US: Taking a cracker hostage is a mortal sin.

Remove all ads!

Gnarff, have you noticed that even LKD sees eye to eye with me on this? He and I don't agree on gay marriage, but we found common ground on how it should be handled, since it won't be going away any time soon. You need to take off your ideological blinders and try actually listening to what is being said. What I am saying is that a state employed judge that doesn't want to notarize marriage licenses for gay couples should simply have all such marriage licenses moved to someone else's docket. Doing so completely eliminates the need for such a judge to be put in a position where he faces a moral dilemma. Since most JOP's work privately, they already have the right to decide who they will and will not marry - and with no fear of repercussion. Most clergy, after all, are also licensed to perform legally binding marriages. Do you honestly believe that the state would strip a Catholic Priest of his license for refusing to marry a gay couple when it already allows him to refuse to marry non-Catholics? Individual JOP's already have all the protection they need.

The only time we have a concern is a small town with but a single judge. In this particular case, the judge has a decision to make. As the sole agent of the state in his county or district, his refusal to sign and notarize a marriage license would constitute a refusal on the part of the state. This would constitute discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, so a judge in this position really has no recourse. Since refusing to perform bench marriages is not an option for such a judge, he can choose to perform them despite his personal opinion on the matter, or he can choose to quit or, if possible, be transfered to another district.

You keep claiming Judeo-Christian ownership of the word "marriage", but your facts are a little off. The Greeks had marriage. Pagan Rome had marriage. The Pharaoh worshiping, polygamous Egyptians had marriage. They had marriage in Japan, Thailand, Korea. All of these cultures have practiced marriage since well before the advent of Christianity, and these marriages were state run, and were often not considered sacred. In seventeenth-century China, well before there was any real Christian presence in the country, and nineteenth-century Africa, they even recognized formal gay marriage. Gay marriage was also commonplace in Native American society. It is nothing new.

No one religion or ethos owns the meaning or purpose of marriage. No one religion or ethos decides what is or isn't sacred about a marriage. No one religion or ethos decides who can and cannot be married. Marriage is not copyrighted or trademarked. Marriage means many different things to many different people, and your definition is no better than the definition of an Atheist, a catholic priest, or the definition of a devil worshiping, bi-sexual swinger who is in to S&M. The government has every right to use the word "marriage" to describe a non-religious union because our government represents everyone, not just Christians, not just Atheists, not just heterosexuals or homosexuals, it represents everyone. Our government also has separation of church and state, which means that government marriage, by definition, is not sacred. In a nation with separation of church and state, Civil marriage is just a tax break with some additional powers of attorney thrown in for good measure. You have a problem with the word, but you don't own the word.

 

drew, we have already provided a link wher it stated if you would not perform a gay marriage as a JOP you HAVE to resign, so that no-issue is over.
And as much as some people dislike it, this country was & is a CHRISTIAN country. Founded that way & set up that way. Why do you think our money, our courthouses & governtment buildings say "in God we trust"? The country was/is set up on a christian basis so the idea of marriage will of course be a christian one.
Also you can't discriminate based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age or handicap. I don't see sexual orientation anywhere in that list, do you?
Oh and please show me some proof of gay marriages in native american culture please.

 

You obviously didn't read your own link. It isn't the first time, either. You found an alarmist carping about other peoples concerns about the possibility of such a thing happening. What you didn't find was the name of a JOP who was fired on account of refusing to perform a gay marriage. Had there been any, we'd have names instead of anecdotes.

Our founders also believed in slavery, didn't think women should be allowed to vote, and had no problem restricting voting to those who own land, so what's your point? Franklin and Jefferson were Deists, and most of the founders, like most Americans, weren't particularly religious. That said, James Madison, one of the the most vocal proponents of separation of church and state, was a minister.

States with legalized gay marriage invariably have added it to the list. I don't care whether it's on the list in Virginia, where gay marriage isn't legal, because it is on the list in California, where it is.

I don't pull this stuff out of my ass, you know. An excerpt:

For more information, you can also google berdache (the historical term) or two-spirit (the modern term) marriage.

