Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: The Burris beat
Next Post: Question of the day
Posted in:
* A civil unions bill made it out of a House committee yesterday. Bills pass committees all the time and then go nowhere on the floor (or die quietly in the other chamber), so the hype surrounding the bill is because of its uniqueness, not necessarily the likelihood of its ultimate passage into law…
The bill, proposed by Democratic Rep. Greg Harris of Chicago, would create civil unions for both heterosexual and homosexual couples, giving them the same state and local rights as married couples. According to Harris, however, the bill could not address the more than 1,000 rights and responsibilities that the federal government grants to married couples.
Churches in opposition to same-sex civil unions could not be forced to perform any kind of civil union ceremony.
Opponents to the bill call it a backhanded attempt to legalize same-sex marriages in Illinois. Robert Gilligan, executive director of the Catholic Conference of Illinois, said the legislation “is all about same sex-marriage” because it would redefine the term “spouse” by including anyone in a civil union.
Gilligan also expressed a concern that faith-based organizations that oppose homosexuality would be forced to acknowledge civil unions when making hiring decisions and giving benefits.
* The synopsis…
Creates the Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act. Defines “civil union” as a legal relationship between 2 persons, of either the same or opposite sex, established in accordance with the Act. Provides that a party to a civil union shall be entitled to the same legal obligations, responsibilities, protections, and benefits afforded or recognized by the law of Illinois to spouses. Prohibits certain civil unions. Provides that the Director of Public Health shall prescribe forms for an application, license, and certificate for a civil union. Contains provisions regarding: application for a civil union license; certification of a civil union; and duties of the county clerk and Department of Public Health. Provides for dissolution and declaration of invalidity of a civil union. Provides that a marriage between persons of the same sex, a civil union, or a substantially similar legal relationship other than common law marriage, legally entered into in another jurisdiction, shall be recognized in Illinois as a civil union. Contains provisions regarding construction, application, religious freedom, severability, and other matters.
Important point…
Section 15. Religious freedom. Nothing in this Act shall interfere with or regulate the religious practice of any religious body.
And…
Rep. Deb Mell, who is gay, said 648 state laws — on topics from inheritance to health care — help married couples. “I find it very strange that I can be elected to the General Assembly and vote on rules and laws, but these don’t apply to me and my family,” said Mell, D-Chicago. “We’re not protected.”
* The Mormon Church has caught a lot of heat for intervening heavily in California’s Proposition 8 fight, so an intercepted e-mail sent to members of one Illinois Mormon “ward” stirred up some dust. This letter from Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese was published in the Windy City Times…
Those same anti-gay, Mormon forces that brought you the passage of Prop. 8 in California, Prop 102 in Arizona and the defeat of Utah’s pro-equality legislation have now set their sights on Illinois. We just learned today that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has sent a private e-mail to its Illinois members urging them to contact state legislators and voice opposition to pending civil-unions legislation.
* From the Mormon letter…
This message has been authorized for sending by Bishop Church. […]
As has already been seen in Massachusetts, this will empower the public schools to begin teaching this lifestyle to our young children regardless of parental requests otherwise. It will also create grounds for rewriting all social mores; the current push in Massachusetts is to recognize and legalize all transgender rights (An individual in Massachusetts can now change their drivers license to the gender they believe themselves to be, regardless of actual gender, which means that confused men and women are now legally entering one another’s bathrooms and locker rooms. What kind of a safety issue is this for our children?). Furthermore, while the bill legalizes civil unions, it will be used in the courts to show discrimination and will ultimately lead to court mandated same-sex marriages.
* However, the national church has distanced itself from the letter and pointed out that this was authorized by just one bishop in one LDS ward and is not part of a national campaign. From the Salt Lake City Deseret News…
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said Wednesday that an e-mail authorized by the bishop of an Illinois congregation did not reflect the church’s position on a bill before the Illinois Legislature and is not part of a larger campaign.
More…
But Kim Farah, a spokeswoman for the national church, said the e-mail was not part of a church wide opposition campaign. The church’s engagement with political causes is evaluated on a case-by-case basis. It is unclear if the Illinois legislation would violate church doctrine as interpreted by Latter-day Saints.
“As is widely known, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes in the sanctity of traditional marriage,” she said in a statement. “The Church has not taken a position on any legislation currently being considered by the Illinois State Legislature … An e-mail was sent from a local Illinois Church leader to his congregation – one of 129 congregations in the state — who was free to express his own views.”
