But more seriously, the individuals who are currently filling my Facebook feed with spite and vitriol aren't even pretending anymore that their goal was ever anything other than enforcing their personal religious beliefs on the nation through law.
A person might be expressing concern about the decision from a religious perspective, separate from their view on the question from a civic perspective. It would be of grave concern to someone who believes, based on religious views, that same-gender sex is immoral, that the state is now extolling this immoral (from their perspective) act. That wouldn't necessarily mean that they believe the state should be in the business of imposing their religious views on the country, but it's nevertheless a moment of great distress, so there's bound to be a lot of social discourse about it.
I believe the issue of gay 'marriage' really is unique in the way it forces a collision between religious freedom and anti-discrimination law. I can't think of another case in which the state is promoting something as right and good that a large number of citizens believes (and lawfully believes, as long as we continue to have religious freedom) is an offense against God (referring to same-gender sex).
I think it unlikely that the idea that opposition to gay 'marriage' is and can only be about hatred of gays, will be relinquished by many of its proponents. That means there will be little understanding of the real concerns people opposed to this decision have, relating not to gays, but to the meaning and significance of the concept of marriage, which is fundamentally changed by this ruling.
Avatar photo by Richard Lykes, used with permission.
I can't think of another case in which the state is promoting something as right and good that a large number of citizens believes (and lawfully believes, as long as we continue to have religious freedom) is an offense against God (referring to same-gender sex).
I don't understand why you can't think of other examples:
- The United States promotes capital punishment as a form of justice for murder and other grave crimes, but many citizens (both those on the left and the right) lawfully believe that the death penalty is immoral, both for religious and other reasons.
- The government has determined that women have a constitutional right to access abortions at certain windows in their pregnancy, but many citizens (particularly those on the right) believe that abortion is immoral, both for religious and other reasons.
- The federal government deports undocumented individuals based on justifications that some citizens (particularly those on the left) view as immoral for religious or other reasons.
- The federal government embraces incarceration policies that some citizens (particularly those on the left) view, for religious or other reasons, as unjust or excessive, including because of their disproportionate impact on men of color (e.g., lengthy sentences for non-violent drug offenses).
I won't just survive
Oh, you will see me thrive
Can't write my story
I'm beyond the archetype
I won't just conform
No matter how you shake my core
'Cause my roots, they run deep, oh
When, when the fire's at my feet again
And the vultures all start circling
They're whispering, "You're out of time,"
But still I rise
This is no mistake, no accident
When you think the final nail is in, think again
Don't be surprised, I will still rise
Cerin wrote:I can't think of another case in which the state is promoting something as right and good that a large number of citizens believes (and lawfully believes, as long as we continue to have religious freedom) is an offense against God (referring to same-gender sex).
I wouldn't necessarily "the state is promoting something as right and good" so much as it is providing it as a option to those who think it is a right and good for them. In that sense - in that it is a option the state provides for people if they want it - I would say divorce comes to mind, something which the Bible much more explicitly condemns as a sin and yet there is almost zero controversy about it being legal.
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
Good point, Yov. Its just been around enough, I think.
After all divorce goes against Cerin's Genesis Chapter 2 verse as well, unless there is a qualifier that "one flesh" can be separated out into two again.
And as for that verse, it says "wife", not "woman".
'You just said "your getting shorter": you've obviously been drinking too much ent-draught and not enough Prim's.' - Jude
I would not say capital punishment, abortion, deportation or incarceration are promoted by the state as inherently right and good. They are ugly solutions to ugly problems. No one hopes there will be a multiple murder so they can put someone to death. No one hopes to get pregnant so they can kill a fetus. No one hopes more immigrants come so they can be cruelly deported. No one except those running private prisons for profit hope more people will break the law so prisons will be full to bursting. These are flawed solutions to extraordinary problems outside the sphere of most people's daily lives, not something we celebrate daily as inherently beneficial to society.
