Adam and Steve
I thought I was going to write something productive. Then I made the mistake of going on livejournal. Now I suddenly feel the desire to express something, which to me should seem so painfully obvious that it staggers the imagination. (I can’t believe I even have to declare this.)
From today’s AP: Mass. Court Clears Way for Gay Marriages
Before I begin: 2 things.
1) Given the nature that LJ has taken on lately, this is directed at no one. It is simply my opinion, my self-indulgent little rant, and at the end of the day, no one cares about my opinion except me. The same holds true for you and yours.
2) For those of you that think that this has something to do with religion, take your Bible, or your Torah, or the wood blocks that your “holy man†scribed on with a magnifying glass and the sun, or whatever religious text you live by, and shove it up your ass. For the purposes of this topic, your faith is completely irrelevant.
[spprs cracks knuckles]
Now, let’s begin.
There are two kinds of marriage in this country: that observed by the government, and that observed by an organized religion. For a legally binding marriage, the former is mandatory, the latter is optional.
It so happens that many marriages that are bound by a religion are observed as legal by the government. However, when you get married, you and your spouse still have to sign a contract with the state. I don’t care if Jesus comes down from Heaven and does the ceremony. Your governor doesn’t care either. You still have to sign the dotted line.
The benefits of this contract are that the newlyweds are now possibly entitled to (among many things) the following:
- More affordable insurance. Unless one spouse works someplace with the wisdom and benevolence to provide for domestic partner relationships, insurance is much more expensive, especially if one person is unemployed, self-employed, a homemaker, etc.
- Better banking. Banks will laugh in your face if you’re just two people scraping nickels together to get a mortgage. Married couples, however, are bound until death. There is safety in numbers.
- Tax breaks and incentives. ‘nuff said.
- Ditto all of the above for cosigning on anything, like a car.
- Power of attorney. Let’s say you and your lover (regardless of gender) are living happily ever after. Said lover saws his/her hand off, because you were so excited when you got that Vietnamese spin-fuck chair, that you couldn’t be bothered to read the OSHA warnings. You take said lover to the ER. Before the healing begins, they need you to sign a bunch of forms, assuming you’re married. But you’re not. Only next of kin can do sign. You stand there like and idiot, while the doctor stares at the pieces of your lover bleeding on the floor. Now would be a good time to test your faith in miracles.
The list goes on. The point is that without that government observed contract, the tables are significantly turned against two people who are not, much less cannot be, married.
Now, there was a time when the local priest or rabbi or crazy guy with magnifying glass represented the common good, and his word was your contract. Religion and law were merged. However, we have since leapt out of those times, and with the invention of a constitution that separates church from state, there are now legislators, judges, and lawyers that have nothing to do with your god(s). There is the law of the land, and there is the law of your faith. The two may resemble each other, but they are distinctly separate.
It is true that the leaders of organized religions are recognized by the government to perform marriages. Part of this is a carry-over from ye olden dayes. Part of it is strictly a matter of convenience. But your priest still has to fill out the red tape and submit it to the justice of the peace. So does Captain Stubing, when you get married on the Love Boat.
Am I saying religion should observe gay marriages? I couldn’t care less. Every religion is different, and that religion is responsible for setting those rules. That is the beauty of the First Amendment. You can choose your religion. Or you can choose to not choose a religion. Is a marriage that is strictly done by a judge at the courthouse recognized by God? No idea. You’ll have to ask God. But for the sake of marriage in the United States, it does not matter.
If you must stand by your holy book, ask yourself: does it condemn marriages by members who belong to separate religions? After all, the 10 commandments strictly state “thou shall have no other God but meâ€. So, does that mean heterosexual Hindus can’t marry each other? After all, aren’t they living in sin? Stick this in your pipe: if the Church of Satan is recognized as a religion in your state, then Satanists can marry each other. That is, of course, if they’re straight. What’s Yahweh’s call on that one? I can play this game all day, because everyone’s religion is different, and everyone’s holy text is completely and subjectively interpreted by each individual. As far as law goes, it is foundation built on loose sand. That’s why there is a separation between church and state.
It seems to me that two people who truly love each other, are dedicated to each other, and want to spend the rest of their lives supporting each other and fostering a binding relationship, should not be condemned, regardless of who those two people happen to be. They should be supported and encouraged to grow. I don’t think I’m out of line by saying that’s something Christ would expect.