Everybody needs to just calm down.
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 9:45 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: The Burris beat
Next Post: Question of the day
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
One way to help reduce the health care crisis would be this bill. This would make available health insurance through one partners work to the other partner under family coverage. We are looking for low cost ways to provide more health care, here is one good vehicle.
Comment by Ghost Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 9:54 am
I find it very strange that Representative Mell thinks that she was elected to the General Assembly in a free, open and honest election. If her father was not a powerful Democratic Ward Committeeman who imposed his daughter upon the residents of the district and rigged her nomination and election, Deborah Mell would still be mowing lawns.
Comment by Honest Abe Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 9:56 am
How can we calm down when freaks will be attacking our kids in locker rooms and bathrooms?!?!?!?! Where’s my legislator, he’s going to hear about this one!
Comment by Vote Quimby! Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 10:01 am
I have been sickened by the anti-church attacks by liberals regarding this and many other issues. We even had an insulting posting of an Andrew Sullivan smear on those who follow their church beliefs on this website, yesterday.
We have to stop this. Religious people are not insensitive ignorami. We are not lemmings blindly following demigods. We are a majority of Americans, and it is shocking to witness how the beliefs of these Americans, which have been the moral foundation of this country, has been smeared as backwards, unthinking, and obsolete. We didn’t get to be the richest, fairest, powerful nation we are today without these basic tenants.
Accusing one another of being too ignorant, stupid, misinformed, or conservative doesn’t change the fact that we all have one vote. If gay marriage proponents want the majority of Americans to change 20,000 years of human marriage laws, they need to first demonstrate some respect to those with whom they disagree.
Comment by VanillaMan Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 10:15 am
“I find it very strange that I can be elected to the General Assembly and vote on rules and laws, but these don’t apply to me and my family,” said Mell, D-Chicago.
Maybe your constituents can correct that the next election, Deb.
Comment by SpfldJimbo Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 10:16 am
So much debate in Springfield is about slippery slopes(think medical marijuana.) In this case, proponents of civil unions are candid in stating that civil unions is just a transient step down the slope to same-sex marriage - their real goal. Consequently, those who oppose same-sex marriage will be concerned that supporting civil unions is not a compromise that will settle the issue.
Comment by reformer Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 10:22 am
VM,
“20,000 years of human marriage laws”???? Wasn’t aware that the cave dwellers had marriage laws. Did they just go down to the cave courthouse for a stone tablet “marriage license”?
I’m not gay. It wouldn’t matter if I was actually. But exactly will this do to you? Are you afraid that if the law passes, you will suddenly be compelled to enter into a gay marriage?
And what about the respect on a human level for those that are gay. Should they not be treated as first class citizens?
I normally respect and enjoy your postings. Today however, you have painted yourself as an ignorant, close minded, insecure fool.
They are not mandating that churches must perform this service. Your life won’t change.
Comment by How Ironic Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 10:24 am
Let’s only hope civil unions avoid the slip to marriage and hash that has been of that institution by its current occupants.
Comment by David Ormsby Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 10:33 am
Ironic…
My marriage crumbled after Massachusetts allowed gay marriage. It was horrible. My wife and I woke up the next day, looked into each other’s eyes, and realized we were not gay. We couldn’t take it anymore. We ended up going to Vegas and getting married while drunk and annulling it 4 days later even though we were already happily married to each other. It’s shocking the power that the gay has over otherwise not gay people. Shocking.
…In all seriousness, if anything seeing the love and joy on these blissful couples’ faces after they tie the knot has made my wife and I that much closer. Happiness begets happiness, at least for folks who are confident in their own love for each other.
Comment by Rob_N Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 10:41 am
i will never understand the arguments against civil unions or same-sex marriage. i was able to freely choose my spouse and i’m free to un-choose him too. why can’t everyone else do the same? it’s basic human liberty, in my opinion. you can’t give it - religion, speech, etc - with one hand and take it - pursuit of happiness - away with the other. one right isn’t more important or stronger than the other.
Comment by just ducky Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 10:52 am
–20,000 years of human marriage laws–
Where do you get that? That’s smack in the middle of the late Stone Age,pre-agriculuture, dude. Writing wasn’t developed until about 4,000 B.C.
I’m sure you’re not referring to the Old Testament, where old Solomon had his 700 wives and 300 concubines.
