Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

internetworkers - Re: [internetworkers] Interesting SWF on the gay marriage thing.

internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Edward Wesolowski <edwes AT idisplay.com>
  • To: "Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/" <internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [internetworkers] Interesting SWF on the gay marriage thing.
  • Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 12:35:12 -0500

>..if the "religious right" is against equal rights for same-sex couples, does that make me part of the "religious wrong?"
...Religous Wrong! Yeah, That must be it. Thanks for an identity, Dave! Finally;-)
Ed W.

At 11:59 AM 2/20/2004 -0500, you wrote:
On 2/20/04 4:37 AM, "Lee Haslup" <biglee AT haslups.com> wrote:

>
>>> ... an endless supply of liberal "Me too, I agree" conversations. As
>>> a member of the dread, horrible, so-called "religious right" I am
>>> very disappointed to see all of this liberal chatter with not a
>>> single "core" member of the list willing to represent the opposing side.
>>
> Tom,
>
> We do tend to lurk, but we are out there. Welcome to the list. Please
> be patient with them, despite their political naivete they are all very
> nice people. We get together once a month for a social outing. You
> should come. You'll see.
>>
>> Become that person then. Please, tell me why you think gay marriage
>> should not be allowed. I'd love to hear more about why the government
>> should be in the business of dictating what are essentially
>> religious / moral principles, especially in light of the principle
>> of separation of church and state.
>
> Phillip,
>
> I'll take a stab at it while we're waiting for Tom to get back to
> us. The "Gay Marriage" thing is one more attempt to use the coercive
> power of the State to destroy (or at least greatly change) an
> institution from which certain people feel excluded.

If "marriage" has such a religious/moral implication that the government
should not be able to legislate the definition, then it should not have any
involvement, in my opinion. Why not call any union sanctioned by the
government to be a Civil Union (be it heterosexual or same-sex). Those that
want to be "Married" can have a religious ceremony.

> As a libertarian (of a different feather) I unflaggingly support any gay
> couple's right to do anything that married couples do -- live together, shop
> together, sleep together, love each other, fight, buy furniture -- but I do
> not support their efforts to compel an unwilling majority to call them
> "Married".

I may be wrong, but I believe that most same-sex couples fighting for the
right to "marry" are looking for the rights that accompany such a union,
rather than attempting to co-opt the "sanctity" of "marriage." I think you
omitted from your list of things married couples can do some that same-sex
couples can not, such as participate in a spouses' health insurance (in most
cases), and have a say in their partners' health care (especially
end-of-life issues). I believe there are tax/inheritance issues involved as
well--very worldly concepts, rather than spiritual ones. I pity the same-sex
couple in the US which one is not an American citizen (check out US
immigration law, and see what additional rights "Married" couples get that
same-sex couples can not).

As some anecdotal evidence of this--my wife's grandmother remarried a few
years back (I believe she was 83, and married a younger man of 82). Was the
motivation their strong religious beliefs that men and women in
relationships should get married? No, it was because he suffered a heart
attack (while they were in the UK, so she was allowed to see him in the
hospital), but the realization that if anything happened while in the US,
they would have no legal standing. Would they have settled for a "Legal
Union" if it conveyed all of the rights marriage currently does? As a devout
atheist, I believe she would have.

A recent quote I heard was something to the effect of "the worst thing that
happened to marriage is allowing heterosexuals to do it, since half of their
marriages fail." I don't have the stats available, but I have heard this
from many places. I wonder what would happen to the stats if same-sex
marriage was allowed.

Personally, I am hoping my recent religiously performed, heterosexually
oriented, marriage beats those sad statistics (as does my wife, lurking on
this list). It doesn't feel any different now that same-sex couples are
getting "Married." Should it?

The suggestion that liberals and the religiously observant are on opposite
sides confuses me, though. While fairly "liberal" (though more correctly,
probably more libertarian in leanings), my wife and I are also religious.
Those that know me, know I server on the board of a state-wide religious
organization (though I am not expressing, or representing the views of that
organization when I post on the list). My wife organizes a monthly religious
service (if you are looking for an independent, reform-leaning, Jewish
service for twenty and thirty-somethings, let me know off-list).

So, if the "religious right" is against equal rights for same-sex couples,
does that make me part of the "religious wrong?"

David

---
Come and play at the InterNetWorkers Web site! http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/
You are currently subscribed to InterNetWorkers mailing list
To unsubscribe visit http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/internetworkers





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page