 

Drew, your link isn't working.

http://massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/
if you read it you notice that they name a JOP forced to resign because of romney's directive, linda gray kelley.
Here is her letter:
"Resignation Letter from Linda Gray Kelley to Attorney Daniel Winslow, Chief Legal Counsel to Governor Romney, April 27, 2004
It is with my deepest regrets that I must submit my resignation as Justice of the Peace for the Commonwealth. You made it crystal clear Sunday at the JP conference that we are to follow the law, without waffling and avoidance of couples seeking same-sex marriages. In good conscience, I cannot agree to follow that directive. I am bound by the laws of God and the Catholic church.

It pains me for several reasons. Many of my dearest friends over the years have been homosexual. They may never understand. I have felt torn over this, but must be accountable to my own conscience, God, and church.

It also has forced me to quit a job I love; one that I excel at; one that took some doing in obtaining. I have contacted all my couples and have returned their deposits. They are not pleased that I am breaking my contract with them, but understand that I must take a stand...I must make a stand for my beliefs. This saddens me more than you can ever know.

I forgive the judicial branch, who started the ball rolling, and all the legislators that continue to make this happen. I ask God’s forgiveness for the bitterness in my heart towards these people who have caused me to quit this office. I harbor no ill-will toward any homosexual group. We are all God’s children. I hereby request that in two years…If the situation should reverse, that you would again consider me as a Justice of the Peace for the Commonwealth, knowing that I have and always will, perform it with integrity.

Sincerely,
Linda Gray Kelley
Charlton, Mass."
that took a whole 30 seconds to find, so you figure how many can be found with a determined search.


your version of berdache is a bit flawed as this may help clear a few things up:

"Some native American people had a concept like what Eastern philosophies call "karma," meaning the long-term consequences of our actions through many lifetimes, through our struggle to learn and grow and discover what it means to be human. Each time we die, our twin selves are reunited back in the spirit world. The etymology of the word "die" has its root in the word for "two" also. When we die, we become "two" again -- only to separate again upon rebirth in another life. That is the real meaning of the word "death," which even today -- despite Christianity's effort to purge ancient meanings out of the dictionary -- shows clearly that Western language had an ancient understanding of duality in all things.

However, all laws of nature allow for variance and change. Now and then, a person's karma dictates that both male and female are coming into substance together. These are the Two Spirit people. Sometimes their dual nature is actually visible in their genitalia, which may include both male and female features. In other cases, the influence of the spirit-world twin is simply felt as an overriding influence coming from the invisible. This explains the urgency with which some transgendered people wear clothing of the opposite gender, or seek sex-change surgery. They are not imagining things when they feel that they are "women in a men's body," or "men in a woman's body."

In Deity, two are mysteriously also one. Thus the forked tree -- key symbol of the Sun Dance -- expresses that way in which all beingness is one. A woman may have her hidden male side, and a man may have his female side, and a Two Spirit person may express both genders openly, but each of them are a single Person.

See you are trying to view a historical phenomenom through present day eyes & norms. Just like the old practices of slavery, women being second class citizens & burning witches. They were perfectly reasonable to the people of the time but incomprehensible to us today. you can't use an ancient practice to try to legatimise(sp?) a modern practice. That would be like saying it's ok to sacrifice people because they used to do it in the old days.

 

Once again: According to Judeo Christian Theology, the first couple, Adam and Eve, were married by God. Until you can prove this to be false, that arguement comes to a dead end.

Again, based on my previous rebuttal, Marriage is a religious term, not a secular term. The State has to use a different word for it if they are serious about seperating church and state.

LMFAO. That has got to be the biggest lie I've ever heard. Every time the government gives one group rights, it inevitably erodes the rigths of another group. And in this case, Religion is, despite constitutionally promised protection, under fire.

Then the nomenclature should be changed to reflect that it is a contract as opposed to a religious ordinance. If you are unwilling to accept this then any credibility your arguement about seperation of church and state has is shot down.
To you it's just a word. To me it's a sacred ordinance. If it's less important to you, then why not change it to keep the peace?