If you’re referring to state and church laws regarding marriage in Western Civilization, you’re getting well into 800-1200 A.D.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 10:53 am
Ironic,
Lives can be affected even outside of church. I worked for a religious non-profit in Chicago for 5 years. Forcing it to provide same sex benefits to employees would be as much of a violation of their faith and morals as forcing a church to perform a same sex committment ceremony.
This is not hyperventilation. Catholic Charities in CA was forced to choose between providing benefits to non-married partners (both straight and homosexual) or else eliminate benefits altogether. Catholic Charities in Boston was forced to eliminate adoption services completely to avoid placing children in same sex households. Whether or not you agree with these measures doesn’t change the fundamental premise: religious practice is not limited to religious services, and the trend is to disregard religious beliefs in the secular pursuit of the goddess “tolerance.”
I would address your assertion that gays are treated as second class citizens, but I don’t want to run off-topic, as Rich has been keeping a very tight rein on postings recently. I will simply say that homosexuals have every marriage right that heterosexuals do, and that the modern notion that has reduced “marriage” to “2 people who love each other” is a very novel social construct and experiment.
Comment by South Side Mike Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 10:54 am
Today however, you have painted yourself as an ignorant, close minded, insecure fool.
I have been called a lot worse. But I am not ignorant. I am not close minded. And I am not insecure. I am not any more foolish than the next guy.
Also, 20,000 years is really not a very long time in human history. You don’t have to insult our ancestors by calling them names either.
Comment by VanillaMan Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 10:55 am
@ Ron_N
I was telling my wife that we may have to get a divorce if the law passes. Rumor has it that if you get a gay marrige, the gay lobby throws in a free toaster.
Comment by How Ironic Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 10:56 am
VM,
Religious people are also not all of one mind, and that misconception is what’s giving you heartburn.
The political movements that have sucked in conservative christians around abortion and homosexuality have succeeded in redefining religion - to the unchurched - as home base for condemnation, exclusion, and lack of compassion, which goes against the fundamental tenets of Christianity (I think). They have been used but they brought it on themselves, and if you want to combat the perception, you should start with your own house.
(Or at least by expressing that you think independently of the common misconceptions rather than pitch a fit on CapFax)
Comment by Seminarian Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 10:58 am
I was against gay marriage. Then I saw some news special and about 30 male proponents of the law were standing on a church’s steps singing “Going to the Chapel”. It amused me so much I chuckled for 3 days and changed my views. Here are my reason why.
If they want to go through the trials and tribulations of marriage who am I to stop them.
If Jesus thought is was so unforgivable he would have been more specific about it.
He was specific about loving your neighbor as you would yourself.
He was specific about promiscuity being a sin, which I think is the far greater problem and if gay marriage helps limit the raucous lifestyle that spread AIDS throughout that community so destructively, then I am all for it.
And again, marriage is, well, marriage.
Comment by Phineas J. Whoopee Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 11:01 am
@VM
20,000 years is an arbitrary number. Can you please provide marrige statistics for that time period. You can take your time, as I’m sure record keeping was a little more lax back then.
And back then, they were cave dwellers.
@SSM
Perhaps they should have to make a hard choice. Discrimination is discrimination. I suppose 50 years ago when the church felt that interracial marriage was an abomination that you would have supported that?
Perhaps the church should take a LONG hard look at itself and ask the favorite WWJD. Seems to me that the good man spent a lot of time with those that the Church felt were “undesirable”.
Prostitutes, tax collectors, lepers, and the like. I don’t remember Jesus having trouble tending to the whole flock. Not just a select few that the “elders” deemed appropriate.
Comment by How Ironic Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 11:01 am
I normally respect and enjoy your postings.
Thank you! I strive to post a differing insight regarding these issues, and I appreciate those who tell me so.
On this issue, a lot of people don’t want to listen however. There isn’t an awful lot of respect for those of us who respect traditions that have been proven successful over the eons. On this and other popular and emotional issues, I find myself feeling like the Lorax in the Dr. Seuss story.
I am fluent in two languages, and attended university in Germany. While there, I studied red light districts, marijuana laws, and went to the most liberal university in a country far more liberal than the US. I lived there.
So when I say these things don’t work, it is because I have witnessed it first hand.
It is frustrating to see the US fall into the same holes that Western European countries have fallen into, and are now trying to figure out now to extract themselves from.
