This seminal 2004 passage from Fafblog has been widely misunderstood as satire, but I contend that it is a serious metaphor, playful, yes, but both beautiful and accurate, for the vast danger posed to all happy NORMAL marriages by the legalization of the same-sex perversion of the institution. Read it again, and try to take it seriously, as California begins to fight for its soul:
“…as all God-fearing patriots sense by instinct, each time a man and a woman are married, they are touched on a higher plane of reality by one of the tentacles of God’s immense Octopus of Marriage, housed in Heaven, whose countless tentacles stretch out to embrace everyone else joined in the divine institute of Marriage. However, if gays begin to be married in America, the Octopus of Marriage will stretch down – unwittingly! – and touch its tentacle to their marriage as well… and in doing so, will be tainted by Gay.
“From there, this disaster leads to apocalyptic proportions, for once the Octopus of Marriage is itself corrupted with Gay, the corruption will spread through every marriage in America – tainting every happily married straight couple from Joe and Hadassah Lieberman to Newt and Marianne Gingrich with Gay. The epidemic of Gay would inevitably lead to the extinction of the human race…”
Well, Fafblog’s clarion warning clearly went unheard by a certain
State Supreme Court we won’t name, and I sense from conversations and polls that less and less straight Californians are taking this danger seriously, SO. We are going to examine – in gory detail – what that would look like, when real marriages become infected with legalized Gay. And we will choose an example from Fafblog’s excerpt: How would it specifically affect the marriage of Joe and Hadassah Lieberman if the Nutmeg State (Connecticut) made that fatal leap? Read on if you dare!
*
The psychic and spiritual damage done to traditional marriage by Legalized Gay is subtle and near impossible to notice for the first several weeks, so let’s look in on the happy Lieberman couple at, say, six weeks after Connecticut’s legalization. Congress is in session; Hadassah is contentedly gardening in the back yard of the Liebermans’ elegant but modest West Haven home, while, down in DC, Joe attends a subcommittee meeting on an issue dear to his heart—tightening the screws on Iran with a naval blockade.
He feels he is not making headway with this plan which is so crucial to his friends in Israel. A slim majority of the other Senators seem to fear the blockade will be taken as an act of war, lead to some rash reaction on Iran’s part, and escalate into real hostilities, which doesn’t seem a problem to Joe. But just as he is preparing to retort, he feels a slight tap on his right foot, and then a slow, almost sensual rub up and down. He glances over at Senator Larry Craig (who’s been sitting to his right), experiences the strangest sort
of warm vertigo, and quickly looks away to conceal what feels like a blush.
Catching his breath, he makes his belligerent points—quite eloquently too, he thinks, all things considered, and then quickly scrawls on a notepad, “Wide stance, huh? Knock it off!” But he can’t help smiling as he pushes the notepad toward his colleague, and the next time he looks over, Senator Craig gives him a furtive, rakish wink.
A day and a night go by, and then another day, but Joe can’t forget that delicious feeling. Suddenly on the second night, on the spur of the moment, at the hour he usually calls home to Hadassah, he picks up his Senate directory and dials Larry’s cell. “Craig here…who’s this? Speak up, I can’t hear you!” The Idaho Senator’s voice comes across mixed with disco music and laughing voices.
“It’s Joe. Joe Lieberman … I was just thinking about the other day, and… and I wanted to talk to you a little more about the Iran blockade thing.”
Larry chuckles, “Sure, Joe. Come over and let’s talk about the blockade. Let me give you the address here… Let’s see, 1432 22nd St Northwest. The Apex. Used to be The Badlands.”
“Yes, I’ve seen it.”
“Oh, and you should probably be discreet. Hat, dark glasses. Remember you’re famous.”
“Larry?”
“Yes, Joe.”
“This… this is all so new and strange to me. All I want to do is hold hands.”
Hearty laughter at the other end. “Sure, Joe. See you in a few.”
***********************************************
As Joe Lieberman stands in the foyer of the Apex, his senses adjusting to the pulsing lights, pumping music, and boisterous crowd, he scans the room for his colleague. After a moment a voice
cries out, “Joe! Over here!” and he makes his way toward a corner table. Senator Craig is completely unrecognizable in his dark wig, sideburns, and shades. “Jesus, Joe, you’re not in disguise at all! You’re a Senator, man!”
“It’s all right, Larry,” Joe giggles. “I’m a Democrat, a social liberal. Connecticut just legalized gay marriage. I’m just meeting my constituents.”
“This isn’t Connecticut, Joe, it’s DC.” For some reason, this sensible comment makes Joe laugh uncontrollably.