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/jul/05071403.html

Here's a link to a Marriage commissioner that was fined for refusing to perform a Gay Marriage. One politician is stating what Drew is saying, that he should resign, another is championing the cause I have repeated--that forcing this is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. One key point I'd like to draw attention to:

That's what I'm arguing for here! But some other crusaders won't accept that...

 

Martaug: She was neither fired nor forced to resign. Rather, she chose to resign. I won't deny that she thought she had to stand down (I already knew about Daniel Winslow's admonition from the 26th of May). I disagree with it, to be perfectly honest. The law already allows licensed clergy to refuse to marry people who are not of their faith, so I really don't see any reason to require private JOP's to perform them, either.

Regarding my link, check it again. Google "berdache marriage". I've gotten nothing wrong. It is true that, in their culture, homosexuals would take on opposite gender roles (which is part of the berdache tradition), but these two-spirits (as they now prefer to be called) also married other two-spirits. Yes, yes, the Native Americans essentially saw "gay" as a third gender. It doesn't change the fact that they allowed "gay" marriage.

The fact that some people believe that the first couple was married by God does not shift the burden an inch. I don't have to disprove your position in order to validate my own. Both our positions are valid, but our government is still secular.

Unless we force religious people to have or perform gay marriages (meaning we don't give them the option to quit), no one's rights are being eroded. It is neither unconstitutional to change the conditions of someones employment, nor to terminate said employee for refusing to accept the new conditions. It's harsh and often unethical, but is hardly unconstitutional. I agree that private JOP's shouldn't be required to perform gay marriage ceremonies if they would prefer not to...and Governor Romney seems inclined to agree.

He initially stated in February of 2004 that he would allow JOP's to declare "conscientious objector" status, but was ultimately over-ruled by his legal in council that May. Despite this, not a single Massachusetts JOP has been fined, fired, or asked to stand down, despite the large number of JOP's that are clergy (and obviously won't be performing gay marriages) or who have openly stated that they won't be performing gay unions. Now, if the state chooses to make performing gay marriages an employment condition for its directly employed, secular judges, it wouldn't be unconstitutional (although it would be both unnecessary and unfair in most instances).

I've actually argued several times in other threads that we should. Despite what you seem to think, your definition of marriage is still no better than mine, but if so many people have a problem with gay civil marriages, then I suggest that the government stop issuing marriage licenses entirely. Instead, the state would issue everyone civil unions.

 

I could just as easily write 'until you prove to me that there is a god your argument comes to a dead end', but that would just be silly, right?

Anyway, if this is your stance, than you should protest all state-sanctioned marriages, because they presume to supercede god. In fact, any marriage between non-christians should be just as insulting as a marriage between two homosexuals. I think what I am trying to say here, in a slightly rambling manner, is to point out the basic hypocrisy at work. If your protests are simply based on a dislike of homosexuals then your posts make more sense than if they were based on the sanctity of marriage in the eyes of the various christian churches. Of course, I know that you don't mean to come across as homophobic, so I thought I should point out that they could be taken the wrong way...


Weren't we discussing cracker theft?

 

How can one religion own a word and decide how it is used? If two American Hindus want to declare their love and promise to be together for the rest of their lives with a Hindu ceremony it isn't marriage Gnarff? Marriage is the English word for two people who wants to make their love and decision to share their lives official in front of whatever power they believe in.

As for our previous discussion Gnarff, I have gone down that road plenty of times and I am just giving up as there is nothing in there for me. Even if I would against all odds manage to convince you it would be like telling a four year old child that there is no Santa Claus.

 

If a judge refuses to give a death penalty for someone who blew up a building in texas and killed dozens of people then I would almost bet that he would not stay a judge for very long. A judge can't rule based on his own moral views, he needs to rule according to the law and has to act upon it. If doing so causes him moral problems then he should find jobs where those problems do not appear.

Nice to know that we finally agree. If they can find another job for those who don't want to sign divorces I'm sure they can find another job for someone refusing to sign gay civil marriages.

 

drew read the link, the governer said either perform them or resign. if that isn't being forced to resign than nothing is. If you check on berdache in native american culture one of the reasons they were revered is because of their rarity, so you didnt have a lot running around & as quoted a fair number were hermophrodites(having both male/female features)

Also i don't hold a lot of stock with the woman you quoted as she took 1 part of berdache and spun it to suit her beliefs.(yeah, thats REAL scientific)

 

This just in from the UK (not the U.S.)