Want to know the impact gay marriage laws have had on another country? The Netherlands have proven that the slippery slope isn’t just a fool’s tale. They have gone from a “controlled and defined” level of gay marriage to now fighting off polyamourous marriage, (multiples). Once that Pandora’s Box has been opened, everything is up for debate. And our debating skills are only as good as our ancestors were, when they finally figured out how to make a society function, centuries ago.
I will always stive to provide some differing opinions, and they may not always be popular ones. I think it is important for those with whom I disagree to get a good shot or two from the opposing sides of the political stands they take.
I am conservative, as well as you should be! Let me tell you why….
Comment by VanillaMan Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 11:09 am
–20,000 years is an arbitrary number. Can you please provide marrige statistics for that time period. You can take your time, as I’m sure record keeping was a little more lax back then.–
I think VMan is citing Fred and Wilma and Barney and Betty sources.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 11:10 am
Intense stuff, this. There have been some proposals in the health care industry that would disconnect health care from employment status. Historically, health insurance was added as an employee benefit during the WWll era as a convenient way to provide goup savings. If health insurance and other benefits were severed from employment situations this could aid in providing more access to people without the need for European/Canadian style socialist national health care. It would have the added benefit to employers who view providing benefits to same sex partners as a moral problem. Adoption issues w/the Catholic church are more problematic. If there is more than one place to go to to adopt then the church(s) should be allowed to choose who to serve. Tolerance must go both ways. Civil unions can be a way to address this issue as long as both sides see it as a way to end the strife. I fear that since the agenda in the gay community is that civil unions are a first step towards marriage then many in the religious community will respond accordingly. Attacks on the religious community harm this great country of ours. They won’t cave in like some of the politicians and judges have in this debate.
Comment by dupage dan Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 11:11 am
VM, what is your problem with The Netherlands, man? I mean, the country is highly educated, the people are extraordinarily industrious and, in my experience, very open and friendly. You continuously paint it as a decrepit Sodom & Gomorrah. Did you ever get outside Amsterdam’s Redlight District. The city is beautiful, clean, well-run and safe.
Take a breath, dude.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 11:16 am
=====Perhaps the church should take a LONG hard look at itself and ask the favorite WWJD. Seems to me that the good man spent a lot of time with those that the Church felt were “undesirable”.
Prostitutes, tax collectors, lepers, and the like. I don’t remember Jesus having trouble tending to the whole flock. ======
Yes, but then Jesus always said, “Go, and sin no more,” not “Keep doing whatever you want.” A not so minor point that “progressives” like to ignore when they try to throw this argument in our faces.
Comment by South Side Mike Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 11:20 am
=Everybody needs to just calm down.=
Don’t you get it? The radical gay lobby will never “calm down”. Ergo, it energizes a vigorous campaign by opponents of the extreme gay agenda.
Comment by Conservative Republican Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 11:22 am
===Ergo, it energizes a vigorous campaign by opponents of the extreme gay agenda. ===
Please.
I’ve been bombarded with e-mails from the religious right on this issue - well before the Mormon “controversy” began here.
Unlike just about every other news site, most of us are not stupid at this blog. Try not to insult our brains.
Thanks.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 11:24 am
When folks bring out the stories of how tolerant Jesus was regarding the prostitutes, tax collectors and the like it is important to note that what he was doing was forgiving the sinner, not the sin. If you are not repentant there is a problem. It is as much to say that if you are knowingly, repeatedly, sinning and you say, “that’s ok, I’ll ask forgiveness and it will be ok”. That is bunk.
Religious scholars have debated whether or not homosexuality is a sin for many years. I have my own ideas but do not feel qualified to debate them at length. Gays in our community are a fact and no law will change that. Religious gays have to reconcile with their God - that is personal. The state has to decide how to treat its’ citizens. That is what’s at stake.
Comment by dupage dan Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 11:25 am
===Religious gays have to reconcile with their God - that is personal. ===
Agreed. But that goes for all religious people. The “calm down” comment was for everyone. Stop throwing so many stones. If your own house is in order, rejoice. But keep in mind that it won’t last forever.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 11:29 am
Looks likw we now know who bought all the marked down computers at the Cicuit City going out of biz sale —- homophobic knuckleheads who jumpbed on Capt Fax’s blog.
I am for just leaving everyone one alone. Apply all laws evenly
Given the fine tradition of marriage the Mormons are best know for it seems like they ought to retire to the sidelines.
Same goes for most hetros.
Most progressives believe seperation of church and state means just that.
Comment by Reddbyrd Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 11:30 am
@Dupage Dan
“Religious gays have to reconcile with their God-that is personal”.