“Here, sit down and have a drink. There’s some folks I’d like you to meet.”
***********************************************
Hours lat
er, long after closing time, Joe Lieberman stumbles home in a euphoric daze. He reaches in his coat pocket to make sure he still has that young man’s phone number—Yes! Morris! A handsome, 30-ish gentile hunk just back from Iraq, who was star-struck to meet the senator who’d accompanied John McCain to the Baghdad marketplace. Morris! Joe kisses the napkin, puts it back in his pocket, and pumps his fist in the air, the way he does when he watches a war movie in public.
The phone is ringing as he staggers into his apartment. It’s Hadassah, darn! He’d forgotten to call her. “Joseph, are you okay? I’ve been worried sick!”
“Shorry I didn’t call, honey, I was out talking about the Iran blockade with Larry Craig.”
“The Iran blockade? This late?”
“It’sh for Ishrael, honey, Ishrael! Don’t you care about Ishrael?”
“You’re slurring very badly, Joseph. … Larry Craig? You mean, the Bathroom Senator?”
“He’sh a good man!”
“What are you doing out this late with the Bathroom Senator for God’s sake?”
“Don’t take the Lord’sh name in vain, Hadasshah!”
“I’m worried about you, honey… You’re going to be back in two days, aren’t you?”
“Of coursh, dear… I’m going to shleep now, I’m tired…”
“Good night Joseph. Please behave now.”
Hadassah shakes her head, puzzled. Why Larry Craig? She settles into the comfy chair and flips on the television. They are showing shots of Ellen’s and Portia’s wedding. Ellen is so funny, she thinks to herself, and Portia is so… so gorgeous. And they both look… well, carefree. She pulls the blanket up to her neck and falls asleep in the comfy chair with the television on, and soon the Siamese leaps onto her lap and relaxes into purring contentment.
***********************************************
In the morning Hadassah drives her Prius to the delicatessen to pick u
p some gefilte fish and challah bread, for her husband’s imminent return from DC, but she can’t stop mulling over his strange new friendship with the disgraced Idaho Senator. She is so preoccupied she doesn’t notice her old friend Rachel, the psychotherapist, in the line right ahead of her.
“Hadassah dear. What’s eating you?”
“Oh, it’s nothing.”
“That means it’s something. Come on, darling, out with it. I know you. How is Joe?”
“It’s just… Oh, I’m sure it’s nothing. But he’s been going out late at night with Larry Craig…”
Rachel involuntarily gasps. “The Bathroom Senator? Oh… you’re right, I’m sure it doesn’t mean anything. All our husbands, all over the state, are … you know, reaching out to each other lately, it’s the oddest thing. But it doesn’t mean they’re gay, they’re just… sort of experimenting.”
“Experimenting? I don’t want to catch anything!”
“You won’t, honey, you won’t. I’m sure Joe isn’t doing anything foolish.”
“This is happening all over Connecticut? Is this because we legalized gay marriage?”
“Maybe. It’s what we’ve been thinking.”
“Joe and I should never have supported that bill!”
“Come, come, dear, you’re sounding like a Republican homophobe. Listen. We’re having a support group at my place, every Tuesday at 11, just for women, to talk this exact thing over. Why don’t you come, day after tomorrow, say what’s on your mind. You’ll feel much better.”
“Rachel, you’re the greatest. I’ll see if I can make it.” And they embrace and part.
***********************************************
When Joe Lieberman comes home to Connecticut the next day, they both behave as though nothing has happened, and Joe is particularly jolly and solicitous towar
d his wife, showing up with flowers and joking nonstop. As on most Mondays, there’s a “Connecticut For Lieberman” rally [pictured to the left.] Hadassah thinks these events are silly, and a big waste of money (“supporters” are each paid $75 to show up, cheer and wave signs) but she knows it keeps Joe happy as he has no supporters in either major party, so as usual she is a good sport and plays along.
They do have a romantic candlelit dinner afterward, at their kosher home. Joe is as charming as ever, and reminisces at length about their early days in the 80’s before Hani was born, as they share a bottle of Merlot. At one point he grabs her hand and kisses up her arm like Gomez Addams. “Joe, stop, you’re tickling me!’ she giggles.
“My darling,” he croons, with a devilish twinkle in his eyes, “do you remember when we were Orthodox Jews?”
“We are ‘observant’ Jews now, it’s a little less uptight.”
“Yes, but still… You know how they say Orthodox Jews make love through a sheet with a hole in it, because the woman’s body is unclean?”
“Joe, you KNOW that’s just an urban legend!”
“Of course, but still… Don’t you think that would be kind of fun, kind of naughty?”
