Pro and con on gay marriage
Thursday, Jan 3, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller
* We’ll get into what happened with gay marriage yesterday in a little bit. But first, let’s backtrack. We talked yesterday about the “natural law” argument made by Chicago’s Cardinal George against gay marriage…
The State has no power to create something that nature itself tells us is impossible.
* Lt. Governor Sheila Simon had a pretty good counter-argument…
Simon argued that adoption is similarly a “legal fiction” that helps citizens form a family unit — and one that she also supports.
Game, set, match.
* The Tribune offered up another argument…
The Catholic church, after all, bars remarriage by divorcees, but Illinois grants marriage licenses to them. Allowing same-sex marriage does not limit the freedom of religious believers to reject it; it merely allows those who differ to practice what they believe.
* But a group of Catholic, Muslim and other religious leaders sent out a press release yesterday arguing against gay marriage, claiming that it poses a “serious danger” to society…
Marriage is the lifelong, faithful union of one man and one woman, and the natural basis of the family.
Marriage is an institution fundamental to the well-being of society because a stable, loving marriage is the ideal environment for raising children. Through marriage, children grow up knowing that they were created through an act of intimate love. Marriage is also beneficial for adults as the ideal structure for men and women to live interdependently, recognizing the equal dignity, beauty and value of one another while also relying on each other’s care and love. This is the natural order embracing the complementary physical, emotional and spiritual design of men and women.
As such, marriage in its true definition has long been respected and publicly supported in our society. As religious leaders in Illinois, we find the continued affirmation of marriage between a man and a woman essential. The ongoing attempts to alter the definition of marriage in civil law are full of serious danger, primarily by degrading the cultural understanding of marriage to an emotional bond between any two adults and by giving rise to a profound interference with the exercise of religious freedom for those persons and religious institutions whose faith and doctrine recognize the spiritual foundation of marriage as an authorized union between a man and a woman.
Some claim that as long as religious ministers are not forced to preside over same-sex “marriages” the principle of religious freedom, as secured in the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment is protected. However, the notion that the exercise of religious freedom is confined to the interior of churches, synagogues, temples or mosques or what one does on Holy Days is wrong and dangerous. The freedom of religion also extends to the ministries of religious organizations and to the individual conscience. Thus, the real peril: if marriage is redefined in civil law, individuals and religious organizations – regardless of deeply held beliefs – will be compelled to treat same-sex unions as the equivalent of marriage in their lives, ministries and operations. Compulsion of this nature is a violation of personal conscience and of religious liberty.
We implore all people of good will to protect marriage and religious freedom. The far-reaching consequences of redefining marriage in civil law extend throughout society and will directly impact religious freedom. Marriage and religious freedom are ideals integral to Illinois, and our elected leaders should do all they can to maintain these important principles.
Thoughts?
- Belle - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 9:36 am:
If they pass it today, they might beat RI to the punch…go go go
- LincolnLounger - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 9:39 am:
What brilliant counterpoints by Sheila Simon and the Tribune. How could I have not heard those before?
Get this thing done, please.
- northshorecynic - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 9:41 am:
I was just wondering….is this the same Catholic Church who can declare that a twenty year marriage between a man and a woman with children to not exist? Who are the hypocrites?
- wordslinger - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 9:42 am:
–The State has no power to create something that nature itself tells us is impossible.–
If it’s impossible, then the state could not “create” it.
Yet the two dudes and the little girl across the street from me sure look like a family. Somehow, I make it through the day with my marriage and family secure.
There’s a lot of flopping around here. First, it’s “marriage comes from nature,” then it’s an “institution,” then it’s something that has a “spiritual foundation.”
I didn’t get the natural law argument coming from the church. It’s not really their area, and it disregards all marriages where childbearing are not in the cards.
- Anon - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 9:44 am:
The arguments against marriage equality sicken me sometimes. The line of argumentation is nearly identical to proposing all past changes to marriage laws- ie interracial marriages will destroy the very fabric of our society!
They usually seem to imply that a sterile atheist should not, or even shouldn’t be able to, get married.
It’s like the moment this bill passes, all married couples in the state will feel this dark power as the institution of marriage, and thus their own, is destroyed.
Not gonna happen.
- ChicagoJ - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 9:44 am:
The gall of believers who define religious freedom as their ability to impose their beliefs on society as a whole never ceases to amaze and infuriate me. Give them their freedom and to hell with everyone else!