No, perhaps those that feel that holding others down, discriminations, and outright hostility will have to “reconcile” with God. BTW, I don’t think that gays have their own God. Pretty sure we all have the same one.
And, I’m not so ignorant as to profess to know what God does or doesn’t feel on certain issues.
And the debate about who Jesus associated with is germaine to this debate. Many churches don’t even want to associate with the gay community.
How’s that inclusive?
And how can a gay person “repent” for something that isn’t chosen. No more than a black person can be discriminated against simply because of skin color.
It’s not like we all sit down one day in school, and along with the “what will I do when I grow up” scan-tron test we are also assigned a gender preference.
Comment by How Ironic Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 11:38 am
What is completely lost on people like VanillaMan and South Side Mike is the fact that absolutely no one is trying to horn in on religious marriage rituals. Civil union/marriage is strictly a legal matter. (It is also inevitable, thankfully.) You can bring up the nonsense about multiple partners and animals all you want, but that just shows you have some pretty strange logic or pretty interesting daydreams. If we (i.e., the state or nation) raise the speed limit, does that mean we want no speed limit? If we relax drug laws, do we want no drug laws? If we put limits on abortion, do we want no abortion?
It is clear: if laws are on the books that give preferential treatment to heterosexual couples in lasting relationships that meet minimum legal standards, then homosexual couples who are in similar relationships are being discriminated against. Period.
Comment by Lefty Lefty Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 11:40 am
How Ironic,
I don’t know how you came to the conclusion that I was saying that gays have a different God than the rest of us. For those of us who believe in a personal God this is how we express ourselves.
Regarding the repentance issue, please read the post I was referring to. I did not assert that being gay is a sin. I was merely responding to the assertion that Jesus was inclusive of prostitutes, money collectors and lepers who, at the time, were viewed as sinners. I was clear in my post that I am not attempting to claim that being gay is a sin. Please read my post more carefully before you sling the mud.
Comment by dupage dan Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 11:50 am
It entertains me so, that people are worried about what the government thinks instead of living their lives. Don’t really care about this issue, but both sides need to stop trying to boss each other around. Somebody always has to be in control….
Comment by Heartless Libertarian Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 11:51 am
@DD
Ok.
Maybe I read too much into the “reconcile” comment. My thought is, what is to reconcile? Being gay, is well, being gay. It’s not like an action that needs to be reconciled on your day of reckoning.
You aside, there are plenty on the right that attempt to portray Gay=SIN. It will be interesting on how they handle the news when science conclusively proves that gay is an inherent charcteristic (genetic) versus “lifestyle choice”.
That argument is about as logical as blacks “prefer more pigment” then white people.
Comment by How Ironic Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 12:00 pm
As a soceity of laws we created a legal status and defined legal rights under the umbra or monicor of marriage. Since marriage in this context is a state created legal institution we should treat it as such. We are not discussing how a religion may view or define marriage, we are talking about how our legal system handles it. The legal application of marriage does not require a cermony with a preist, or any religion, it does not require you to be a member of any religion or have any religious beliefs. Therefore in the context in which it exists now the religous view is not relevant. Currently marriage under state law is a legal relationship. It allows sinners, robers murders, thievs, those who dishonor their mother and father etc to participate. Therefore it is irrelvant what a religious practice may apply to cermonies within that group. This is not a religious application. it should be allowed under the law.
BTW under various christian religions, gay marriage is a sin. BUT they do not prevent other sinners from marrying, so why single out this sin.
Comment by Ghost Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 12:01 pm
How Ironic,
All religious people seek to reconcile their lives w/their God. We are all imperfect people and we make mistakes (sin?). We then go to God and seek to get closer and receive blessings and forgiveness. We also experience joy in our lives and we come to God to celebrate those joyous occasions. All this comes under the heading of reconciliation.
I hope this clarifies the issue for you.
Comment by dupage dan Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 12:35 pm
Slippery slope arguments are bogus. You can always draw a slippery slope line from a perfectly reasonable action to an unreasonable one, but that doesn’t mean it is likely to be followed.
Some slippery slope illogic: The marriage slippery slope goes back to the government granting marriage licenses. As soon as that happened, all kinds of people started thinking they ought to be allowed get married. Therefore, the government should never have started to grant marriage licenses.