 

Uh-oh...Barmy bait.

 

So you admit that the state's continued use of the word marriage is unduly ignorant and a refusal to seperate Chruch and State?

But then again, according to Christianity, Jesus Christ will return and settle these arguements rather decisively. Until this happens, You argue a position you cannot win against someone with faith that they will be vindicated.

There are likely some ministers that go that far. My faith recognizes any legally married heterosexual couple as married--even if done by a civil authority. It is the desire to enter sacred covenents that is important. The issue switches back to Homosexuality because it is explicitly forbidden in scripture.

It is not hatred, but rather a moral objection to their sexual practices. Because Homosexuality is not only forbidden, but in such strong terms, we oppose the legitimacy of such unions. Personally, the faithful should be satisfied with don't ask, don't tell. Mind you that if they throw it in your face, you ought to speak your piece...

And I thank you for that. It is not lost on me--I am reminded of that every time topics drift this way...

It's not what was taken, but what that represents. To some this is just a cracker, and they don't see why the trouble. To others, it is a sacred symbol of the Atoning Sacrifice of Jesus Christ. That is the single most important historic event to Christianity. Likewise, The Scriptures are no mere book to us, nor is Marriage "Just a contract" to us. There are objections made to any attempt to treat them as such...

It is a marriage if they are Heterosexual. It is only an insult to use the same term, which we consider sacred, to describe a homosexual union in spite of the divine prohibition of the practice.

That works, but in the interest of keeping the peace, let the legal aspect call it a civil union, to reflect the seperation of Church and State. If two Aetheists call civil Authority such a power, then so be it. If the individual homosexual couple calls it a marriage, then it is their additional sin. The State however, must stick to the secular.

First, the "Conscientious Objector" status should apply. Secondly, Life without parole would likely see the guy dead long before the appeals would be exhausted in a capital case...

What I meant was that there are other judge things that this judge could be doing while another judge that has no problem with this issue.

 

Governor Romney said nothing of the sort. The admonition came from Daniel Winslow, his legal council. The exact quote was:

He was no more or less specific than that, and when questioned later that day, he declined to specify what measures would be taken against renegade clerks or JOP's. Despite Winslow's warning, no one in Massachusetts has yet been fined, fired, or asked to step down for refusing to perform gay marriages.

Even if there had been JOP's fired for refusal to perform gay unions, it would still have no bearing on this debate. We already appear to be in agreement that we don't need to take such an extreme position, and have even found common ground about how cases in which a JOP is uncomfortable performing such unions should be handled. I'm certainly not arguing that we should force private JOP's who choose their own hours to perform gay unions if they are uncomfortable doing so, especially since we already make such accommodations for clergy. It's the clerks giving out marriage licenses and the judges on the bench that I'm concerned about, and we were even able to reach the eminently reasonable common-ground solution of putting bench marriages only on the dockets of judges who aren't opposed to performing gay unions. Since we already seem to agree on how such problems should be handled, any further arguments, as best I can tell, would fall under the category of arguing for the sake of arguing, a pursuit in which I have no interest.

Whatever. There were a fair number of hermaphrodites, but most two-spirits were men with normal genitalia. For all your dissembling, the fact still remains that many tribes allowed these two-spirits (berdache was a French term for a male prostitute, so the term is now considered derogatory) to marry. Some tribes even allowed normally heterosexual men to take a two-spirit as a second wife, although never as their first (Many Native American tribes practiced polygamy, too).

Martaug, the fact two-spirits were uncommon and two-spirit marriages were, by extension, also uncommon doesn't change the fact that Native Americans allowed Men with normal genitalia to marry other Men with normal genitalia and allowed the same for women. I didn't say that 1 out of every 4 Native American marriages was a gay one, for crying out loud! I merely pointed out that many Native American tribes allowed some men to marry each other and allowed some women to marry each other. This is a simple historical fact.

In Native American culture, Two-Spirits were rare. Big deal. Gay people, last I checked, are also pretty rare. According to the 2000 census, a whopping 1.51% of Americans are Gay, Lesbian, Bi-Sexual, or Trans-gender.