“Naughty? Not really. Is that what you want to do?”
And “Voila!” he cries as he pulls such a sheet out from under the table.
“You are CRAZY, Joseph Lieberman, what has gotten into you lately?”
A moment later, in the bedroom, he covers her with the sheet, and to her surprise he even covers her face.
“What are you doing? Are you sure this is how it’s done?” But by then Joe has already begun, and Hadassah relaxes and closes her eyes, and for some reason visions of Ellen and Portia begin to dance in her head, until she hears, unmistakeably, Joe Lieberman moan, “Morris…”
“WHAT!?”
“I said Doris.”
“Doris Who?”
“Lessing, Doris Lessing. I was just reading one of her books.”
“What book?”
“The Handmaid’s Tale!”
“That’s not Doris Lessing, that’s Margaret Atwood!”
“I mean, The Grass is Singing!”
“Anyway you said Morris!”
“I did not!”
“YOU SAID MORRIS!!!”
Modesty dictates that we condense the remainder of the evening into the following summary: After all the screaming, sobbing, and door-slamming, Joe Lieberman is forced to sleep on the couch, and his final words to himself before slipping into slack-jawed snoring are “What in God’s name is happening to me?”
***********************************************
In the morning, Hadassah steps gingerly past her snoring husband, out the front door, into the Prius, and heads off to Rachel’s New Have
n condo. As she stops briefly at the front door she can hear the sound of gossiping women, “Bathroom Senator? No! Really! The Bathroom Senator? You’re kidding! Poor Hadassah…” The chatter grinds to a halt when she bangs on the door.
Hadassah looks daggers at the seven women sprawled on futons and couches in Rachel’s living room, until one—Vivian—says, “Hadassah, we heard about what happened, and we want you to know we’re here to support you. Similar things are happening with all our husbands, even if they’re not famous like yours. Come on everyone, let’s give Hadassah a hug.”
“Chardonnay, Hadassah?” And soon she is part of the sisterhood, sharing her story which it turns out is less disturbing than many of the others. Husbands caught with gay porn, husbands caught in internet gay chat rooms… but none really known to have done anything unsafe. The consensus seems to be that their men are all “half-gay.” They also either seem to have much less interest in their wives sexually or want to try new “unusual” positons. And all in the weeks since…well, you know when. Hadassah tells about the night before, the sheet with the hole, the moaning of a man’s name; it turns out Margaret’s husband has done the exact same thing!
Nicole blurts out, “Maybe Connecticut never should have legalized gay marriage!” and Rachel raises her hands like a conductor while most of the others chant “Don’t be a Republican homophobe!”
Patti takes a newspaper clipping out of her purse. “This is from the Hartford Courant. The New York Times won’t touch the story, it’s like we don’t exist to them any more. It says, Connecticut obstetricians are reporting a nearly 50% drop in pregnancies in the past month.”
A stunned silence follows. Visions of Children of Men. Hadassah starts, falteringly, “It’s like… it’s like what’s happening in Israel… The Jews are going to be outnumbered by the Arabs any month now…”
“Hadassah, honey, here in the Nutmeg State this cuts across racial lines,” retorts Jill, who is African-American.
Heidi puts her face in her hands. “We are going extinct, aren’t we?”
Rachel stands up suddenly and announces with a big smile, “Well, it’s twelve noon and the support group is adjourned! Thank you ladies, we love you, we are always here for you, and please come back next week.”
Hadassah is a little startled, but gets her purse and starts to leave with some of the others. Then she notices that Vivian, Jill, and Mona are still lounging on the futons along with Rachel, and that there are two bottles of Chardonnay left. “You’re all staying?”
“We’re the Inner Sisterhood,” Rachel replies. Then she explains, “You need to come to ten meetings before you’re part of the Inner Sisterhood.”
“Oh.” Hadassah closes the front door slowly, reluctantly, and heads back to the Prius. She takes a deep breath and raises her gaze to the autumnal New England foliage. Everything seems different, more colorful, breathing with a new life, as she walks to the Prius. It can’t be the wine, can it, she only had one glass. She slowly drives, back to Joe… but then she suddenly slams on the brakes and furrows her brow.
Why did they save the two best bottles of Chardonnay for themselves? And what were those strange colorful rubber toys on the shelf? Hadassah clenches her jaw and makes a U-turn. “Joe can do whatever he damn well pleases. Nobody keeps Hadassah out of anything!” And as she speeds back to Rachel’s condo she throws back her head and shakes her hair with abandon. “They couldn’t keep Hadassah out of Boston University or the Lehman Brothers, and they’re not gonna keep Hadassah out of the Inner Sisterhood!”
