Same-sex, whole-milk marriage: 50 Shades of Gay

[Impenitent]

I am just jumping in here to say that I do understand where Cerin is coming from.

Whereas I had thought that after many years of debate I pretty clearly understood Cerin's position but this last few posts utterly baffle me. I earnestly cannot wrap my head around what she is saying. I'd like to because even though I very strongly disagree with her POV, I believe that Cerin is intelligent, sincere, and un-malicious, but I read that last post several times and it practically feels like she's speaking a different language.

This bit in particular made my brain explode:

There would be no problem, if one could, as you suggest, be married in a church and still be considered married by the state, without subscribing to a state license. Indeed, I've been hoping that this might be a remedy that will be put in place -- a conscientious objector's marriage license that officially acknowledges the couple's urgent need, based on religious belief, to identify with the pre-SCOTUS definition of marriage.

In Australia, as in the US, a marriage celebrant must be registered by the state in order to officially "marry" a couple. So, for example, all the rabbis in my synagogue are registered celebrants, and the marriages at which they officiate include the issue of a state marriage certificate.

However, many same-sex couples in my synagogue have been married under a chuppah, with all due ritual, by those same rabbis. These ceremonies are officially called commitment ceremonies because they are not state-sanctioned (unfortunately) and are not registered etc. But these ceremonies "acknowledge the couple's urgent need, based on religious belief" to be married in the eyes of their religious community.

It seems to me that those couples who conscientiously object to State-sanctioned marriage as currently defined (in other words, inclusive), could have a ceremony without signing onto the state's definition by being married in the eyes of their religious community without state sanction.

(And if they find that isn't "fair" or "just" because they are being discriminated against...well, the shoe's on the other foot.)

(Also, Inanna, with regard to Genesis 20:24, in the original Hebrew, the word is "isha", which is the word for woman as well as wife. )

And may I just say, for the past week or so, I've seen this thread at the top of my "unread threads" list, and I get a zing from it every time - 50 states!

It just blows me away that this marvel has happened in my lifetime. I remember when Nerdanel first started this thread, at a time when state-sanctioned inclusive marriage throughout the country seemed to be a far-off wish, and in what seems a blink of an eye, it has happened.

You will excuse me if I say I simply didn't think it would happen so quickly - not in the US, which has such a religious current throughout the country. And yet it has. It has. The tide has turned so quickly. In one lifetime, public opinion has swung 180 degrees.

It's miraculous

That's all. I just had to say it.

I hope so very fervently that we swing the tide here in Oz soon, but it may not - the current PM's attitude is shameful.

[Frelga]

The reddit thing on the subject was surprisingly insightful with minimal unpleasantness. Impish, one of the things people said was, "Wow, we are now more progressive than Australia!"

[JewelSong]

Here is a post from a Christian blog about a very specific view of what a marriage should be. If someone holds these views, there is no way he or she will ever accept same-sex marriage, because it goes completely against the very foundations of what that person believes a marriage to be.
http://arleenspenceley.com/marriage-crisis/


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Frelga]

And that is precisely why I celebrate this ruling on a personal level.

Of course I get to look forward to yov's eventual wedding photos and it's good to know that my married friends will still be married if they move to another state, but that's really about other people. For myself, as a member of a religious minority, I am very happy that this is still a country where religious belief of some alone is not a sufficient basis for passing laws that affect all. (At least sometimes it isn't.)

On the very day that this ruling passed, three separate attacks took dozens of lives in Tunisia, France, and Kuwait. At least two, and possibly all three, were linked to ISIS, whose goal it is to establish a state of forced, total obedience to its particular set of religious beliefs. The SCOTUS ruling was a great reminder of what a privilege it is to live in a country where people can live their own lives according to their faith, define their own marriage in the way that makes sense for them, but which still has legal limits and protections against them defining the lives of others.

[yovargas]

Here is a post from a Christian blog about a very specific view of what a marriage should be. If someone holds these views, there is no way he or she will ever accept same-sex marriage, because it goes completely against the very foundations of what that person believes a marriage to be.
http://arleenspenceley.com/marriage-crisis/

Man that's weird to me. Like, why is the idea that there are different conceptions of exactly what marriages are about so troubling??

[River]

Some of this is sounding like people's religious privilege is getting bruised. Yep, legally speaking, the definition of marriage has deviated away from what was written in some ancient book. An ancient book that a large number of Americans don't feel applies to them because to them that book is not holy writ (in other words, not everyone in this country is Christian - we've got Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, Pagans, Jains, Sikhs, animists...a pluralistic society is a beautiful thing). So...?

Marriage is intended to be a sign of Christ’s presence — a witness of Christ’s love for us. It is supposed to be an indissoluble union between a man and a woman, and it is supposed to be open to fertility (See CCC 1601-1658, and Matt. 19:4-9).

So, in the eyes of this person, can non-Christians not be married either? What about the infertile? Or is marriage only for a special subset of the general population and the rest of us are just wearing rings and using words but we're not really married? And they want this to be the law of the land???