But my point was that the ruling forces a unique conflict. It affirms the value of same-gender sex by bringing same-gender sexual relationships under the heading of 'marriage'. Married couples religiously opposed to same-gender sex are now part of an institution they cherished and revered, that now societally holds up as inherently good something they believe is immoral. It's not really a tenable situation.
It would probably be wise if I bow out at this point, so please excuse me not replying further.
Avatar photo by Richard Lykes, used with permission.
Cerin, I am curious to know, given the comments you made in the Dolezal and Jenner thread, whether you believe that a transgender person who has transitioned to the gender identity that they identify with should be allowed to marry someone who now was the opposite gender. Or for that matter, whether they should be allowed to marry someone who is the opposite gender of the gender that they were born as. I know that might sound like a "gotcha" question, but it really is not meant that way. I am genuinely curious.
ETA: I did not see that you wished to bow out of this discussion before posting this.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
Cerin wrote:Married couples religiously opposed to same-gender sex are now part of an institution they cherished and revered, that now societally holds up as inherently good something they believe is immoral.
Again, I don't really see this as holding this "up as inherently good" so much as saying that it is up to individuals to decide for themselves whether they believe it is good for them. It is saying you now have the liberty to make this choice, not necessarily saying that this is a choice you should make.
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
Yeah, permitted is not the same as compulsory. Or is the problem that, now that same-sex unions have gained the same legal recognition as opposite-sex unions, these unions must be (legally) regarded as equal to the more traditional kind?
Cerin wrote:It affirms the value of same-gender sex by bringing same-gender sexual relationships under the heading of 'marriage'. Married couples religiously opposed to same-gender sex are now part of an institution they cherished and revered, that now societally holds up as inherently good something they believe is immoral. It's not really a tenable situation.
Of course it is tenable. Last Monday, married couples...
- Religiously opposed to divorce and believing that marriage is a one-time, lifelong commitment: were part of an institution that included divorced/remarried couples.
- Religiously opposed to pre-marital cohabitation: were part of an institution that included couples that had cohabited before marriage.
- Religiously opposed to voluntarily abstaining from procreation/believing that marriage is for procreative/child-rearing purposes: were part of an institution that included voluntarily childfree couples.
- Religiously opposed to pre-marital intimacy: were part of an institution that (disproportionately, overwhelmingly) included couples who were not virgins upon marriage.
- Religiously opposed to Britney Spears: were part of an (apparently cherished and revered) institution that was broad enough to include Ms. Spears' off-the-cuff decision to marry at 5 AM in Vegas and then . . . let's call it consciously uncouple . . . 55 hours later.
Given that married couples who oppose divorce, cohabitation, pre-marital intimacy, voluntarily abstention from children, and Britney Spears have all been able to coexist with couples who do these things and receive government sanction for their relationship (+ Britney Spears), I am confident that married couples who are morally and religiously opposed to homosexuality can share the legal institution of marriage with same-sex couples. If they cannot, said married couples are themselves free to abstain from the civil institution of marriage and seek religious marriage from a denomination that polices entrance to marriage closely.
I won't just survive
Oh, you will see me thrive
Can't write my story
I'm beyond the archetype
I won't just conform
No matter how you shake my core
'Cause my roots, they run deep, oh
When, when the fire's at my feet again
And the vultures all start circling
They're whispering, "You're out of time,"
But still I rise
This is no mistake, no accident
When you think the final nail is in, think again
Don't be surprised, I will still rise
I am puzzled as to why it matters to those whose view of marriage is founded in their religion if same-sex couples are able to contract a civil marriage. For the religious couples, isn't the religious ceremony the point, much more than the piece of paper from the courthouse? And churches are still free to withhold religious weddings from same-sex couples. Many will not do so, but many will.
So it is still possible for a religious, traditionally oriented couple to be married in a way that a same-sex couple cannot be. If the exclusion of same-sex couples is necessary for the religious couple to feel that their marriage has value, well, there are still churches that exclude. And they will continue to be able to do so. The same Constitution that provides the right of civil marriage to everyone also provides the right to churches to grant or withhold their services as they choose.