***********************************************
Let me emphasize that this has been a fictional, cautionary tale, intended to scare you into voting YES on Proposition 8, and I can only hope it worked. As the The Only Ones sang in their haunting 1979 song “The Beast,”
“You might think this is funny, but I’m not laughing: I know it could happen to me.”
AND you.
YES on 8!
-Phobius.
http://protectbiblicalmarriage-christinewjc.blogspot.com/2008/09/dont-believe-gay-hype.html
Rosie Avila, the outgoing school board member, agrees.
Phobius, you are a deeply sick individual.
Anyway, I hope you are hiding in a cave with a tin foil hat – do you know gay marriage has been legal here for months now? Has it affected you yet? Run, Phobius! Hide!
While I find Ms. Avila’s scapegoating of Mexican immigrants deplorable, her views on same-sex marriage are biblically and scientifically sound.
Legalized gay marriage creates a host of unintended consequences and constitutes a serious threat to religious liberty.
If gay marriage is no different from traditional marriage, by what justification can the government give preferential treatment to an entity that “discriminates?”
Last year, two women filed a complaint in New Jersey because they were denied use of a pavilion for their civil union ceremony. The pavilion was owned by a Methodist ministry. It had been rented out for marriages, but the ministry refused to rent it for civil unions because it is a religious structure, and civil unions are not recognized in the United Methodist Church Book of Discipline.
Due to the ministry’s refusal to rent it for the lesbian ceremony, New Jersey revoked its tax-free status.
The Des Moines Human Rights Commission found the local Young Men’s Christian Association in violation of public accommodation laws because it refused to extend “family membership” privileges to a lesbian couple that had entered a civil union in Vermont.
The city forced the YMCA to recognize gay and lesbian unions as “families” for membership purposes, or lose over $100,000 in government support.
The most notorious example of a state forcing its view on a church agency comes from Massachusetts, where Boston Catholic Charities ran an adoption agency that had been placing children with families for over 100 years.
In 2006, Archbishop Sean P. O’Malley announced that the agency would abandon its founding mission rather than submit to a state law requiring it to place children with homosexual couples.
Protect religious liberty, vote Yes on Prop 8.
You want to SCARE us into voting yes on 8? Yeah, that’s how I want to live my life, motivated by fear and the boogeyman.
No thanks.
Brother Vern,
I say this in the most sincere and loving manner. Please, get back on your medication. Multiple personality disorders are a serious mental illness. Please get the help you are so obviously in need of. I hope we don’t need an intervention.
Careful, Phobius, with an imagination like yours, you’re likely to be getting a call from Simon and Schuster for a book contract.
But what’s kind of scary is that some readers here will actually agree with you. Sarah Palin surely does.
This post got me thinking about the McCarthy era, the Salem witch hunts and the most horrifying exhibition of evil, the Holocaust. Proposition 8 emphasizes that it’s still so easy for people to embrace hate based irrational and ridiculous fears, and an alleged and appallingly misguided dedication to God.
What kills me the most is that this is 2008! We’re supposed to be evolving. That Proposition 8 is on the ballot proves to me how precariously close we remain to repeating those incidents in history for which the human race should be profoundly ashamed.
Carl,
You seem cranky today. Chin up! 😉
Cranky, nope not really RV, you and Vern seem to be having transference issues however this morning.
A better “handle” for you would be Homophobius.
Carl,
The next thing you know, we’ll be letting Chinks and Beaners marry too!
Keep up the good fight………MORON.
duplojohn,
Why do you call me a moron?
Brother Carl, I THINK duplojohn was talking to Phobius, not you. I know it’s not clear. Identities are so in flux today. Duplo, I hope you weren’t really talking to Carl, he is not a racist or a homophobe.
The term homophobe amounts to an accusation of a “fear” of homosexuality. This term often is used to end rational discussion of gay marriage by accusing the opponent of having an irrational fear.
This is unjust. One can disagree with and be critical of a gay marriage or homosexual behavior without having a fear of it.
When the charge of “homophobia” is made, it signifies that those making the accusation do not have reasoned responses to their critics, so they switch to portraying their critics as irrational rather than responding to their arguments.
anon says – “You want to SCARE us into voting yes on 8?”
No anon, I am not trying to scare you into supporting proposition 8.
I presented an argument, based on facts, that gay marriage would severely impact the religious community by defining opposition to gay marriage as illegal discrimination.
Do not mischaracterize a reasoned argument based on fact as a scare tactic.
bill g,
Prejudice is prejudice. You could substitute homosexuality with “black” and use the same arguements that were prevalent years ago.