I assure you, whatever you have done in a bedroom that got your jollies going would gross out someone else on this planet, not to mention clash with someone’s religious code. Cope. And mind your own fucking business. The world is hard enough as it is without creating more conflicts and divisions between us.
Remember, Jesus did not say, “Love thy neighbor… unless they’re faggots.â€
::snickers::
I wonder if my husband would buy that argument…
“honey, you don’t really want to have sex with me. Canadian sex isn’t interesting, you know.”
I’d shake them at Ross instead, but I understand that he’s already not feeling well :-(
Very well said, my man. I may not agree with you but very well said!
I agree thatsome Christians act very un-Christlike. I am a firm believer that homosexuality is a sin. I don’t make that judgement, God did in Leviticus. However so is taking His Name in vain, killing, etc. Christ taught us to love the sinner but NOT the sin itself. Ergo, while I do notagree with the homosexual lifestyleI agree even less with hating them just because they are sinners. Why? “For ALL have sinned and have fallen short of the Glory of God.” Hell, I got laid a few months back. I shouldn’t have. It’s a sin. And to be honest, I wasn’t sorry I did it. I don’t mind admitting that; God reads my LJ. So when I prayed for forgiveness, I said, “God, although I am not sorry for what I did, I am sorry that it offended YOU.” I can’t BS Him. He would know even beforehandthe truth if I had said, “Goid I’m sorry for what I did.” I believe he’d rather have a sincere, no BS prayer than one of me just saying what I think He wants me to say.
Sorry if I got off track. This is what I felt I needed to say.
All sex to a man is interesting, Canadian or otherwise.
except when it’s in a Canadian spin-fuck chair.
my head hurts with all these confusing contradictions.
Get off the damned spinning chair and make up your mind!
Also in Leviticus…
Lev.11
[9] These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
[10] And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
Hrm, hope you don’t like shrimp… or lobster… crawfish… Oh, and catfish (they don’t have scales,ya know)
Lev.19
[18] Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.
I don’t see where God makes an exception for sexual preferences here…
Lev.24
[15] And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, Whosoever curseth his God shall bear his sin.
[23] And Moses spake to the children of Israel, that they should bring forth him that had cursed out of the camp, and stone him with stones. And the children of Israel did as the LORD commanded Moses.
I will not take the Lords name in vain, I will not take the Lords name in vain…
Lev.25
[45] Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.
Hey, I think we have a cure for the whole illegal alien thing!
————————
This is not meant to mock your faith. Please don’t take it as a personal attack. There is a lot of things in Levitcus that dont’t quite make the cut when you compare it to todays world. Or Christ’s teaching. Or, the main reason Christ was born come to think of it, since the first few chapters of Leviticus deal with the proper sacrificial procedures.
Prov.10
[12] Hatred stirreth up strifes: but love covereth all sins.
Which in all honesty seems more like it. If “love covereth all sins”, how can love between two people, no matter what their sex, be sinful?
And moving on to the New Testement..
Rom.13
[8] Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
[9] For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
[10] Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
Re: Also in Leviticus…
Fine, then if you are accepting Jesus’s definition of marriage, then you must accept that he quite clearly refered to it as a bond between a man and a woman.
Re: Also in Leviticus…
I’m accepting that when there is love between two people, someone else’s faith shouldn’t keep them from making a formal commitment to each other.
The arguments against gay marriage essentially come down to predjudice[sp], which I believe arises partly because of religious condemnation of homosexuality.
I agree. I had arguments against it, based on sexual hardwiring, ie males are hardwired to be more promiscuous, men + men = a whole lotta infidelity. But individuals can choose apart from biological influences, especially if they have the same legal and financial fallout of a divorce. Also, someone said people are not as inclined to marry if they are not serious.
Religion supposedly does not have a role in out law, but if there is a religious majority around – it will, because we are not perfect.