- Skeptic - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 9:49 am:
” – will be compelled to treat same-sex unions as the equivalent of marriage in their lives, ministries and operations.” What about working on the Sabbath? Not fasting during Ramadan? Eating meat during Lent? Eating beef? There are all kinds of things that people with deeply-held beliefs find offensive have to deal with every day.
- justbabs - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 9:57 am:
The use of hypocrisy is vital to a specious argument. Many of the current Catholic leaders use it when faith isn’t enough.
- Bluefish - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 10:00 am:
When I hear these religious leaders delve into politics the words of Frank Zappa grow louder in my head - “Tax the churches. Tax all of the buisnesses owned by the churches.”
- illinifan - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 10:01 am:
“The far-reaching consequences of redefining marriage in civil law extend throughout society and will directly impact religious freedom.”
I don’t understand this statement. If a couple who is gay decides to marry this does not affect my religious beliefs, or where I attend church, let alone any other freedom I have.
Marriage is a civil construct within society for the purpose of passing property to heirs and to deal with tax codes, so why shouldn’t a couple that is gay have the same rights I have relating to property and taxes. Marriage as a legal action is not needed for any other reason.
People stay in a marriage out of commitment and love for each other, and if that changes we have another legal construct called divorce (which terminates or determines property rights).
- Endangered Moderate Species - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 10:01 am:
Be careful disagreeing with the Catholic Church. Just ask the Huguenots,
- Lobo Y Olla - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 10:01 am:
The Catholic church, after all, bars remarriage by divorcees, but Illinois grants marriage licenses to them.
I call total BS. Ask the cardinal what the percentage of annulment requests that are granted…. In in the high 90 percentile. My parents had 5 kids, married 26 years. Annulled. It cost him a 2500$ donation. Annulment granted. An “error of mind” whatever that is. Total bs. ANYONE can get remarried in the Catholic Church. It’s not a divorce people…. It’s annulled. Also, btw, they have an entire police explaining how the 5 of us are not “bastards.” Total Backdoor nonsense.
- Cheryl44 - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 10:02 am:
I think the church should pick one of its many specious arguments against it and stick with just the one. Jumping around makes them look like the hypocrites they are.
- SirLankselot - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 10:14 am:
I’m always amazed by the left on this issue; they show no respect or tolerance towards anyone of faith (specifically Christians) but demand it be shown to people who are gay. On top of that, they’re the ones calling Catholics hypocrites without noticing the irony.
- Robert the Bruce - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 10:16 am:
==The State has no power to create something that nature itself tells us is impossible.==
Good argument by LG Simon.
A couple more: Single women who have reached menopause shouldn’t be allowed to marry? What about men who had testicular cancer that inhibits their reproductive capabilities?
- ChicagoR - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 10:25 am:
“I’m always amazed by the left on this issue; they show no respect or tolerance towards anyone of faith (specifically Christians) but demand it be shown to people who are gay”
I don’t believe that’s true. We aren’t trying to use the law to force the Catholic Church to marry gays. We just don’t want them to use the law to force us not to get married.
- Cheryl44 - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 10:26 am:
With all due respect Sir, we don’t agree with your religion and don’t have to live by its rules. That doesn’t mean we don’t respect your right to your beliefs.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 10:33 am:
SirLankselot - perhaps you could flesh out your drive-by comment a little? The left/gays would be showing no respect to Christians if they said the law should require Christians to perform gay marriages, and they’re not. If you’re saying it’s an assault on Christians to force them to live in a society whose laws allow for gay marriage, that seems a bit extreme. Would the same thing apply to divorce law? Contraceptives? Abortion? Are you seriously saying that any time the civil law deviates from Christian (or any religious) teaching, that is a violation of the rights of religious institutions and their followers? If so, welcome to the Taliban.
- jaranath - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 10:33 am:
Religious freedom does not mean the freedom to impose one’s religion or it’s requirements on others. That imposition is inherent to the claim that marriage is a social institution that MUST be defined in religious terms.
As for concerns that churches might have to pay gay spouses benefits and the like, that is a fundamentally separate issue from whether those spouses can even exist in the first place. You don’t get to deny EVERYONE a right just because you’re afraid that right might mean you might have to give someone fair treatment. That’s pretty much the definition of freedom from religion right there. Freedom OF religion may or may not allow special exceptions for the churches to deny their employees and members equal protection, but that’s a separate question for the lawmakers and courts to decide. Part of me is tempted to let them have all the open discrimination they want, and see how that works for them in the long run.