What people choose to do with their own lives is really none of your business. Get used to the idea – it’s the way it is in a liberty-loving country full of tolerant people.
Bill G, Your wise and insightful comments make my heart skip a beat. Did you enjoy my cautionary tale? Would you like to get together and discuss these matters over coffee some day?
bill g,
Only problem is, I haven’t heard a reasoned/rational response for being critical of gay marriage or homosexual behavior. Fear seems to be the only logical explanation.
So, keeping religion out of the argument (being that it has historically justified wars, slavery and all sorts of oppression that I hope we all agree are retrospectively abhorrent), what say you?
“So, keeping religion out of the argument …”
Sorry, that is not going to work for many, many people.
Yeah, that prickly separation of church and state thing is a tough nut to crack…
Which religion are we talking about here?
I think what Bill G was going after, is that religious institutes would be branded as legally oppressive, thus at risk for 501c3 status and would be forced by the courts to recognize, conduct and facilitate same sex marriages that they are religiously against. It took me a bit to understand it, but I think I get it now. Does that state it correctly Bill?
The major difference here is many view this as a secular issue, not a religious issue. Nor do they see that Bill’s point is valid too. Frankly, I never looked at it that way before, that someone might litigate that a religious institution might be forced to perform a ceremony that is against their faith, nor that anyone would want to press it that far. Or that they would sue for the “right” to use such a facility for purposes that they, the congragation (owners) find objectionable.
Sometime I have a hard time understanding, what I view as irrational behaviors of others that might actually happen. It is however something to think about. Should religious institutions be forced to marry same sex couples if it’s against their tenants of faith? Should they be similarly forced to rent their sanctuaries to facilitate said ceremonies as well? Neither of which are to hard to imagine based on the kind of courts we have today,
Boy, this adds a new wrinkle to the argument.
Sort of like demanding that a local synagogue rent their facilities to a group of skinheads for a rally. Just because the facility is for rent for some activities in the community, then it must be available for all activities.. The courts allowed the parade in Skokie, IL. http://www.skokiehistory.info/chrono/nazis.html
Great conversation all. Live, love, libertarian! My work here is done. 🙂
SMS
Great conversation all. Live, love, libertarian! My work here is done.
SMS
I would like to point out that I really do have renewed respect for Carl’s approach of posting very courteously, despite all the differences of opinion present today. The conversations have been lively and interesting from all.
you have NO idea how tough it’s been!
From the GOP Convention let me offer the following:
Con la Proposicion 8, podemos poner el al constitution de California la simple definicion que el matrimonio es entre un hombre y unamujer–pasra que ningun juez puedo deponer de la voluntad del pueblo de nuevo.
Un Hombre, Una Mujer–Mas los Ninos de Californai
Mientras que la muerte y el divorcio podria prevenirla en muchos casos, la situation ideal para los nonos es ser criados or un padre y una madre que esten casados. La proposition 8 es un positivo.
In other words. VOTE YES on Prop 8
you have NO idea how tough it’s been!
Well, you made it all look so easy! Truly, grace under pressure.
lol
Hermano Larry, I don’t care WHAT language you say that in, or how many mistakes you make transcribing that language, I can still tell that’s the dumbest argument of all. “The ideal for children ( niños, not nonos) is a father and mother who are married.” Maybe true, maybe not, but somehow it follows from that that we shouldn’t allow same-sex couples to marry? Has anyone here heard such a non-sequitur? I’m too tired right now to draw any parallels to how illogical that is, Phobius got my number somehow and keeps bothering me.
Bill G (whether homoPHOBE or brave crusader) does have a point; not enough of a point to keep civil rights away from millions of gay and lesbian Californians, but still an important point to consider. I don’t think it’s fair or reasonable, at least in this decade or the next, to try and force religions who find homosexuality objectionable to lend their space or ceremonies to it. And I’m sure that out of the thousands of same-sex couples who want to marry, most of whom wouldn’t have anything to do with a homophobic church, there will be a few who will want to push the envelope that way.
Our occasional blogger, attorney Ron St. John, who does support Proposition 8, expressed this same concern to me several months ago. There really should be some way to get around this problem, without denying marriage rights to all this great state’s same-sex couples. ST. JOHN, WHERE ARE YOU? Somebody flash the St. John Light!
Vern –
I’m having flashbacks. Didn’t I get banned by The Liberal OC for essentially making the same statement about compromise? I’m sorry, but the more I read about Prop 8, the more I realize that I solved this issue months ago at my own peril.
