Jerod Coker recently wrote a column discussing gay marriage and the lack of intelligent, reasonable objections to allowing such marriages. There is a glaring problem with the attempt to label the religious answers to why gay marriage shouldn’t be legal as unintelligent. The problem is the “secular” intelligent reasons he wants are for a different question, should civil unions be legal? There is no intelligent, rational reason why anybody should be denied a civil union under the law.
But this is a discussion of marriage, and marriage is a religious issue, not a legal one like civil unions. The answer “God doesn’t want them to get married,” is a rational and intelligent answer from the Christian religion. The attempts to call religious answers irrational or unintelligent attempts to minimize the importance of religion in the gay marriage debate. Yet religion is the most important part of this debate, just as law and secular intelligence is to civil unions. If gays and lesbians win the ability to marry the law will disregard the actual religion their marriage is based on.
Some would argue that the religious have no right to impose their values on others to stop them from getting married. A Christian marriage is a tradition that is deeply ingrained in the American society. From birth, girls and boys are raised with the expectation that they will get married. To gays and lesbians a wedding is seen as their right and the ultimate symbol of equality. But marriage isn’t a right, and the religious aren’t infringing on the homosexual community’s rights. The homosexual community is demanding entry into a Christian tradition. For those who follow the bible, a marriage between homosexuals in a Christian ceremony is an affront to a sacred tradition. Such religious ceremonies lose all meaning if the religion and its teachings are treated as irrelevant. My name is Josh, and if I wanted to join a religion named Joshes can’t get married, and I demand to get married in that church, even this politically correct America shouldn’t force the church’s hand.
This debate truly embodies a no-win situation. But the government can’t force a religion to change its traditions or teachings to suit a group the religion doesn’t regard favorably. In this politically correct world though, it’s hard to believe that the U.S. government will do the right thing, the most taboo thing an American can do now, which is to say no.
The Oklahoma Daily is pleased to provide you the opportunity to share your thoughts about this article. We encourage lively debate on the issues of the day, but we ask you refrain from using profanity or other offensive speech, engaging in personal attacks or name-calling, posting advertising, or straying from the topic at hand. To comment, you must be a registered user of OUDaily.com. Thanks for taking the time to offer your thoughts.
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in | Register
dargus 2 years, 1 month ago
As I said in the comments of the other article, there is a simple way to solve this issue. The state needs to recognize only civil unions and let "marriage" be a private affair.
Terminate_Damnation 2 years, 1 month ago
So marriage originated with Christianity and not a single other religion or culture? Marriage dates back to pre-history, and same-sex marriages weren't a problem in Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome, Japan, Egypt, China, Southeast Asia, Australia, India, South America, and the list goes on.
Indeed, the religious history of our country stems from one particular religion that wasn't too happy toward same-sex marriage, but if we're basing this on a literal look of the Bible, why don't we make polygamy cool again? The system of monogamy as the norm in Christianity only extends back about 150 years or so.
We need rationality in these arguments because it is the fundamentalist, literalistic approach to the Christian Bible that restricts rationality. Gay marriage was outlawed in the Old Testament, but so were a hell of a lot of other crazy things. In the New Testament, homosexuality is only preached against afterward by Paul. I guess Jesus never had time to say the homosexuals were all going to hell.
brandeis 2 years, 1 month ago
"The most important one is this...O Israel, the Lord is God, our God is one. Love the Lord your God with all they heart and soul, all your mind and strength. The second is this: love thy neighbor as thyself. There is no commandment greater than this." - Mark 12:29
Oh snap, looks like the Bible tells you to love people before you try to pull out obscure Old Testament verses to tell them what to do. But wait, there's more! You probably haven't read the Bible, but if you will recall the Book of Jonah, in which God tells Jonah to go to Nineveh and inform everyone of their impending deaths - after which God decides not to kill them. Jonah is really huffy about this, since he wanted God to bring down some good ol' fashioned justice on Nineveh. So, he hangs out to watch the explosion, and while chilling on the East wall of the city, it gets super hot! So god makes a vine to shade him, then kills it. Why? Well here's God's commentary on you telling him what to do with his people:
"When the sun rose, God provided a scorching east wind, and the sun blazed on Jonah's head so that he grew faint. He wanted to die, and said, "It would be better for me to die than to live."
But God said to Jonah, "Do you have a right to be angry about the vine?" "I do," he said. "I am angry enough to die."
