Quote of the Day
Glenn Reynolds on the church hosting a gun celebration:
WELL, CHURCHES HAVE ALWAYS BEEN AT THE FOREFRONT of civil-rights efforts after all
Well, except for that gay marriage thing.
36 Responses to “Quote of the Day”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
June 9th, 2009 at 11:03 am
There can be no right to something oxymoronic.
June 9th, 2009 at 11:11 am
Actually, you’re even wrong on that one, Uncle. Don’t have the link handy, but Insty had a link to some Churches in California that are refusing to recognize marriages performed by the state because of the discrimination against gays.
June 9th, 2009 at 11:13 am
And there can be no liberty delimited by inane semantic quibbles. It’s civil liberty in question, not the dictionary.
June 9th, 2009 at 11:37 am
Gay marriage is about not just love, but money. Because the laws benefit married couples over singles in everything from insurance coverage for spouses to adoption to inheritance to welfare, there is a desire to have equal economic rights for gay couples. I wonder if they marriage penalty in tax law will get repealed through gay activism shortly after civil unions and gay marriage are legalized in most states….
June 9th, 2009 at 11:39 am
There sure are a lot of Lefty long-hair guitar strumming churches in California supporting gay marriage.
The Alliance of Baptists denomination supports same-sex marriage and 33% of American Baptist (don’t get them confused with Southern Baptists) clergy support gay marriage AND adoption rights for gays and lesbians.
Presbyterians in Baltimore asked their national organization to redefine marriage to permit same-sex couples and the whole Denomination may break apart over the issue just like Episcopalians have practically split their entire denomination over approving it.
In 2005 Lutherans approved gay marriages while saying “No” to gay clergy.
Unitarians and the United Church of Christ are totally OK with it.
June 9th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
So-called “gay marriage” is not about civil rights. Everyone has the right to get married ACCORDING TO THER DEFINITION. Marriage has always been DEFINED as the union of one man and one woman. “Gay marrigage” is about hi-jeacking an institution for purposes other than its long establishmed meaning.
For those who desire same sex unions, I think they should be free to effect unions similar to marriage…just label it something else, because that’s what it is!
June 9th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
How do the laws benefit married couples in terms of welfare? As far as I can tell, welfare favors single women who crank out lots of illegitimate children.
As for gay marriage, why not establish a civil contract that recognizes a gay partnership and extends the same financial benefits as marriage? You bypass the political brouhaha, and you don’t redefine something to be what it’s not. It’s the most obvious solution, and yet nobody is seriously considering it. That alone shows the lie of this being about gay rights — it’s really about undermining traditional culture. That some liberal churches — my own included — are going along only shows the degree to which this has been successful.
Contrary to what some folks say, it’s not about semantics. The rule in the animal kingdom is eat or be eaten, but as Thomas Szasz once pointed out, the rule in the human kingdom is define or be defined. Definitions matter, and the one group that understands this the best is the left. Which is why they’ve been gaining ground right out from under us for decades. We’ve ignored it at our own peril.
June 9th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
There’s only one problem with calling gay marriage a civil right. There isn’t one. But there isn’t one for the exact same reason that there isn’t a civil right to straight marriage.
There simply is no right to have your romantic relationship sanctioned by the state.
June 9th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
“just label it something else, because that’s what it is!”
It’s something else in your religion, not everyone’s. Should the government be defining (and restricting) legal arrangements based on religious definitions?
As far as the “call it something else with the same benefits” argument, “separate but equal” was discredited decades ago.
Frankly, the government should stop calling it marriage for everyone, and recognize both same- and opposite-sex civil unions. Leave marriage to churches, where it belongs.
June 9th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
“separate but equal” was discredited decades ago.
Actually, no it wasn’t. Otherwise there wouldn’t be men’s and women’s restrooms.
June 9th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
“There simply is no right to have your romantic relationship sanctioned by the state.”
Marriage, however, is a religious institution. I do have a right, guaranteed by under the Constitution, to practice my religion free of government interference, and without the government granting benefits to one religion while prohibiting them to another.
Civil marriage should simply become civil unions, and should be available to everyone, gay or straight. Let the churches decide who they will or will not allow to marry.
June 9th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
that’s exactly what they said about Loving v. Virginia too, before that decision was handed down.
…
your church marriage might be. however, my marriage isn’t; no clergy, nothing religious at all was involved when i got hitched. nor would there have been, me and the spouse both being avowed atheists. you trying to call us singles?
…
as was mentioned elsewhere, some churches are now refusing to complete and file the civil marriage paperwork until gay marriage is passed. you can still get married in them; you’ll have a church marriage, which will be religiously valid within that church/denomination, for whatever that’s worth. but if you want to have that union legally recognized by the state, you’ll have to drop by city hall and get a civil marriage for those purposes.
and i say that’s a great idea. let’s just strip all clergy, of every denomination, of their rights to file civil marriage paperwork on behalf of the state; then let every couple, regardless of gender, get a civil marriage if they please. we can call it, oh, “separation of church and state”.