People, hold your nose if you have to, but vote no on 8. Deep down, you know it’s the right thing to do. If we had civil unions in this state that even purported to guarantee the same rights as marriage, we wouldn’t be in this predicament, now would we?
SMS
Hermano Vernon.
I typed exactly as printed on the Spanish version flyer from today’s GOP Convention at the Marriott.
Thanks for the input.
Carl,
I agree with RV that your comment (2:50) was very evenly and eloquently stated. I’ve been thinking a lot about bill’s comments as well.
This Octupus of Marriage issue has some interesting tentacles!
I guess I need to understand a lot more about the tax-free, non-profit status afforded churches (and why that is so), but it stands to reason that if any insitution (no matter what it is called – church, school, hospital) derives public monies (directly, via funding, or constructively via tax-exempt status, etc.) then it seems logical they would have to be bound to whatever laws govern ALL people.
To me, this concern about forcing religions to perform objectionable services is unwarranted. Abortions are legal, but Catholic hospitals do not provide abortions. And we don’t hear about anyone having successfully sued the Catholic church for refusing to provide an abortion. I believe hospitals that refuse abortions are consequently not entitled to certain sources of funding, but they continue to function within the parameters of their faith convictions …
So, it seems reasonable to contemplate that Proposition 8 going down to defeat would not cause churches to be forced to marry homosexuals if that is contrary to a particular faith belief. However, it would then seem logical that those entities would not receive certain sources of funding and would have to rely more on their base of parishioners to sustain them. Seems like that’s how any church or religious organization should operate anyway.
SMS, You got me wrong. NO COMPROMISE on Proposition 8, and NO HOLDING OF THE NOSE! I just think that one point Bill G brought up sounds like a valid concern that could maybe be addressed with some other legislation? Or maybe it’s just a red herring that’ll never come up, I have no idea. (Just between you and me, it’s the only Prop 8 argument that Phobius hasn’t figured out how to lampoon.) I wish St. John would weigh in. But no matter what, Prop 8 is a NO.
I typed exactly as printed on the Spanish version flyer from today’s GOP Convention at the Marriott.
Wow, Larry, if you really typed it out exactly as the flyer read, your party needs to hire an actual Mexican to do translations. I see at least five errors. (nonos is just my favorite)
Churches do not as a rule receive public funds. IF they do, it’s usually associated with specific community outreach programs. Soup kitchens, food pantries, safe havens for battered woman and children, schools etc. They are always administered and accounted for as separate programs. Some communities have granted land in the development phases to encourage houses of worship in the past, but I have not heard of any in a very long time.
This may very well cause them to lose court cases and hence their 501c3 status as well as their assets in most cases paid for by parishioners’ and held as private property by the non profit corporations run by the congregation or a Board of Directors elected by them. Very often the parsonage and or schools are also owned by the same cooperation, some times not. But as a general rule they are NOT supported by or receive taxpayer funding.
However case law has regarded public and private organizations held to virtually the same standards when charges have been brought on discrimination cases. I will research the cases cited by Bill G in the morning and see what comes up.
Bill G, if you return and can place the links to them, here, that would be a great help and save me some time as well.
As I have stated before, I believe that everyone deserves the same protections under the law. My feelings about those relationships that adults wish to enter into, should have nothing to do with secular law. The points that Bill G referred to however certainly give me pause. I am unwilling to take rights from any group to give rights to another, especially in the case of religious institutions.
While I characterize myself as a hedging agnostic, I was raised in the Lutheran church, my family has a very long history with the church dating back before this country was here and we are here in this country because of a land grant by the church in PA that predates the French and Indian wars and this nation as we know it. Now perhaps you have an idea of why I am so libertarian. My family and others owe a great deal to religious institutions, the community good that is done by many of them certainly has had positive influences to our society. I do not now or ever want to go down the road to either strike down their rights to worship as they please, nor to open their doors to court actions based on civil rights issues that should be addressed by the legislature. This is an issue that really pulls me personally in two directions, freedom of religion and freedom to enter into life long partnership contacts with rights. I also have relatives that I love very much that are lesbian. I see nothing wrong with the relationship that they have and they are very good for and to each other and I wouldn’t want to change that for the world. I also don’t believe that if there is a god, that god would view it any differently.
Sorry RV, no NASA post tonight, I thought that this was more important, I’ll get to NASA for you in the morning.
Now I’m off to say my prayers. (the hedging side of me) good night all
Carl,
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/03/10/
catholic_charities_to_halt_adoptions_over_issue_involving_gays/
Boston Archbishop Sean O’Malley said the church was faced with a choice between its faith and the state law.