But the LORD said, "You have been concerned about this vine, though you did not tend it or make it grow. It sprang up overnight and died overnight. But Nineveh has more than a hundred and twenty thousand people who cannot tell their right hand from their left, and many cattle as well. Should I not be concerned about that great city?" - Jonah 4:8-11
Goodness me, it looks like God would like you to stay the hell out of his business, as he created people, not you. The Bible is not there so you can go around telling people you're righteous and they're not. In fact, God could absolutely care less about your opinion on what people deserve and whether or not they have a right to do what they're doing or not - he is God, not you.
Oh man, I'm really on a roll here, sorry to go on a tangent, but there's a little bit more:
"For all have sinned, and all fall short in the eyes of God, and are justified by his gift: through the redemption that is Christ Jesus." - Romans 3:23-24
Oh man, looks like you are just as at fault as the gays. So let's put it together: Love people. Don't tell God what to do about the salvation of others, nor try to enforce it. You're a screw-up too, so worry about your own soul. Fin.
Jwer 2 years, 1 month ago
@brandeis You just made my day. Just thought you should know.
Also, I'd like to throw this in the mix. "Marriage" becomes a secular issue when the word is embedded in our laws. When you have laws regarding marriage and discriminate against people based on sex, that becomes unconstitutional.
QUESTIONS THAT CAN BE ANSWERED RELIGIOUSLY: 1.) Should same-sex marriages be performed in churches? 2.) Will the church recognize the legitimacy of your marriage? 3.) Does the church (or anyone for that matter) have to like it?
1.) If you don't want to perform weddings in your church? That's really fine by me. There are plenty of other places to get married. It may result in losing tax exempt status, I don't really know. Tax law isn't my thing.
2.) Nope! You can tell everyone you want that it's not real. Also A-ok with me AND the first amendment. Go for it.
3.) No one can force you to like something you don't. Don't want to eat your green beans? You're a big boy. Make your own life choices and let us make ours.
QUESTIONS THAT HAVE TO BE ANSWERED SECULARLY: 1.) Anything with the word "legal" in it.
Not everyone is a Christian. Christian laws don't apply to everyone. More than just Christians get married. The role of the government is to protect all of its citizens, not just the ones who believe in the guy upstairs.
P.S. It makes me a little sad that two consenting adults entering into a monogamous commitment which in best case is 'til death do them part, is more hazardous to Christianity than the Church's penchant for child molestation.
ab167 2 years, 1 month ago
By this logic, no one who is not a Christian should be allowed to get married.
BarackObama 2 years, 1 month ago
Read the First Amendment Josh. Furthermore they wouldn't make any one religious group do anything. Ignorance.
mustafa 2 years, 1 month ago
Josh- When debating the homosexual issue, never, never bring religion into it. It is counterproductive in the secular arena. Above posts prove how easy it is to twist the Judeo-Christian dogma especially the Old Testament.
The good news is that are plenty or secular tools to defeat the homosexual argument without bringing religion into it.
Most supposed grievances have always been resolvable through legal partnerships (see Business Law 101). You and I right now can form a legal partnership where we acquire property together, insure each other, etc. If one of us dies the other inherits all wealth and property acquired under the partnership, while neither of our wives and kids can do anything about it.
If there is a state in the country that hasn't already granted "Legal Union" I'm not aware of it. I've said on other threads that “homosexuals already have legal unions but that isn't good enough for them. “ I haven’t been corrected.
“To gays and lesbians a wedding is seen as their right and the ultimate symbol of equality.” Bingo, you hit the nail on the head with this one.
We recently concluded a long thread on this point (ref. Queer perspective focus of month-long event, A&L April 7)
The reason homosexual should be denied on moniker of “marriage” is that they want more than just the same rights, they want to be able to destroy what heterosexual marriage is. Once they get “marriage” homosexuals will claim that they are still not equal because heterosexual marriage has something that homosexual marriage does not have, and can never have.
bart4113 2 years, 1 month ago
What about atheists that are male and female and get married? Do you care if they get married? Probably not. Many people who are not religious get married so how can it be a "religious issue?"
sarawithnoh 2 years, 1 month ago
Hi Josh, I'm Sara. I'm not trying to attack you but I have some serious problems with the claims you make here.