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
The interesting thing, for me, is how quickly public opinion on this issue has changed. When I started University in 2004, this was a fringe issue with only a few jurisdictions known for their radical social policies like the Netherlands and Massachusetts just starting to move. Now it enjoys majority support in the U.S. and is legal in a dozen countries in Europe. The only comparison I can think of (and I obviously have no personal memory of this) is the mass movement against all forms of racially-discriminatory government policies throughout the Western world in the 1960s.
This is going to be tested here fairly shortly. Same-sex marriage was defeated heavily in the Federal Parliament as recently as 2012, 42 votes to 98 in the House of Representatives and by 41 votes to 26 in the Senate. And that was with a Labor Government in power. Now, following the Irish referendum and the U.S. Supreme Court decision, a new bill is being sponsored by two MPs from the conservative side of politics. Even though the right-of-centre Coalition is now in government the bill is running neck and neck – 63 Representatives have declared in favour (including a sizeable number who voted ‘no’ three years ago), 61 against, and there are 25 still undeclared. 76 votes are needed to pass, so the ‘yes’ side needs to win over 13 of the 25 undecided. If it can pass the House, with the large Coalition majority, then I reckon it can pass the Senate – 36 of the 76 Senates have come out in favour. And if it does, then there can be no challenge to its legitimacy – it will be through the legislative process with the Federal Parliament exercising its constitutional power to make laws with respect to marriage.
I’ll be interested to see how the issue of legalisation through Supreme Court ruling plays out over time in the U.S. Roe v Wade remains extremely controversial, but then public opinion on abortion has shifted little in decades. In contrast, the momentum was undoubtedly behind same-sex marriage, and it is certain that, in the absence of this decision, it would have been legalised by more state legislatures or through more ballot measures. It may be that, in ten years’ time, only a small minority will still care. But it might also be that Obergefell v Hodges becomes something of a rallying-point for the social conservative movement and weld its opposition to same-sex marriage to its opposition to judicial activism. Time will tell.
As a final note, I wish that the plaintiffs picked a test case with a person with an easier name to remember (like Roe). I have to keep checking how to spell Obergefell and I have a feeling that it won’t be as easy to recall as Roe v Wade, D.C. v Heller, Citizens United, or the other big ones.
"Roe," of course, is a pseudonym, as the plaintiff had her identify protecting by suing as "Jane Roe" (similar to "John Doe"). Her real name is Norma McCorvey (and she went on to become a radical "pro-life" campaigner with Operation Rescue). "McCorvey v. Wade" would not have had the same to ring to it, would it have?
That having been said, I suspect that a better parallel to "Obe v. Hodges" (;)) is Loving v. Virginia (has there ever been a better name that that?), the case that ended bans on interracial marriage. Before long, people will be wondering what the big deal was. On the other hand, Loving was a unanimous decision, with none of the internal rancor that we see in the Obergefell decision. Still, I can't imagine it remaining controversial the way that abortion has.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
I apologize for the inconsistency of indicating I would exit the discussion and the turning up again. I was checking the thread to see if there'd been any talk of an Iwo Jimo-like photo, because I saw mention of this on my local news. Then, of course, I was drawn into reading the responses.
Voronwë, I regard someone who has changed genders, as being the gender they've changed to, and would not regard them any differently than I would regard someone who had been born that gender. If I understand what you're getting at, I would regard any marital dysfunction in that case in the same way I would regard the dysfunction of a couple who were subject to physical limitation because of some other kind of catastrophic accident or congenital abnormality.
The state holds up marriage as something right, good and beneficial to society. The state encourages marriage by conferring benefits and protections to married couples. We celebrate marriage. We have lately, in court, held up marriage as something that confers dignity on and gains respect for its participants. So whatever type of relationship is called marriage, that type of relationship, in its defining particulars, is held up by the state as right, good, beneficial, worthy of special protection and benefit, worthy of celebration, conferring dignity, garnering respect.