“Sadly, we have come to a moment when Catholic Charities in the Archdiocese of Boston must withdraw from the work of adoptions, in order to exercise the religious freedom that was the prompting for having begun adoptions many years ago,” O’Malley said in a statement.
Carl,
“What we wanted to do primarily was change the definition of family to be more inclusive,” M Patton-Imani said.
They have, in fact, defined it right out of existence…
The advancement of homosexuality as a civil right (particularly in anti-discrimination law) is something that Christians MUST wake up and take seriously.
It is destroying the freedom to even operate our ministries according to Biblical beliefs…
http://culturecampaign.blogspot.com/2007/08/gay-anti-discrimination-legislation.html
Carl,
http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid49016.asp
Steven Goldstein, chair of the LGBT activist group, told the AP that the ruling doesn’t go far enough to penalize the Methodist group and that Garden State Equality might appeal the decision. “We’re looking for a bigger victory here,” he said.
The debate arose after the association, which has owned the building and land surrounding it since 1870, denied two lesbian couples’ requests to have civil union ceremonies inside the pavilion.
bill g,
Welcome and thanks very much for posting accompanying links. That, alone, makes it easier to see the full context behind the discussions.
As for the methodist group: http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid49016.asp
They actually lost their tax exempt status for that particular public pavilion because it is no longer open to all members of the public. the tax impact for the group is only about $175/yr.
It is more of a symbolic victory, really, but it does send a message that church and state must honor rules, if the church is going to be able to maintain its privilege of not paying taxes.
Carl, this is why I think that Government should get out of the “marriage” business all together. Let Churches have religious Marriage ceremonies, let anyone who wants civil benefits get a government issues civil union license.
If a church has criteria to get “married” good for them, if a different church has different criteria – woo-hoo, religious freedom! If people want to rent facilities then non-discrimination rules apply same as for any business that rents stuff. If a minister only marries people of their own faith who follow certain rules to marry then they can;t be forced to perform civil ceremonies or marriages that dont meet their religious tenets, but if that minister marries anyone who finds them in the yellow pages and marries any faith then the minister is in business and has to abide by non discrimination laws.
Perhaps we might term it separation of church and commerce because commerce is regulated by the government – or at least it should be! Get the government out of Marriage – vot NO on Prop 8.
“What we wanted to do primarily was change the definition of family to be more inclusive,” M Patton-Imani said.
The lesbian couple had been joined in a civil union back in 2000. The legal fight that the YMCA has put up is wasteful and has been going on for 5 years. What they COULD have done is accepted the certificate of the union and considered it the same as a heterosexual “married” couple. Instead, they chose to make things exclusionary for a committed couple, who have done all that they legally can do, at this point, to be married and official, as a same sex couple.
The YMCA is not some mom-n-pop gym. It receives a lot of public monies to combine with the private donations it solicits. I think the YMCA took the most difficult and contentious route, in dealing with this couple of women.
As far as the adoptions went, the Archbishop went against the wishes of the board as a whole, so the ones that suffer the most will, of course, be the children. It is a shame, because it seems like this particular charity was doing something decent for families. A nice change from the molestations that the Catholic church likes to cover up. For too many of these priests, the children are pawns – either for sexual exploitation or as an axe to grind against decent couples who want to complete a family.
Again, Welcome, bill g. You’ve brought some interesting items for discussion.
Gay rights groups criticized the decision.
“All of the homes were good and loving homes and now through the pressure of the bishops Catholic Charities is being forced to get out of the business,” said Lee Swislow, executive director of Gay and Lesbian Advocates & Defenders. “There are no winners here. The children are the ones who suffer.”
Eight members of Catholic Charities’ board stepped down in protest of the bishops’ stance. The 42-member board had voted unanimously in December to continue considering gay households for adoptions.
Catholic Charities has been involved in adoptions for about a century, but has had a contract with the state Department of Social Services to provide special needs adoption services to children with severe emotional and physical needs since 1977. The contract expires June 30.
In the past two decades, Catholic Charities has placed 720 children in adoptive homes, including 13 with same-sex couples. The bulk of adoptive children in Massachusetts are placed by DSS, rather than outside agencies such as Catholic Charities, the agency said.
There are nearly 40,000 domestic partnerships registered in California. It’s estimated that over the next three years, up to 50,000 same-sex couples will choose to marry in the state. Against that, I keep seeing the same half-dozen court cases brought up in an effort to warn against the potential harms if Prop 8 is not passed, and they’re not even cases that have anything to do with what Prop 8 is all about.
Bill G,
Thank you for the links and further elaboration! I hope that I did your arguments justice when I paraphrased them in the discussion here. You have been very thoughtful in your presentation and I genuinely appreciate that. It gave me personally, something new to think about and the group here something to chew on.