You call marriage a "religious issue" but non-religious people get married, too... they don't get civil unions, and many of them have wedding ceremonies with religious elements. Do you think people who don't believe in God shouldn't be allowed to marry because they are not part of God's kingdom? Do you think interfaith marriages shouldn't take place? I doubt it. I hope not. If you're just talking about Christian marriage ceremonies, and you're not opposed to homosexual people having other kinds of marriage ceremonies that aren't based in the Christian faith, you had better clarify that. It kind of sounds like you don't believe homosexual people can be Christians but it's worth pointing out that not all Christians agree with that - there's a lot of variety. (If you ARE opposed to homosexual people having a non-religious marriage ceremony - which I doubt because you say "There is no intelligent, rational reason why anybody should be denied a civil union under the law" - then that would be no one's business but the brides and grooms.)
Please, please, please explain how "The answer 'God doesn’t want them to get married,' is a rational and intelligent answer from the Christian religion." From the Christian religion, yes... but rational and intelligent? Let's go ahead and assume the Christian God is real and present, and He does not want homosexual people to marry one another. How did you learn what God wants and does not want? He didn't tell you... It's in the Bible. How do you know the Bible is true? God says so. Scores upon scores of other religious people say so. There's evidence to support it. But you make the decision to believe it's true. You have to have faith. You can't prove through reason, rational thought or intellect what God wants - you have got to take it on faith that it's revealed in the Bible. it's not the same thing. Believe what you want, but I don't see how you can call this a rational and intelligent answer because if it comes from God and was born independent of human thought, it's Divine Thought because it's God's Will and how can you possibly presume to understand that with your "rational" human mind?
(Of course, some would say that the Bible, and religion in general, ARE born of human thought but we're not talking about that. At least, I'm not. Well, I was for a minute there. I'm digressing. I apologize. I just feel like I have to cover as many bases as I can think of.)
OUSooners 2 years, 1 month ago
ab167 "By this logic, no one who is not a Christian should be allowed to get married."
It depends on what marriage means to you. Really, no one should be allowed a Christian marriage that isn't Christian. It just doesn't make sense. A Christian's marriage to an atheist, Jew, agnostic, should not be recognized by the church. (I can't say for Muslims, but if a Muslim could only marry a Muslim by the Qur'an, this logic would still apply)
But should it be recognized by the government? Absolutely - separation of church and state. But then you have to almost redefine marriage so that it is a purely religious term and give everyone civil unions. Then, religious people could be married by the church but recognized as a civil union by the government. Gays could get civil unions, atheists/agnostics could get civil unions, Christian/Jewish couples could get civil unions.
calebegg 2 years, 1 month ago
Mustafa: "If there is a state in the country that hasn't already granted "Legal Union" I'm not aware of it."
Actually, most states have not. See this map:
File:Samesex marriage in USA.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The two darkest shades of blue are what we're looking at here. Those are the only two that matter as far as giving full legal rights. So, I see 9 states that give this. Far cry from all 50. Furthermore, DOMA prevents federal rights to be given in all states. So no, we're far from having rights to a "legal union" everywhere.
Also, I can't speak for everyone, but as a gay man, I'd be totally cool if I could get all the legal benefits of marriage even if it was called a "civil union". In fact, I don't think the government has any place granting "marriage" licenses at all. No legal benefits should be based on a religious ceremony -- everyone should have to apply for a civil union.
Jwer 2 years, 1 month ago
@calebegg I'm not sure he was talking about "Civil Unions" since that would prohibit him from also marrying someone. I think he's talking about some sort of personal business agreement. He's WRONG. I mean, sure you can share wealth but there are a number of other rights conferred onto married couples that would not be included in such an arrangement. Joint Adoption, spousal privilege, joint tax returns are just a few. Some things like next-of-kin can be worked around, but there are a lot of things that simply require you being married under the law.
@Mustafa I don't know about you, but I happen to come from a long line of heterosexual marriages. I'm glad my parents were married when I was born and are still together. I don't see how me wanting to have what they have is going to do anything but strengthen that. I would like nothing more than to find someone that I love and be with them for the rest of my life. How does my ability to file a tax return, adopt a child, visit my spouse in the hospital, or make funeral arrangements going to harm anyone? And what, aside from the obvious, would homosexual marriage be missing that heterosexual marriage has?