Maybe Rich should ban slippery slope arguments.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 12:35 pm
No way, if Rich bans slippery slope arguments, then he’ll ban red herrings, and then straw men, and then VanillaMan will never be able to post.:)
Comment by Gene Parmesan Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 12:41 pm
Not to mention “fighting shadows”. Those should be outlawed as well.
Comment by How Ironic Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 12:46 pm
Respect is EARNED. You can’t DEMAND it. Why do I need to know who is gay and who isn’t? I don’t care. As for the rallies and shouting and screaming and putting down religious people that is being done on behalf of gay marriage laws, take a breath people. You lost me the first time I found out proponents were calling people, mostly Christian people, stupid for not supporting the gay agenda. In my mind they are now equal with all the hetero, obnoxious, belligerent, close minded jerks I also ignore.
Comment by Belle Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 1:16 pm
But it is a slippery slope…once civil unions are legal, then they’ll make gay marriage legal.
Sooner or later they will require gay marriage for everyone, no matter if you are gay or not.
If only we had the capacity to recognize that different situations allow for different outcomes. I lament that we lack the rational capacity to debate one issue at a time (civil unions), and to address the next step(gay marriage, or whatever) on its own merits.
If only our brilliant ancestors, after they discovered fire and the wheel and sanctified heterosexual marriage, had taken some time to learn how to stop on the slippery slope.
But alas, we remain bound by inevitability.
Comment by Some Guy Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 1:31 pm
I knew that VanMan was conservative, but after his defense of McCarthyism (of which my grandfather was a victim) and pigeonheadeness on both this issue and marijuana legalization I’m tempted to invent a time machine and send him back to the 1950s where he’ll be happy.
Our generation is accepting of gays and we will be legalizing gay marriage as soon as we are of age to run for office, whether you like it or not.
Comment by Ben S. Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 1:59 pm
Someone should tell HRC that the Nauvoo Ward doesn’t have offices in the Temple and doesn’t meet there. They should be calling the ward building where that congregation actually worships and the Bishop has on office.
217-453-2300
or 217-453-6300
Comment by Tip Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 2:30 pm
–Religious people are not insensitive ignorami. We are not lemmings blindly following demigods. We are a majority of Americans–
No, VM, you’re not. About 40% of Americans regularly attend church. Most pools on basic civil union rights get above 50% approval. Because at their heart, most Americans do not hate gay people, they are not offended by gay people and they do not believe gay people are out to molest their children.
And do you really want to lean on historical law as your main pillar in this argument. Think about some of the other things that have been historial law for thousands of years (and still are today in some place)…the right to own people as property, the right to kill women for disobediance. Human history is pretty messed up sometimes. Every once in a while there are chances to fix small parts of it. This is one of them. Giving two people who love each other the same basic rights as everyone else is not sinful. If you think it is, you are in the minority. You’re entitled to your opinion, just not the ability to impose it on others.
Comment by L.S. Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 2:32 pm
@Ben S.
So you are then a “whipper-snapper”?
Comment by How Ironic Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 2:33 pm
the key is the word marriage. i’d be fine with changing the law so the state requires a civil union license(and maybe even ceremony like in France) for anyone who wants to be legally joined to another adult . then get married by a church if that’s your choice. I don’t know if that is acceptable to the lgbt community let alone the right wing community. the word marriage is a loaded term. i would not want to force a religious institution to do something.
but i do want to make sure that the state recognizes unions between adults, man and man, woman and woman, woman and man, no matter how smart, stupid, childish or oddly matched they may seem. it’s their adult choice and the state should let them be legally joined.
then everyone should go fight their battles at their respective religious institutions.
Comment by Amy Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 2:38 pm
i think ghost’s comment gets right to the heart of this argument. BRAVO, i love it!
Comment by just ducky Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 2:39 pm
I think the state should ONLY grant civil unions. The state’s interest rests in recognizing legal relationships between consenting adults. Restrictions on those civil unions should have some rational basis. (And “two guys kissing is gross” is not a rational basis.)
Comment by Pot calling kettle Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 3:00 pm
I think it’s incredibly offensive that “christians” can demand that marital contracts can only be signed by people of the opposite sex (I won’t even say straight people, plenty of gay people have married persons of the opposite sex…see ted haggard and larry craig for two examples).
So, instead of continuing this needless fight, the government should cease sanctioning marriages altogether. Instead, the government should just issue civil union certificates to people wishing to form a legally binding contract in the tradition of marriage.
If you want to get married, well, that’s between you and whoever is willing to act as the officiant for your ceremony, should you choose to have one.