The above notwithstanding, this isn’t about benefits or hiring practices. This is about wanting to block gay marriage for everyone, and to discourage homosexuality. Whether that comes from a sincere belief in scripture and theology or from fear and hatred rationalized through faith, the net result is the same: They want a specific religious mandate imposed on us all for specific religious reasons, and they advocate it in the name of freedom. The arrogance and inanity of our religious leaders is breathtaking.
- John A Logan - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 10:39 am:
I am a conservative.
However the battle on this issue and most all social issues is lost. There is not enough people who believe in traditional values left who are willing to stand up to the full frontal assault that is leveled against them when they speak out.
Marriage is a religious institution, and the government should have never gotten involved in it in the first place. However since it is, and has been for years, we reap the harvest of a society that is able to press its views on the church.
Days like these are just another reason for faith based conservatives to leave Illinois. Let the attacks begin.
- wishbone - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 10:42 am:
It is really sad to see what must be intelligent people reduced to making such silly arguments about something that does not personally affect them at all. “The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice.” Martin Luther King, Jr.
- Wensicia - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 10:42 am:
==if marriage is redefined in civil law, individuals and religious organizations – regardless of deeply held beliefs – will be compelled to treat same-sex unions as the equivalent of marriage in their lives, ministries and operations. Compulsion of this nature is a violation of personal conscience and of religious liberty.==
Yet, they can’t see compelling people to observe their religious definitions of marriage, contraception or anything else as the violation of others’ liberty, personal conscience and physical freedom over one’s body and relationship with another. There’s your hypocrisy.
- Chevy owner/Ford County - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 10:48 am:
John, are you married? If so, did you only seek to have you marriage blessed by your faith or do you take advantage of the benefits bestowed on that marriage by government? In other words, are you consistent in your beliefs or are you hypocritial in them?
- dupage dan - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 10:49 am:
I think the religous folks would have served their cause better had they done a comprehensive review of how the religous rite became entangled with the gov’t. They could have made a better arguement against same sex marriage - in the end I think they would have lost anyway.
Views about marriage have changed in the last 50 years. So many people don’t even bother getting married anymore - they cohabit even in the presence of offspring. It is easy to imagine that many folk think so little of marriage that it doesn’t matter to them who wants to do it.
- Cheryl44 - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 10:51 am:
Yeah fine, John, go find someplace to live where religion is the most important institution there is. I suggest Somalia.
- Fair Share - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 10:52 am:
So, let me see if I understand the left’s argument, as long as the conduct involves consenting adults, no law based upon morality can interfere.
- Fan of the Game - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 10:54 am:
@Gen. Logan
Your thoughts on this are spot on. The government should have absolutely no role in marriage. Consenting adults should be able to marry who they will without government interference. The tax breaks and other government-related benefits for being married should be eliminated.
- SirLankselot - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 10:58 am:
Cheryl, my point was more about respecting my beliefs themselves than my right to practice them. I’m told I’m homophobic and need to join the 21st century because I don’t agree with homosexual behavior, but people can say nasty things about my belifs without being a bigot.
Anon, it’s too clear you’re trolling. Have a nice day.
- Demoralized - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 10:59 am:
==I’m always amazed by the left on this issue; they show no respect or tolerance towards anyone of faith (specifically Christians) but demand it be shown to people who are gay.==
Who exactly is stomping on your religion. Nobody is forcing you to get married to a same sex person. Nobody is forcing your church to perform the ceremony. Nobody is engaging in any mind control to force you to believe anything other than what you belive. Your argument is beyond ridiculous.
Oh, and by the way, this isn’t an issue of the right or the left. I love when people try to make every issue about “their” side vs. the “other” side. Gay crosses party lines and if you don’t think there are people on the right who are gay and who fully support this, then you show your true ignorance on this subject.
- walkinfool - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 10:59 am:
SirLankselot: I have great respect for Christian beliefs, and those specifically of the Catholic Church, many of which I share. I don’t like it when Catholic hierarchy claim the right to use our government to enforce their teachings by law, and restrict the freedoms of others who disagree.
Their own rights are not being attacked, it is the rights of everyone else in our society. True Conservatives and Libertarians would side with the “left” (as you describe it), in this case.
As to the arguments, they speak for themselves, and appear to be self-defeating or inconsistent. Would these same Christians make a “natural law” case based on physics for the age of the universe, or a case based on proven biology for human evolution? Not likely. They select their own narrow vision of “natural law” to support their argument, and ignore all the rest.
- Sgtstu - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 11:01 am:
John A Logan - I stand in accord with you. And yes,let the attacks begin.