As far as my thoughts on the bible, people can quote that thing out of context as much as they want, and can rearrange all the letters used in the words of its text into a letter from Satan to the Pope praising his tennis serve, if they like. I believe Jesus was teaching the hardest thing of all… not educated bible-verse quoting, but Unconditional Loving Acceptance, leaving judgment to God. We can pray for goodwill, and make our own path, and a majority can even create a system of government that does not jive with the Bible, as long as we progressively try to keep condemnation and hellfire squealing out of it as our awareness advances with understanding (as I think we are doing already as a mass-consciousness) – and remember life is not a black and white system of rules. I believe are perfect souls living in a plane of imperfection, doing the best we can…
…and God gets those that get themselves. [or some other seemingly nonsensical pseudo-religious cliche entered here, with a snippet of hidden wisdom easily overlooked at first glance]
Re: Also in Leviticus…
That was a little dodgy.
bra-vo.
i’m glad i know you, koby.
Re: Also in Leviticus…
*nod*
Yes, because in this subject we are going to have to agree to disagree.
IMHO:
Ultimately, the final legalized decission can not be based on the Scripture. Otherwise, the government will be trampling all over people’s First Amendment rights. Just because your faith doesn’t allow same sex unions, doesn’t mean that a couple who’s faith does allow such a union can not make their vows before the diety of their choice.
Re: Also in Leviticus…
“Ultimately, the final legalized decission can not be based on the Scripture.”
You keep referring to Christian values and moral and yet can you name ONE religion,who has marriage as a part of their beliefs,which supports gay marriage? I can say that at least none of the Abrahamic faiths do.
Re: Also in Leviticus…
Depends…
I’ve spoken to at least two ministers (both Methodist) who are very tolerant of same sex marriages.
One, who preformed Linda’s memorial service, said a few days afterwards, that it was a shame that Mom wasn’t receiving the support she would have received as a surving spouce.
I’ve also heard general support coming from some “non denominational” Christian sects.
But then, we are also going by personal beliefs of individuals. Gimme some time to do a bit of research and I’ll get back to you on this one.
Re: Also in Leviticus…
I have a hard time understanding how a Christian minister can preach ideas that are in clear conflict with the Bible.
Re: Also in Leviticus…
1. unitarian universalists
Re: Also in Leviticus…
Got it… actually have three… to be truthful, the last one covers quite a few different sects, so it will probably depend on which one you go with. None of them encourage it (since there wouldn’t be any more children ya know) but they accept it and will support the couple if that’s the way it turns out.
(I’ll admit, I had to rack my brains on this one. I haven’t done research into other religions in quite a few years… But I’m tempted to start again. Thanks for the nudge!)
The first one you of all people should be aware of, is Wicca.
The second one is Hinduism. Much of it is listed as “acceptable sexual activities” between the castes… which is based on their faith. I’ll see if I can find the copy of the Karma Sutra with the socio-religious background essays… and find out who did the essays for you.
Third one is the Native American Spirit Path. This is the one that will vary by region and tribe… and how strongly influenced they were by the Christian missionaries. I remember having a long conversation one time with a group during one of the Cherokee’s of GA’s Pow Wows. The group included the following: a Medicine Man, the tribes Fire-Keeper, the Pipe-Bearer, a Baptist Minister (also a member of the tribe), Chief Martin, two of the tribal mothers, myself, and a few others. I won’t go into the full details of the conversation, or how exactly the topic came up, but the gist of it is that if the Creator has put the desire and the need for a same sex pairing within two people; it is the tribes responsability to support spiritually as much as the tribe would support any “normal” couple.
Again, I admit I’ve been harping on Christianity as a whole, mostly because it’s the group that seems to be the least tollerant and has the “majority rule” in the US. (Not to say that all Christians share this view, or have the high level of intollerance that seems to be so prevailant.)
Re: Also in Leviticus…
Preach? No. Accept and support the person and acknowledge that their love for another is as valid and pure(and possibly as spiritual) as anyone elses? Yes.
Re: Also in Leviticus…
Are they a religion or a denomination of one?
Re: Also in Leviticus…
If they are a denomination, doesn’t it mean that the religion it’s self supports it? Or at least has the potential to, based on interpretation?
Re: Also in Leviticus…
Glad you mentioned these. I knew you would. I am a former Wiccan High Priest and I am an adopted Lakota Indian (Please dont’ say “Native American.” That’s a bunch of PC, white-man crap). While both of these faiths have beautiful traditions, neither hold a large enough majority to effect the laws changing to reflect their views.
Re: Also in Leviticus…
IUf it is a denomination of a religion, which one> I’ve been to a UU church. Unless this has changed since I went, they allow all faiths but truly subscribe to none in particular.
Re: Also in Leviticus…
By accepting the sin are they not encouraging it?