No. I admit that some people are so stubborn and foolish that they fail to grasp that the Judeo-Christian view of marriage isn't the only possible point of view, that secular marriages have been a reality for generations, which means that even if the word "marriage" did once carry religious overtones in any and all contexts, it no longer does, and that changing out the word "marriage" for "Civil Union" just might shut these idiots up.

 

Drew, you are looking at berdache wrongly, you are viewing it as a gay marriage, when to the native americans it was a joining of a spiritually gifted person that had 2 souls(or spirits as it were). If they had chosen to take a totem animal as their mate, the tribe would have accepted it, because berdache weren't limited by tribal customs. I wasn't trying to deny it INVOLVED gay marriage however it was much more than just that. You seemed to be indicating that was ALL it was when that is just a small part of it.

 

No. I am only indicating that the allowed two-spirits - who are, physically speaking, the same gender - to marry. How they justified it spiritually doesn't change the fact that they practiced it, but it also helps my argument. You see, an argument being posited in this very thread is that marriage is always religious in tenor, and that religious unions always take place between a man and a woman.

In the case of early Native American culture, however, their spiritual tradition actually allowed two-spirits who were physically of the same gender to marry. You see, they believed that two-spirits are a third gender. This is hardly a scientific fact, you know. I know that you are trying to argue that this is somehow relevant, but do you really think that - if two spirits are a real phenomenon - all "two-spirits" would have been reincarnated as Native Americans? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the Two-Spirit tradition was the Native American spiritual tradition's way of recognizing homosexuality, which brings me back to why this helps my argument.

If there are religions that allow for gay marriage (the Native American two-spirit tradition is still alive today, although their marriages aren't legally binding), then a religious argument for banning gay marriage becomes irrelevant, since our government does not endorse any specific religious tradition.

 

if you actually think that our country wasn't & isn't a christian nation than you would have to show me some proof HOWEVER that is exactly what this country is.
Our nation DOES endorse a specific religious tradition, christianity. They just DO NOT endorse a particular denomination(baptists, catholic, episcopalian, methodist, etc.).

All federal judges & executive officials since 1789 have been required by statute to include the phrase "so help me God" in all their oaths.


You notice that the president places his hand on a bible when being affirmed as president.

Our money says "in God we trust"

Abraham Lincoln, considered by many as one of the greatest presidents, has the following inscriptions on his memorial
2nd inaugural address on the lincolm memorial :

The Gettysburg Address

The east face of the Washington monument "LAUS DEO" - Praise be to God

Well, you get the general idea, trying to say the us wasn't/isn't a christian nation is ridiculous, so why wouldn't they hold to the christian ideal of marriage?

P.S. How in the heck did i get roped into this, i'm not even a christian!?!? Sure i had a strange Southern Baptist/Catholic upbringing but since about 14 i have been a wanderer. Parts of Buddhism, Taoism & Deism appeal to me the most but none seem to satisfy me completely.

 

Martaug, our founders supported slavery and granted the right to vote only to land owning white males. Founder intent is not the be-all end-all of public policy. Whether or not a preponderance of them were Christian is wholly irrelevant to our government as it exists today. Aside from the fact that some of our most prodigious founders were actually deists, most of the rest were not particularly religious, and that the actual constitution doesn't mention God even once, it should be pointed out that the religion of our founders has no bearing on what is actually written down in the first amendment. When one has a question about the Bill of Rights, one does not look at the Gettysburg address, the Declaration of Independence, or even the Magna Carta. For questions about the first amendment, the best place to look is the first amendment. Let's check it out.

Wow. That was sure interesting, wasn't it? It says that congress can't pass laws about religious establishments and cannot prohibit the free practice of religion. Where in the first amendment does it specify that they were only talking about Christian faiths again? Oh, right, it's in the Gettysburg Address!

 

Now who is being disingenuous drew?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" - means that they can not pick one sect to be the national religion. You do know that several of the states HAD official religions didn't you?

"or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" - Because to them the belief that any but a christain religion would ever be practiced was not even conceivable.