- Fan of the Game - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 11:05 am:
@walkinfool
== True Conservatives and Libertarians would side with the “left” (as you describe it), in this case.==
Libertarians would not side with the “left” in this case. Libertarians would be asking, “What compelling interest does the government have in whom I marry? And why does the government give perks to those in the special interest groups it arbitrarily creates?”
- midway Gardens - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 11:06 am:
John A Logan, maybe you misunderstand what this means: “we reap the harvest of a society that is able to press its views on the church”. How so? No religious institution will have to perform same sex marriages.
Traditions can be nice. But they aren’t a good enough reason by themselves not to change. I still haven’t seen a good argument for your side. What are your best arguments?
- Demoralized - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 11:08 am:
@SirLankselot:
You are correct that some people attempt to force you to belive something you do not want to believe in. That is wrong. But your beliefs are not a justifiable argument against this. If you think the lawmaking process is bad now, throw religion into it and see what it looks like. Who’s religious beliefs do we follow? I’m sure you would be outraged if non-Christian religions played a role in the lawmaking process. That is why religion is best left on the outside for people to practice as they wish without the government getting involved.
- Small Town Liberal - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 11:10 am:
SirLankselot - When someone starts the argument that you can’t marry the person you love because they don’t agree with your behavior, then I’ll feel bad for you. Until then, cry me a river.
- B2Chicago - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 11:11 am:
@Sgtstu Quote: John A Logan - I stand in accord with you. And yes,let the attacks begin.
Oh the martyrdom of the oppressed majority…
- soccermom - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 11:18 am:
As someone who was brought up Baptist, I would warn against basing family law on Biblical principles.
I mean — Lot and his daughters? Abraham and Sarah — and Hagar? Jacob and Leah and Rachel?
These are profoundly beautiful stories that tell us so much about our relationship with God. But they are not models for family life in the United States in the 21st century.
Let us render unto God what is God’s, and render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.
- jaranath - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 11:30 am:
John A Logan:
Funny, I thought that in challenging the status quo and facing all these religious objections to changing existing law and its interpretations, we were reaping the harvest of a society that allowed churches to to press their views on society. Or is marriage suddenly not a “religious institution” in your eyes after all?
SirLankselot:
With all due respect (seriously, but yeah, I couldn’t pass up the pun), what do your bruised feelings have to do with the question?
- walkinfool - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 11:48 am:
In this case, “faith based conservatives” must mean intrusive and big-government conservatives, since they want the government to enforce the beliefs of the Catholic Church on others by law.
I have no problem with them arguing their beliefs to whomever will listen; I commend them for it. But let’s call it what it is.
- Veil of Ignorance - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 11:49 am:
Hi all - as a Christian who can’t find Biblical support for gay marriage or condoning of homosexual acts (as a political liberal, I looked pretty hard), the point needs to be made that we aren’t talking about what churches recognize as marriage. This law is about whether people who don’t share your specific religious beliefs can form families with the exact same rights and protections as you. Whether it’s divorce, fornication, co-habitation, etc., the question for people of faith is what is the loving and fair approach to forming secular laws that also impact other citizens who we live with in a free pluralistic society. I’m not sure anybody can claim ownership over the word “marriage,” but then churches should call it “Christian marriage” or propose that government only recognize civil unions and strike marriage as a term used altogether. We don’t live in a theocracy and I don’t think that’s what most Americans want.
- olddog - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 11:52 am:
@ soccermom 11:18
Amen. Preach, sister!
- SirLankselot - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 12:14 pm:
Walkinfool and Demoralized, sorry about using the term “left”; I understand people who support gay marraige are accross the political spectrum. It was more shorthand because I was in a rush and not intended to be a divisive “Us vs. Them” mentality.
jaranath, Conduct is just as important as the point one is trying to make. Poor behavior will undermine both a person’s integrity and the issue they are proposing.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 12:17 pm:
Those that are claiming the mantles of “faith-based” or “Christian” or “conservative” in opposition to gay marriage ignore the faith-based Christian conservatives who disagree with them.
Unless people like Dick Cheney and Laura Bush are atheistic liberals.
- Ken_in_Aurora - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 12:24 pm:
“Be careful disagreeing with the Catholic Church. Just ask the Huguenots”
LOL. Which is why my father’s lineage is more Scottish than French.
- Meanderthal - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 12:53 pm:
I don’t ask the question to be flippant, but how does the bisexual member of the LGBT coalition enter into a marriage and still live out and express the full range of their sexuality? Out another way, is bisexuality incompatible with monogamy and marriage?