Comment by jerry 101 Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 3:07 pm
jerry 101, well said!
We’re arguing over semantics when we should be debating contract law. Gender and religious tradition are irrelevant to the discussion.
Faith v. Reason arguments can’t be won by either side.
Comment by 47th Ward Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 3:13 pm
I am a 23 year old whipper-snapper. Typically, I find myself thinking just a bit more conservatively than my fellow twentysomethings. Not on this issue.
Something I just noticed after reading through the string of comments: We are completely ignoring the actual policy. Call me naive but shouldn’t legislative debate center on the Pros and Cons of a specific piece of legislation?
Do we ask what health care policy was in vogue 20,000 years ago? No. So why do we think the opinion of cave men matters on this issue?
Do we ask what the Bible tells us about stoning criminals to death? No. So why do we think the Bible is a guide here?
The greatest generation may have many reasons to look down upon us twentysomethings. But on this issue we are the ones looking at our respected elders in disappointed puzzlement.
Comment by Paul Richardson Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 3:20 pm
The whole argument is just *throws hands up*.
People need to shut up and mind their own houses. What in Hades does it matter to straight people if two gay people want to get married? How does that affect a straight person’s marriage? Answer: it doesn’t. No one is forcing anyone else to be gay or have a gay marriage. If two people want to celebrate their committment to each other, they should be allowed to do so.
This idea that marriage is some holy union only to be enjoyed by a specific group of people is a joke. The concept of “marriage” has changed again and again throughout history. Marriages have been for love, for convenience, for political alliances (think medieval Europe there), etc. Back in ye olde Bible, men had multiple wives and concubines, as was already pointed out.
The fact is married person get certain civil perks(be it in the form of how you get taxed, legal recourse to health benefits, the right to visit your partner in the hospital, distribution of property at death, etc.). It is inherently unfair and discriminatory to deny these civil benefits to people based on their sexual orientation.
All unions should be considered “civil”. Churches have no business engaging in telling people what CIVIL benefits they should be entitled to. Are people forgetting that you can get “married” in a church, but unless you actually get a marriage certificate from city hall (or whatnot), the government doesn’t really give a hoot.
So everyone, regardless of orientation, should be able to get that civil marriage certificate. End of story. “Traditionalists” would do well to remember that no one is saying churches should be required to hold ceremonies for gay unions. That’s still at the discretion of the particular church/congregation/denomination. And they can choose to be as exclusive and discriminatory as they like since it’s their own religion. You can still be safe from “the dirty gays”.
Comment by DB Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 3:31 pm
Paul you are exactly why persons with certain beliefs are so upset about this. Someday you and you generation will be in charge. Not only do they feel their beliefs are being attacked but they fear the next geration just wont care.
It is time for civil authorities to get out of the business and leave it to the believers. Just issue the civil unions and be done with the whole mess.
Comment by Anon Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 3:46 pm
I disagree with the notion that gays and lesbians can obtain the same benefits through simple legal documents.
One example is health care benefits for a spouse are treated as taxable income by the federal government. This can cost a couple hundred dollars every month.
Another example is the surviving spouse, must pay taxes on an inheritance. Annie Leibovitz, the famous photographer, was just in the news because she had to take out a loan in order to pay taxes for inheriting her home from her deceased lover, Susan Sontag.
This is simply not fair.
It is also important to note that the issues I presented were not issues 100 years ago or 2000 years ago.
And the right somehow has this notion that homosexuality was never accepted, except when a civilization was about to fall. This is simply not true. Last time I checked the ancient greeks helped civilized the world and they certainly engaged in homosexual activity.
Comment by Objective Dem Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 3:49 pm
@Anon,
I guess I would hope that 40 years from now, when the the “new guard” is starting to run the show I’m not defending discrimintory policies.
That’s what this is about. 40 years ago, it was minorities.(civil rights) 40 years before that, it was womans’ rights. Before that it was cheap labor from Europe. And 40 before that it was slavery.
Why don’t we just finish it now.
Comment by How Ironic Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 3:53 pm
@ How Ironic I am sorry, all couples, gay and straight, should get civilly united by the government I dont care what we call it.
Let the churhes marry whom they wish. Just seperate the two.
Comment by Anon Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 4:10 pm
I find the concern raised in the the letter over transgender people using bathrooms very funny. First off, I can’t think of how this even relates to the gay marriage debate.