I would like to see greater protections to insure religious freedoms as well as equality of rights for individuals who wish to enter into a domestic partnership or whatever you want to call them.
Taking rights from one group while giving rights to another group is not the American way. Well, it may be historically, but does not make it right ethically. As we move forward to give rights to all we should be careful in the ways we do it, insuring that we don’t repeat the mistakes of the past and take rights from someone else. You shouldn’t have the government telling religion how to teach or what to preach, it’s one of the principals that made this country to begin with, it’s why many people came here, for that freedom of religion.
As with other propositions we don’t get the chance to change, amend or fix them, they are what they say, as written. Trying to go back and fix the mistakes written in to them is tough and we have a legislature that can’t even meet their constitutional obligations on time, much less fix the many other things that hang in the air in Sacramento. Prop 8 seems to give equal protection for gay couples, but may open Pandora’s Box for litigation against religious institutions. I would like to see both problems solved.
Carl, I disagree with your and Bill’s premise that Churches and other will be discriminated against as a result of Prop 8 failing. There are requirements for businesses and when a tax exempt Church decides first to go into business (no one requires them to do this they can refuse to do any business transactions other than the city license and permit and never face discrimination laws) of course they won’t for the same reason Wall Street couldnt resist Securities made with what everyone know were a percentage of bad loans, one of the seven deadlies… Greed. Sorry, I like Christians – I completely distrust their Churches.
Anonyms,
(please pick a pen name)Having been around many churches as a child because my mother was VERY involved in the ALCW, I know that it is often very tough to meet the financial obligations of building and maintaining the properties, especially the smaller churches. It is nearly impossible for many of them to pay the obligations themselves much less do any community outreach or good deeds. I understand what you’re saying but the economic reality is such that many would not survive without some way to raise funds. Your distrust is yours, I don’t want to marginalize that, but there are many good things done by many churches and to tar them all with the same brush because of the grossly bad deeds of some is equally unfair. Many of those smaller churches that hang on the edge financially are the very ones who do the most giving to the community, that’s why they don’t have extra contingency funds in the bank, they give it all away.
Here I am an agnostic (hedging) defending religious institutions, go figure 😉
(pen name response: fair enough, you could use a number too & yes I see that name from the history)
Wow, Catholic Charities in Massachusetts placed 13 children in same-sex households? That surprised me. Although the article was a little unclear on this, it’s interesting to me that this seems to have occurred before the law forbade discrimination. And is it just me, or did anyone else find it ironic that the same-sex couples were the ones reserved for taking the most special-needs and hard-to-place children that heterosexuals seemingly shunned? Hmmm, who seems more Christ-like to you?
There are so many analogies that suggest to me that given enough time, people will evolve to the point that same-sex relationships won’t generate any enthusiastic debate or discussion, in church or anywhere. Historically, we always look back at life the way it was before any anti-discrmination law was passed, and we cringe for having been, or having been related to, such backwards idiots. Were churches as freaked about about those anti-discrimination laws as they seem to be now? I would be willing to be you all a margarita that many of them were. But they got over it. I am confident that they’ll get over this, too.
And finally, are we getting too caught up over “what if”??? Is there even any substantive litigation pending in California to support the concerns expressed on this thread that Prop 8 being defeated will direly impact religious freedom in California?
Is there even any substantive litigation pending in California to support the concerns expressed on this thread that Prop 8 being defeated will direly impact religious freedom in California?
I really don’t think so. I think it is mainly the talibani-style religious groups that need to exert control over EVERYONE and not just their own congregations, behind this sad little movement to oppress choice.
Not that I’m aware RV, but is it too much to ask to try to plan ahead and avoid it before someone has to spend a bunch of money in the courts? That’s the whole idea of trying to think things through BEFORE you get there.
Risk management
is it too much to ask to try to plan ahead and avoid it before someone has to spend a bunch of money in the courts? That’s the whole idea of trying to think things through BEFORE you get there.
It’s hard to figure what there is to think through and plan ahead about Prop 8, which would just make marriage illegal. If this were LEGISLATION making gay marriage LEGAL (which it is now) then it could be AMENDED to protect anti-gay churches if enough legislators thought that was important to do. But all we are looking at now is a yes or no on an INITIATIVE to TAKE AWAY these basic rights from tens of thousands of people.
If there are some Sacramento legislators who are concerned with the impact on anti-gay churches, maybe they can figure out some legislation to protect them or at least soften the impact. If they can do that constitutionally.
That’s the kinda laser clarity I’m talkin’ about! Well said, V.