- Gregor - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 1:04 pm:
Slightly tangential to the thread, but still related: recent research seems to finally point to a specific biological “cause” for being gay, strengthening the argument that gay is not just a voluntary “sexual lifestyle choice” but a function of what are called “epigenetic” factors in the womb. While not “inherited” in the classic Mendelian sense thru DNA directly, these epi-genetic factors involve hormone levels during fetal development and do follow from certain male and female “lineage” patterns nevertheless. It is something biological that goes back in time as far as we do. Back before any Church.
For me, it puts to rest any issue of equal protection under the law. God made them that way, the way he makes us with different eyes, hair, skin. God who loves us all and made us all, and it suits His plan, whatever that may be. The issue for me is now squarely in the realm of Human Rights, period. What are we waiting for?
- jaranath - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 1:22 pm:
Meanderthal:
Why would it matter? Are you implying there is something about homosexuality or bisexuality that somehow requires or demands promiscuity? A bisexual person in a committed relationship controls their behavior (hopefully) like any mono-sexual person. They just check out the guys AND the gals at the beach.
SirLankselot:
The heck it is. I don’t care how much a jerk my doctor is, I still almost certainly have diabetes if he says I do. Yes, I understand that you’re probably thinking about how things like tone and framing influence an idea’s acceptance in the public market. It often matters very much in how public opinion and law are made.
But when it comes to the actual truth of a claim and the evidence supporting it (or lack thereof), the niceness or meanness of the people debating the topic is completely irrelevant. And even in the reality of public debate, “he was mean to me!” does not excuse someone from their obligation to actually support their claim, however often that dodge may be successfully used.
Note that I’m not even accusing YOU, specifically, of using a dodge. Your comment was just about your feelings of persecution as a Christian in the face of public criticism and the erosion of his accustomed social privilege and deference. It’s a familiar and even understandable song, but it gets old sometimes.
- JoeVerdeal - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 1:28 pm:
“Veil of Ignorance” makes an excellent point. Perhaps a compromise might be found by concluding that government would no longer issue “Marriage Licenses” to anyone…..but instead would only issue “Civil Union” licenses to any sort of couple who wished to be legally joined.
The term “marriage” would be the exclusive domain of religious entities…….and those who wished to marry would do so….as they choose, by making their own arrangements, privately and with no government involvement or sanction.
- SirLankselot - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 1:46 pm:
jaranath, you made good points all around.
- Casey - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 2:04 pm:
Since the whole “morality” angle is being thrown out of the window, what argument can be used now to outlaw polygamy ? If three (or more) people love each other, why is the government getting in the way of them exercising their rights ?
- jaranath - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 2:49 pm:
Well, thanks, Sir.
I’ll buy you a virtual beer.
Casey:
That comes up a lot. It seems to me that the mention of polygamy is often intended to elicit a visceral “no, not polygamy!” reaction. The idea seems to be that by evaluating the question rationally and arguing against banning it on grounds of “morality”, I’ve painted myself into a corner and am forced to accept this terrible thing.
But if you think about it, that’s how we reach new conclusions in the first place! If I carefully evaluate a question and find all the evidence pointing to B, I can’t honestly conclude A on the grounds that I always liked A and would have to admit I was wrong about B. That’s neither a rational nor sound approach to reality. What other objection is there?
In practice, I’m not entirely sure about polygamy (or multiple marriage to be technically correct) either way. I would lean toward allowing it between competent, consenting adults, but I’m aware of its history and present pattern of (usually female) inequality and abuse. And I don’t think I have a good grasp of its possible negatives. But there’s no question I’d be fine with it if I was confident there were no significant problems.
- JoeVerdeal - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 2:54 pm:
Good thoughts, jaranath.
I should probably be drinking “virtual beer”….instead of the real thing. It would be the ultimate low-calorie beverage….
- amalia - Thursday, Jan 3, 13 @ 8:16 pm:
did I miss something? does the bill require that a marriage be performed by a religious institution if the couple asks? cause
I ‘m pretty sure that my marriage would not have been allowed by my church unless they agreed that I had met their ok. if not, my husband and I would have had to take our marriage between a man and a woman elsewhere.
wouldn’t this approach still apply for same sex couples and religious institutions under the proposed legislation? if so, why are some religious institutions trying to tell mine what to do since mine oks the union of same sex couples IF the “marriage” meets all sorts of the same requirements under which any proposed marriage is judged and would welcome solemnizing any kind of marriage. In other words, my church practices equality! and would love not to be lectured to by other religious institutions.