oujosh29 2 years, 1 month ago
I think everyone is missing the point I was trying to make which I guess is my fault. I believe everyone should be able to create a union with someone they love, homosexual, atheist, whatever. The goverment should recognize the unions of these couples and give them all the rights anyone has, even gay adoption. My girlfriend works for the city handling abused and neglected kids and I can't imagine how gay couples could do any worse. But when I say marriage I mean in religious terms. This may have been my mistake because I didn't define how I see marriage. Marriage is being united under god. The ceremony where the couple is "married under god" is the religous issue. We can't seperate this with the union itself because the two have been linked for so long and "marriage" is the legally recognized one. That should change.Gays and lesbians should be allowed to have their own unions. They can make their own ceremonies with their own cake and reception and have a great time. When the religious loons try to boycott this, and some won't be happy with any union, then the united couple can smile and now say too bad. And the idea of love all men equally has nothing to do with this. The bible says love the guy who murdered kids, but where does it say to invite him into your house? According to the bible love the sinner, the homosexuals, hate the sin, the life style. No where in the bible does it say you should CONDONE the sin, which is what allowing a christian marriage would be. As for atheists and the other religions, its common sense they can get married. I'd never say muslims can't get married because their not christian. But the article can't be that long and I could only focus on the main part of our society, not the million religions that are out there. All though for all those who want a gay marriage with the preacher, church and under god in there, ask yourself if you'd take up a protest sign and stand outside of a Mosque? Would you try and force their culture to let the muslim homosexuals marry?
mustafa 2 years, 1 month ago
Well, that link went nowhere but I googled civil unions and apparently there are only 11 states plus DC that currently have civil unions. And that isn't acceptable, and shouldn’t be for of those wanting to protect heterosexual marriage. If the homosexual community would adopt the attitude of calebegg, I 'm not sure there would not be much opposition to civil unions anywhere. After all, I’ve seen plenty of debate on why or not there should be gay-marriage. But I can't remember the last time I saw one about civil union.
Having said that, let me point out the eleven states include all of New England, the North West and, of course, California. IOW, big liberal areas from where still comes the heaviest agitation for homosexual marriage, especially California.
Thus my point remains that civil unions are not good enough for most homosexuals, because it does not allow them to get-at heterosexual marriage. Homosexuality literally hates the sights and sounds of heterosexual marriage and wants to put an end to them.
Jwer- even with "marriage" homosexuals cannot have all that your parents had, and they never can. Why do advocates always cite hospital visitation? Can you give us an example of how homosexuals are discriminated when it comes to visiting someone in a hospital?
Jwer 2 years, 1 month ago
@oujosh29 I've read your post. Twice. And I understand everything as I did before.
The point is this: "The ceremony where the couple is "married under god" is the religous [sic] issue. We can't seperate [sic] this with the union itself because the two have been linked for so long and "marriage" is the legally recognized one."
The "marriage" you have set up in this definition is discriminatory. I don't CARE if your religion discriminates, I care about the legally recognized one.
Two options, both which would end discrimination:
1.) Everyone has civil unions. Essentially go in and replace any instance of "Marriage" with "Civil Union". Grant every consenting human adult the ability to enter into a civil union with any other consenting human adult, bam. Problem solved.
2.) Keep the institution as it is, accept that there is a secular form of "Marriage" and stop discriminating.
The reason I disagree with simply making same-sex marriage civil unions and leaving everything else the same is that: 1.) Separate but equal is inherently unequal. 2.) The word marriage is everywhere in our laws.
I don't get understand what the big deal is over the word for you people. Let me be PERFECTLY clear:
Any laws that we're talking about use the word marriage. We want recognition under the current laws. We don't want anything new or special. All we want is to be treated equally under the law.
Also, question, if this is such a big religious issue, why is it common sense that atheists can get married?
Jwer 2 years, 1 month ago
@Mustafa 1.) You say that, but you don't offer anything to back it up. I'm still confused as to why I can't have the same thing.
2.) http://www.sdgln.com/news/2010/04/12/hospital-changes-policy-after-refusing-let-lesbian-visit-her-dying-partner
Granted, this is about the hospital changing its policy, but I'm pretty sure it illustrates the point. I can find more if you'd like.