If you're capable of bearing children and want the marriage described above, no one's stopping you from doing it. But we don't live in a Christian theocracy. You can't just impose that on everyone else via laws because Bible when not only is not everyone in the nation a theist but even among the theists (and even among the subset that label themselves as Christians) there's a wide variation in the scriptures being read and the interpretation of said scriptures that people adhere too. Good grief, just look at the number of Christian denominations out there and how they approach marriage and sexuality.

[yovargas]

I had a similar thought on that article. I don't expect it's what Cerin believes but it did sound like that author might believe that non-Christian marriages aren't "real" marriages. Thankfully the government is now mostly putting the decision of whether a marriage is "real" or not in the hands of those wanting to be married and not ladies like that.

[JewelSong]

....it did sound like that author might believe that non-Christian marriages aren't "real" marriages.

I think you are correct. However, the author of this particular article does not seems as bothered about the recent ruling as Cerin is. Rather, she seems to be advocating for her fellow Christians (or, at least the ones who are of the same stripe) to return to what (in her view) a "true" marriage should be. And personally, I have no issue with that. Any religion is certainly free to promote and encourage marriage amongst its members according to the tenets of their particular faith.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Túrin Turambar]

....it did sound like that author might believe that non-Christian marriages aren't "real" marriages.

I think you are correct. However, the author of this particular article does not seems as bothered about the recent ruling as Cerin is. Rather, she seems to be advocating for her fellow Christians (or, at least the ones who are of the same stripe) to return to what (in her view) a "true" marriage should be. And personally, I have no issue with that. Any religion is certainly free to promote and encourage marriage amongst its members according to the tenets of their particular faith.

I think it goes without saying that, in the eyes of many (most?) religions, to be married involves a particular ceremony separate to the legal union. For example, the Catholic sacrament of marriage, or the Islamic Nikah. And a marriage contracted without this element is not a 'real' marriage. But as far as I know, in secular countries like ours, this has never been a problem. Tolerating people of other religious faiths in your country means accepting that the civil and legal definition of marriage must extend to include marriages that are not legitimate according to your particular religious law. The Thirty Years' War pretty much decided this.

ETA: Even in Islamic countries where Islam is the only permitted religion and adultery carries a criminal penalty, foreigners who have been legally married in another jurisdiction can escape prosecution, so there's leeway in other cases as well.

[Frelga]

Even in the Middle Ages, the Church always recognized Jewish marriages as marriages. And vice versa, of course. As far as I know, amidst all the atrocities committed against the Jews, the "realness" of their marriages has never been questioned.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Until now.

[Impenitent]

It occurs to me that the state-issued marriage certificate is simply proof that a marriage is registered and recognised by the state for the purposes of societal benefits such as ; it has nothing to do with the sacrament of marriage as bestowed by the religious ritual of specific faiths, or the definition of what the partnership of marriage encompasses within each faith.

Those two things are separate, and don't overlap. State recognition of the marriage of two particular individuals has nothing whatever to do with any sacramental ritual that those two individuals have undertaken. The state doesn't ask how two people define the internals of their marriage, and the state doesn't care - a married couple is a married couple whether the ceremony they've undertaken is Wiccan, or Lutheran, or Jewish, or Moslem, or Amish or Quiverfull Christian.

Each of these belief systems defines marriage and the roles of the spouses differently, and sometimes in ways that conflict in a way which is irreconcilable, yet the existence of a Wiccan marriage does not negate the validity of a Christian marriage as defined in that extract that has been discussed above.

The sacrament of marriage and state recognition of a life partnership are two different things and I honestly don't understand why marriage equality - which is state recognition of a life partnership - should rock the foundations of some Christians. Gay and lesbian couples are not going to undertake the sacrament of marriage as it is defined by the faith doctrines that so strongly object to it (because those specific doctrines won't perform gay and lesbian marriages), so there is no redefinition going on.

[Primula Baggins]

Well said, Impy. This is why it's hard for me to see the more strident opponents of gay marriage on the grounds that it infringes their religious liberty as really having a leg to stand on. Their religious liberty is untouched. What's harmed is their belief that "marriage" is something special that is reserved only to them—when, as Impy points out, there were already, and had always been, multiple forms of marriage that differed strongly from their own perception of it that were nevertheless accepted by the state. Marriage under all different religious rules, marriage entirely without any religious element, marriage between two drunk people in Vegas.

Based on what I see, (some of) these gay-marriage opponents are not upset because their personal religion is being forced to bless gay marriage; it is not. In many cases that blessing is and always has been denied, and will continue to be, and everyone knows this. What seems to be getting to them is that gay people will now get the full benefits of civil marriage. This is what cannot be tolerated.

[yovargas]

Yes, yes, and yes to all of that, Impy and Prim....except that Cerin, who's intelligence I quite respect, I'm sure understands all of that and yet she is still troubled by all this. I'm surprised and confounded by that. I hope that she decides it is worth her time to try to address your points.