Re: Also in Leviticus…
But that’s not what you were asking for. You were asking for religions that support and accept same sex couples.
Re: Also in Leviticus…
Since I’ve never been, I can’t really say.
Got to admit, it’s kinda fun to be “sparing” with you on this field… Because I know both of us are going to consider ourselves “winners” in this little debate. *grin*
Re: Also in Leviticus…
By condemning it, wouldn’t they be passing judgement on someone’s soul? If I remember correctly, no man has that right.
Re: Also in Leviticus…
Going back to Leviticus, God has already judged and condemned it. They would be simply following His Will.
Re: Also in Leviticus…
So far, you have accepted your defeat with grace and humility!
::DUCKING AND RUNNING!!::
8-p
Re: Also in Leviticus…
I asked for it to show that while many have a beautiful faith, none hold the majority.
Re: Also in Leviticus…
Then leave it to God to sort and choose. It’s not my right, or anyone elses (as far as I am concerned) to judge the purity of a man’s soul.
Re: Also in Leviticus…
Well, I would if you could point out how I’ve been defeated. I don’t see it. :-)
Re: Also in Leviticus…
But are we not required as Christians to spread God’s Word and obey His Laws?
If you read any of the local gay rags, they have pages and pages of advertisements for legitimate gay-owned and operated businesses. I saw a lot of them when I was doing Nile Blue.
Re: Also in Leviticus…
Which again, wasn’t the issue in question. The question is if a person’s faith accepts a same sex union, does anyone have the right to deny them the right to wed.
Personally, I see it as a denial of First Amendment rights. Apparently, the Mass. court system feels the same way.
As for your concerns about the failing morality of the country…
It’s not the government’s job to teach or enforce a person’s moral system. That’s what parents and religious leaders are for. :-)
“I believe Jesus was teaching the hardest thing of all… not educated bible-verse quoting, but Unconditional Loving Acceptance, leaving judgment to God.”
I agree wholeheartedly. Unbfortunatly for homosexuals, God already made that judgement thousands of years ago.
Re: Also in Leviticus…
It is our job to spread His Word, yes. It is not our job to shove it down someone’s throat, or condemn someone who chooses not to listen. (Which is one of the biggest problems I have with one of my co-workers…)
It is our job to abide by the lessons taught by Christ. Some of those lessons are carry-overs from the Old Testiment, some were revised, some were discarded.
It’s not our job to ensure that everyone around us follows those Laws. The decision to follow, or to not follow, is between each individual and God.
Re: Also in Leviticus…
“It is our job to abide by the lessons taught by Christ. Some of those lessons are carry-overs from the Old Testiment, some were revised, some were discarded. “
And Christ was QUITE clear on what his, therefore God’s, ideas of what marriage is. He refers to marriage as between a man and a woman. True, he doesn’t specifically state that it can’t be between persons of the sames-ex. Just because also doesn’t specifically say we can’t launch porcupines into space with a giant rubber-band doesn’t mean it’s what God wants.
My concern is that this law might lead to the federal government eventually dictating to religions what they must do or allow because to do otherwise would be illegal discrimintaion. That is my concern.
I agree. I do not want the State to ever dictate to the Church that it must accept policies that directly violate their tenents of faith or else face legal punishment.
Buddhists don’t believe in causing suffering. I don’t want the state to tell them they have to.
Orthodox Jews don’t believe in eating pork. I don’t want the state to tell them they have to because otherwise is discrimination against the pork farmers of America.
Christians, per the Bible, not me, should not believe in gay marriage. I don’t want the state to tell them they have to perform them or else face discrimination lawsuits.
On the other hand, the reverse must be true. While religion does influence how a person votes which in turn influences how our laws are made, religion should not dictate to the government what policy should be.
Therefore, somewhere in the middle, a compromise needs to be reached.
i don’t for a second think that churches should have to allow gay marriages. but not all marriages take place within the church. and those should be legal. the church doesn’t have to acknowledge them. they don’t acknowledge that my PARENTS were married, as they got hitched in a presbyterian church,and not catholic, making me a bastard child in the catholic church’s eyes (as i was told a few times in catholic school).
Re: Also in Leviticus…
But that concern is groundless… because the First Admendment protects the rights of churches as much as it protects the rights of individual.
