating, there was a lot of animus against same sex couples. And that situation gives lie to the claim of favoring equal rights so long as they don't call it marriage. If that were true, things like DOMA and state bans would have been repealed, or wouldn't have passed to begin with.