[nerdanel]

So to be perfectly plain, the problem is not sharing marriage with couples who misbehave. The problem is the identification by the state of an immoral practice as an aspect of the institution the state calls marriage, which it exalts as right and good. If people who believe same gender sex is a sin must obtain a license from the state, which defines marriage in this way, it is an intolerable moral conflict. We are currently existing under an umbrella of sin because the state has redefined marriage to include same-gender sexual relationships and we have a state-issued marriage license. We are now, from the perspective of our religious beliefs, part of an immoral institution. We need a means of exiting marriage as currently defined by the state, while staying married as marriage was defined before SCOTUS.

For years, you went to great lengths to state an anti-same-sex marriage position that dodged the use of words like "sin" and "immorality" and was nominally secular. Rather than referring to homosexuality as sinful, you made the, let's call it unique, argument that we had to have a special word for heterosexual marriage because it (and only it) could result in procreation. Obviously, that argument was full of logical holes: it was simultaneously an overinclusive and underinclusive theory of marriage, as virtually everyone else spent years pointing out (infertile, elderly, certain post-op transgender, etc. couples could get married, while plenty of children were born outside of wedlock).

Now, after more than ten years, we hear that the underlying concern is far less unique: it's just the "gays are sinners" trope. I was always certain that this was what really underpinned the other argument, though never certain why you couldn't just be open about it.

Also: a conscientious objector's marriage license is one of the most extraordinary, and extraordinarily unnecessary, propositions I've heard of. Couples who have an "urgent need" to identify with a definition of marriage's other than the states are free to proclaim their personal definition of marriage in all contexts, to the fullest extent of the First Amendment. But they do not have a right to have the government endorse their notion that some marriages are second class and less legitimate.

[yovargas]

Rather than referring to homosexuality as sinful, you made the, let's call it unique, argument that we had to have a special word for heterosexual marriage because it (and only it) could result in procreation.

To save Cerin any need to correct herself for the 1000th time, she didn't argue that "it (and only it) could result in procreation" but that it (and only it) could symbolize the union the results in procreation. I still find that position exceedingly strange but I could at least understand it, unlike the position she's now stating.

[tinwë]

I have to admit that I was also a bit baffled by Cerin’s recent comments. I participated quite a bit in those early discussions on this topic in Manwë (and here) and was convinced that her objection to same sex marriage was essentially one of semantics (albeit a passionate attachment to this particular semantic). To learn now that there was a judgmental element concerning the morality of same-sex relationships in general behind her argument is both surprising and sad.

[nerdanel]

To save Cerin any need to correct herself for the 1000th time, she didn't argue that "it (and only it) could result in procreation" but that it (and only it) could symbolize the union the results in procreation. I still find that position exceedingly strange but I could at least understand it, unlike the position she's now stating.

Why can't you understand her current position? It's certainly held by a significant minority of Americans (and historically was held by a majority of Americans). The prior argument was truly unique, to the point where I had difficulty understanding how anyone could be so passionate about a linguistic matter if it was truly a secular belief without religious underpinnings. Now that I know (as I'd long suspected) that it was driven by a standard, garden-variety religious objection to gay equality, it's much easier to understand ... with the only remaining question being why Cerin felt the need to express it in purely secular terms for so long.

Also, I'm not all that interested in giving credit to the nuances, like only hetero-only marriage "could symbolize the union that results in procreation." The latest nuance is...it's fine if couples who have divorced, cohabited, engaged in pre-marital intimacy, or who include Britney Spears + someone whom she connected with the previous day get married because these are not "recognized by the state as defining aspects of the marital union," but it's not okay if gay couples get married because this means that the state is recognizing same-sex intimacy as a defining aspect of the marital union. As a preliminary matter, this is incorrect: asexual couples and others not able to engage in sexual intimacy (whether due to age, illness, significant disability, or other lack of interest) can get married, and sex need not be a defining aspect of any legal marital union. In fact, what the government has now said is that sex and gender are NOT defining aspects of the marital union. But even were Cerin correct ... at this point, I'm not interested in engaging in the nuance (keep in mind that I say this after entertaining the nuance for eleven years running so I have given it a fair shake). I understand her position to be that she is opposed to gay couples receiving a combination of equal rights and equal dignity (which does require use of an equal title, eleven years of apples v. oranges discussion aside) under the secular law based on her religious beliefs (whether or not dressed in secular terms), and that's what I need to understand to evaluate her position.

[Faramond]

I wonder if 'number' is going to be a defining aspect of the marital union in the future?

There would be nothing more awesome than Britney Spears and Lindsey Lohan AND!!!!111 Dennis Rodman all getting married in Las Vegas, followed by an unconscious untripling.

[yovargas]

Why can't you understand her current position?

For one, I have no idea what the "conscientious objector's marriage license" she mentioned would mean, or would entail, or would accomplish or...just...just what??? That "solution" to her concern is certainly a unique one to me and I'm rather gobsmacked by it. Would a piece of paper issued by the state saying "We understand you are not gay" solve this perceived moral conflict?? I ask that seriously.....I don't understand.....


(PS - For the record, I always understood that Cerin's personal religious beliefs led her to believe homosexual behavior was a sin. But I had also been under the impression that she did not believe her personal religious beliefs should be the basis of our laws.)

(PPS - Lindsey Lohan is so 5 minutes ago. If they're going to do that they would obviously need to get a Kardashian out from somewhere or else what's the point?)