And, again, Civil unions do NOT confer the same rights as Marriage does. Not at the state level, and not at the Federal level. It's just the way the laws are written. People are bastard covered bastards with bastard filling that find loopholes to get through things. 1.) Marriage is recognized in every state, civil unions not so much. If you move, you're not married anymore. 2.) Immigration sponsorship is a no-no with CUs. 3.) There are 1400 benefits to heterosexual marriage. Some of them are covered by CUs but here are some that aren't!
a.) Joint parental rights of children b.) Joint adoption c.) Status as "next-of-kin" for hospital visits and medical decisions d.) Right to make a decision about the disposal of loved ones remains e.) Immigration and residency for partners from other countries f.) Crime victims recovery benefits g.) Domestic violence protection orders h.) Judicial protections and immunity i.) Automatic inheritance in the absence of a will j.) Public safety officers death benefits k.) Spousal veterans benefits l.) Social Security m.) Medicare n.) Joint filing of tax returns o.) Wrongful death benefits for surviving partner and children p.) Bereavement or sick leave to care for partner or children q.) Child support r.) Joint Insurance Plans s.) Tax credits including: Child tax credit, Hope and lifetime learning credits t.) Deferred Compensation for pension and IRAs u.) Estate and gift tax benefits v.) Welfare and public assistance w.) Joint housing for elderly x.) Credit protection y.) Medical care for survivors and dependents of certain veterans
4.) Divorce. You can't have it. 5.) If I'm in a civil union and I fill out a form that asks if I'm married or single... What do I put? I perjure myself either way.
mrsrjv 2 years, 1 month ago
Let me put it simply if you think marriage is a religious institution then try to get a divorce from your religious institution. YOU CAN"T because it is a contract issued by the state. Its a state license no matter who performs the rite of marriage. "by the powers vested in me by the state of ......" We are one of the few countries in the world that even allow clergy to solemnize marriages most countries you have to be married by a government official and then have your religious service afterwards.
Lars 2 years, 1 month ago
"The state needs to recognize only civil unions and let "marriage" be a private affair." This is the most intelligent thing that has been said.
The government should have NO. SAY. AT. All. when it comes to marriage. Marriage is a religious ceremony. It is a contract between a man/woman, his/her lover, and his/her god. It is NOT a union between a man, his lover, his god, and the state.
We need to get rid of this notion of marriage being both religious and secular. It blurs the lines too much when it comes to the separation of church and state. Notice that I only said a man and his lover. This lover can be a man or woman, depending on your religion. BUT your religion has the final authority when it comes to marriage.
What about atheists? Well, they can get married too. BUT only if they can find a church that will do this for them. If they can't find a church that won't marry them, then TOO BAD! However, this is unlikely because their are plenty of churches all over America that will marry them. But in the case that they can't find a church, it is too bad. They should not go to the government or anything.
Civil unions? Civil unions should be defined by the government. The government SHOULD allow same-sexes to get together. But we all know that won't happen in every state, unfortunately.
Oh yeah, polygamy? Just like atheist marriages. There should be no problem at all with that. BUT, the government should not recognize them in any way whatsoever.
mustafa 2 years, 1 month ago
Fine, You make a great case for why Civil Unions should be brought up to speed with hetero marriage and should be recognised everywhere. Why can't both sides work on that instad of the assualt on hetero marriage. Adoption stuff aside, I'm not aware of the case against Civil Unions. Am I to understand that battles for civil unions have gone down in bitter flames in 39 states, or has there just been no real interest in waging them?
Jwer 2 years, 1 month ago
@Mustafa States whose constitutions ban SSCUs : Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin
So, not 39 but...
I'm in favor of replaceAll("Marriage", "Civil Union");. The problem you're facing is accepting that wanting to be treated equally under current law is somehow asking too much. Like I said before, it's not an assault on marriage, it's just working with what we've got. The easiest way to close the argument on this is to give everyone the same thing. Whether it be "Civil Union" or "Marriage", I don't really care. They could call it "THE HETERO HOMOGAY ALLIANCE IN PARTNERSHIPS OF AMERICA!" or something equally ridiculous.
The case against civil unions is the same as the case against marriage. People find it to be immoral, they amend the constitution, the federal government ignores it.
The idea of the civil union in the United States is REALLY new, and it came after the fight for marriage started, so that's why no one wants to go for it. Vermont was the first to bring it about in 2000. DOMA was passed in 1996 when people were afraid Hawaii was going to legalize gay marriage.
Also: Only FOUR states have "Civil Unions" the other seven you're counting have "domestic partnerships" which are a step below that. Domestic Partnerships don't HAVE to be recognized by your county, city, state, employer, etc. It ISN'T recognized by the Federal government in any way.
I still fundamentally disagree with marriage being solely religious. It's lost that over its many many years. Marriage CEREMONIES may have religious elements to them, but the actual marriage contract is between two people and their government. You don't have to get married by a priest in a church. You can go down the street to the courthouse and get hitched if you want.