One of the two defining particulars of marriage before this decision, was the consummating act of sexual intercourse, being the physical union of marriage and the union responsible for all of us existing. There are few things celebrated with as much joy within families as the birth of children. With the redefinition of marriage to include same gender couples, same gender sex is now exalted in the same way, as a right and good aspect of marriage. This is what the court has done.
nerdanel, I'm sure you're not being deliberately obtuse or purposely omitting the crucial point of my remarks. Divorce, cohabitation, voluntary abstention, pre-marital intimacy, Britney Spears -- none of these things are recognized by the state as defining aspects of the marital union, none of these things are exalted as right, good and beneficial to society. Your comments are not pertinent to my remarks, so it's a bit puzzling that you should post them after quoting me.
There would be no problem, if one could, as you suggest, be married in a church and still be considered married by the state, without subscribing to a state license. Indeed, I've been hoping that this might be a remedy that will be put in place -- a conscientious objector's marriage license that officially acknowledges the couple's urgent need, based on religious belief, to identify with the pre-SCOTUS definition of marriage. Or, the elimination of the state license entirely. But as far as I know, one needs a license from the state in order for a church marriage to be considered valid.
So to be perfectly plain, the problem is not sharing marriage with couples who misbehave. The problem is the identification by the state of an immoral practice as an aspect of the institution the state calls marriage, which it exalts as right and good. If people who believe same gender sex is a sin must obtain a license from the state, which defines marriage in this way, it is an intolerable moral conflict. We are currently existing under an umbrella of sin because the state has redefined marriage to include same-gender sexual relationships and we have a state-issued marriage license. We are now, from the perspective of our religious beliefs, part of an immoral institution. We need a means of exiting marriage as currently defined by the state, while staying married as marriage was defined before SCOTUS.
Avatar photo by Richard Lykes, used with permission.
Why do you grant the state the right to define your marriage? Why can't your marriage be what you define it as being? Or what (in your view) God defines it as being?
Do you see the state as being more powerful than God? If not, is a license more than a hoop to jump through, like a building permit so you can build your house?
And if you see it as defining your marriage—why allow that, if you reject the state's definition? Meeting the state standards gives you marriage for tax purposes. Does it grant the state of marriage itself, in your mind? Or does God? Which has more power, in your mind?
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
I know we've been going around on this issue with Cerin for about a decade so I doubt anything will change now, but I still don't see how issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples is all that different to issuing marriage licenses to divorcees. In both cases it amounts to a 'celebration' (if we accept Cerin's argument that issuing a marriage license is indeed a celebration by society) of something that many religious groups teach is immoral, invalid and against a particular essential characteristic of marriage - the lifelong union of one man and one woman. And if people who hold these views need to share the institution with those who have been divorced and re-married, surely they can equally share it with same-sex couples.
I am just jumping in here to say that I do understand where Cerin is coming from. I don't necessarily agree with her views, but I do understand (I think) what she is (and has been) attempting to explain.
I have seen a couple of fairly well-written blog posts in the past week that address the same issue and I will try to find them and post them. However, I am just now embarking on the first leg of a cross-country train trip, so it may be a while!
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
"Live! Live! Live! Life is a banquet, and most poor suckers are starving to death!" - Auntie Mame
I am just jumping in here to say that I do understand where Cerin is coming from.
Whereas I had thought that after many years of debate I pretty clearly understood Cerin's position but this last few posts utterly baffle me. I earnestly cannot wrap my head around what she is saying. I'd like to because even though I very strongly disagree with her POV, I believe that Cerin is intelligent, sincere, and un-malicious, but I read that last post several times and it practically feels like she's speaking a different language.
This bit in particular made my brain explode:
There would be no problem, if one could, as you suggest, be married in a church and still be considered married by the state, without subscribing to a state license. Indeed, I've been hoping that this might be a remedy that will be put in place -- a conscientious objector's marriage license that officially acknowledges the couple's urgent need, based on religious belief, to identify with the pre-SCOTUS definition of marriage.
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