Second, it is a made-up issue. I don’t think there will be women dressed as men hanging out in a bathroom to attack little boys. The concern is men dressed as women hanging out to attack little girls. I follow the news a lot and I can’t remember ever hearing a story like this. Even if it has happened, its certainly not a common problem. I think we would be better off addressing real problems rather than worrying about imaginary issues.
Comment by Objective Dem Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 4:17 pm
The state has historically gotten involved in marriage since same frequently produces children and the state has an interest in such issue. Marriage has now become something to show acceptance since, if the gov’t approves, it should be ok with the rest of us. There have been arguements made here that if you open the door to gays you open the doors to multiples (3somes) or other types of marriage. Who’s to say what is wrong? Does the state have any right to limit who is to be married? Can the state say, “ok to straights and gays but no to mulitples”? If 3 people love each other very much why not? Multiple biblical passages can be used to support such a notion. Is this the direction we as a society want to go? If marriage of gays is so troubling to a large part of our society is it worth it to tear said society apart so that some can have it? Civil unions can be crafted to make sure those who sign on have rights of inheritance, access to benefits, etc. You can then craft your own language to represent the ceremony. Different groups have created different ceremonies to celebrate their unique community/culture. Kwanzaa comes to mind. No matter how you slice this arguement up someone is going to feel as tho their rights are being trampled. Using a strategy of calling the opponents ignorant, stupid or Neandrathal is not going to engender much support or sympathy from the other side.
Gays then get the rights to live in a miserable, commited, relationship like the rest of us.
Comment by dupage dan Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 4:21 pm
The problem with expanding definitions is that there are unintended consequences.
I am with Vman in many ways. I have spent considerable time in the Netherlands, Scandinavia and have family in Germany. The secular progressive governments there have chiseled away at the foundations of families and insinuate the government in many places it should not be. Many of the ideas being proposed in our country have a history in Europe and do not work there. Why do we want to repeat the same mistakes
You will now have examples of religious institutions who the government will attempt to control as described by /south Side Mike
I am not against civil unions per se, but am concerned about where the next push will be in the name of fairness. If granted that should be the end of the quest of same sex marriage. Like that will happen.
Comment by Plutocrat03 Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 4:29 pm
@Pluto
“You will now have examples of religious institutions who the government will attempt to control”
1. They already do. I haven’t seen many human sacrifices lately. But I would imagine if my church wanted to have one, the government might intervene. So far my church seems to be holding on.
2. This law wouldn’t “require” churches to perform these ceremonies. So really, what is the Gov’t imposing? Nothing.
The “next push” is a shadow arguement.
Comment by How Ironic Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 4:42 pm
This issue brings out the same basic arguements every time. The ‘destruction’ of marriage, what Jesus said, gov policy vs religion, for the sake of the children, insurance coverage, who loves who more, who cares vs moral outrage, Bible principles (I always like the stoning the wife references). There are more people living in different family combinations than most people can imagine. Watching the straight and gay couples in my family and other parts of my life, I see very little difference in any of them. Some are great relations with good kids while others are immature self centered yahoos. This is a personal matter. The state needs to be involved for the legal issues which should be the same for every legal adult regardless of religious standing. Churches can do as they like in their church for their members who believe. If gay marriage is such a threat to anyone’s marriage you must not have much of a marriage in the first place. If you said the vows/promises, stick to them like you said you would.
Comment by zatoichi Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 4:53 pm
How Ironic,
I am not so sure that the gov’t won’t step in to force churches to perform these ceremonies. I believe that the govt just coerced “eharmony” to provide match-making services for the gay community after a lengthy legal action that could have ended up in bankrupting the company. Laws forcing pharmacists (who claim religious concerns) to give out birth control (including day after pills) are in effect.
The stated goal for the gay community, known by their own statements, is for full marriage approved and sanctioned by the gov’t. The consequences of that, intended or not, are a legitimate concern for many.
Debating that issue w/mutual respect is more interesting to me than inflammatory statements.
Comment by dupage dan Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 5:07 pm
@DD
You have got to be kidding. You don’t need a church to be “married”. Why would the govt suddenly feel the need to mandate that they do?
The laws about pharmacists has been covered here already. That is a JOB, not a church. And the debate is not relevant to this discussion.
And so what if “marrige” is recognized by the Govt? It still won’t affect your church. They don’t have to perform it.
Comment by How Ironic Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 5:25 pm
The gov’t will never mandate that churches perform certain ceremonies a certain way. Well, they might try, but it won’t succeed.
Total red herring.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 5:42 pm