I’ve already discussed cases where clergy has refused to either perform or accept marriages between “regular” couples due to the fact they disaprove of the marriage. Other people have cited that churches can’t be slammed for discrimination for doing so.
Re: Also in Leviticus…
“But that concern is groundless.”
I don’t think it is, therefore, to me, it is not groundless.
“Other people have cited that churches can’t be slammed for discrimination for doing so.”
ARGH! I am not talking about NOW. I am talking about what could be to come. In the future. What this could LEAD to. I’ve stated my tense over and over and it seems like you just gloss over it.
Re: Also in Leviticus…
Not trying to gloss it over. The majority sets the rules (as you have pointed out) and if anyone tried to force the church into something that they consider morally wrong, there would be a huge public outcry… strangely enough, in support for the clergy’s First Admendment’s rights.
And I’d be one of the strongest supporters.
As long as there are secular means for a marriage, the church will have nothing to fear. Begin to get seriously concerned if/when JOP’s and Notaries are no longer able to perform legally binding wedding ceremonies.
Until then, don’t stress yourself.
I am glad you are on the same page, because the message I feel faithful people should get out is that its between God and the homosexuals, and all of us are clear that when it comes down to it, we should unconditionally love and accept those that “sin”. We do not have to like their behavior, and we do not have to follow the example, but it is not our place to judge or condemn it.
Just because I do not smoke, does not mean I have to put on a dour and disapproving face around smokers, or remind them they are going to die every 5 seconds.
Ultimately the only help we can offer – is help that is asked for… because helping someone that does not want help, only puts them on the defensive, and makes a greater problem.
Inspiration, not condemnation. There is too little of it in modern American Christian interpretation, in my opinion.
Ultimately, I see it only as a “sin” for – me. However, I live in sin, everyone does, and I try to do better. I try and find the heart of problems, the roots, not the leaves of the tree. Everyone has their own path, and if they need to experience something or some act that some consider a sin, so be it. Perhaps it is not my place to make it more difficult for them to experience it. If a loved one wants to commit suicide, ultimately I cannot stop them, and making it a priority for me to attempt to stop them may make make it impossible for me to understand and love them – which is what they may really need to halt them on the path to self destruction.
Re: Also in Leviticus…
“Until then, don’t stress yourself.”
Disnt the US say something similar about Hitler?
I so agree with you. God, not me, says homosexuality is a sin. Well, many things are a sin and I certainly not guiltless aby anymeans. God also teaches to love the sinner despite the sin. I do my best. My issue all along here has been a concern that by allowing gay marriages, the government may one day use this new law to dictate to the church (any church!) what they can and cannot do beacause to do otherwise would be illegal discrimination. Also, I worry about mypersonal religion. Marriage is a sacred thingfor us Chrisians and this law changes the face of it. I don’t like my beliefs and things I hold sacred monkeyed with, even in a small way, unless *I* decide to do the monkeying. My faith is the one thing I have that no one may take away from me. When you take something I believe in, like the sacred bond of marriage, and tell me that it must incorporate an ideal that I do not support, and, if I do not support that ideal I am a hater, I get nervous.
Does that make sense?
Re: Also in Leviticus…
Entirely different situation.
BTW, out of honest curiosity, I have a question for you regarding Nile Blue…
If homosexual relationships are so abhorant to you, why were you willing to participate in a production that shows such relationships in such a favorable light and with such compasion?
Interesting point, discrimination lawsuits against the church and all. Marriage does happen OUTSIDE of churches, because we have a separation of church and state (in theory anyway). I do not think the church would be forced to marry anyone in a religious ceremony that they do not agree with. I kinda doubt the 007 club will all of a sudden change their beliefs. Perhaps that is why their are a billion denominations of Christianity… Hmmm, that should be a new topic of debate.
As long as you are not being forced to marry a homosexual, in the short term you are probably ok. ;-)
Re: Also in Leviticus…
Love the sinner, hate the sin.
Besides, Niankhnum and Khumenhotep actually made a point that they didn’t want to be married. Living together was just fine.
Only time will tell.
Re: Also in Leviticus…
But even so, it still focused on tolerance for homosexual relationships.
And if I read the information right (from the link you posted regarding the historical background for the play) the two of them were buried in such a way to ensure that their union would continue in the afterlife… and the murals clearly depicted one of them (can’t remember which) in a wife’s possition.