June 9th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Marriage, however, is a religious institution.
Incorrect. Marriage is a social institution. Different societies, as well as the same society, at different times have had different concepts of marriage.
Sometimes marriage has been about romantic relationships, sometimes marriage has been more of a business relationship concerning the transfer of wealth/land, sometimes it can be broken easily, sometimes it can be broken under almost no circumstance at all, sometimes it carries religious significance and sometimes it doesn’t.
Societies often ask the state to recognize this social institution. When societies’ concept of marriage changes the state changes along with it (for a perhaps less charged example, witness the expansion of “no-fault” divorce). As such, I believe that ‘We the People’ get to tell the gov’t what a marriage is and not the other way around.
June 9th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
“you trying to call us singles?”
Not at all, I was just less than clear. Marriage originated as a religious institution. It has since been separated into separate civil and religious institutions. Unfortunately, most people seem to be unable to make the distinction. That “blurring” of the line between the two should really not be allowed.
“let’s just strip all clergy, of every denomination, of their
rightsprivilidge to file civil marriage paperwork on behalf of the state; then let every couple, regardless of gender, get a civil marriage if they please. we can call it, oh, “separation of church and state”.”Exactly.
June 9th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
If I remember correctly, (and unless things have changed lately), that’s how it is / was in Germany (back when it was West Germany).
A couple could / would have TWO marriages. One at city hall, for the state. The second at the church of their choice (or not).
Has anyone looked over there to see how thay’ve handled the not-so-gay marriage / civil union situation?
June 9th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
Shiny.
If a church wants to religiously wed homosexuals, more power to them. If they do not want to, more power to them. But trying to leverage them into it on the basis of “civil rights” is about as sensical as trying to convince the Southern Baptists to condone drinking.
Of course, as someone has already pointed out, “civil rights” do not apply in this particular case…
June 9th, 2009 at 6:21 pm
When people quibble about names or semantics, you know it is a losing battle. Just listen to the Catholic churches tortured wording about gay relationships.
Gay people are citizens, equal under the law. Perhaps instead of thinking about this as changing the definition of marriage, think of it as being more inclusive. Did any of your gay friends or neighbors get bent out of shape when you got married? I suggest you seek out your gay neighbors, relatives and co-workers and tell them that you think they should get married. Please open your minds. We all have to live on this earth together.
Sincerely,
Mike
June 9th, 2009 at 9:59 pm
B Woodman,
At least when I got married in 1998, that’s EXACTLY how it worked here in Virginia.
We went to the county and actually picked up/signed marriage license the day before wedding and then the next day we had our wedding in McLean Baptist Church (complete with the 666 hymn hymnal – but that’s a post for another day).
June 9th, 2009 at 10:25 pm
Posts about guns yields a few comments, but post about gays and the list explodes! Maybe it’s because there is so little at stake that people have the strongest opinions.
June 9th, 2009 at 11:47 pm
it would be, if anyone outside of the church in question had ever tried to do that. but when on earth has that ever happened anywhere?
June 9th, 2009 at 11:58 pm
Eh, not so fast Clyde. In the context he was referring to, SBE described de jure segregation, not de facto social convention.
In any event, the fact that men and women typically poop in separate rooms isn’t particularly relevant to civil rights. Though you probably do have the civil right to poop.
Men and women poop in the same rooms on airplanes, mind you.
June 10th, 2009 at 12:06 am
As for the “well you can have it but you can’t call it marriage” line of thinking…what the fuck is the point of that argument?
Why would you care what it’s called?
If gay people getting to call it “marriage” threatens your marriage…your marriage has issues. Big issues that aren’t the fault of gay people.
June 10th, 2009 at 3:12 am
As Sebastian-PGP said:
“If gay people getting to call it “marriage” threatens your marriage…your marriage has issues. Big issues that aren’t the fault of gay people.”
BINGO.
That’s EXACTLY what I think every time I see these anti gay marriage protests – they parade around announcing THEIR marriage is threatened by two total strangers marrying.
Is their own marriage that fragile, that lost, that on the rocks, and then PARADE that in front of everyone else…?
Wow.
June 10th, 2009 at 8:32 am
“If gay people getting to call it “marriage” threatens your marriage…your marriage has issues. Big issues that aren’t the fault of gay people.”
Similarly, if I started casting revolvers out of pot metal and marking them with “Smith & Wesson” then S&W must have big issues that aren’t the fault of copyright infringers. Why shouldn’t I be able to call my creation a Smith & Wesson? Why should I have to settle for a status other than the one I think I deserve?
Words mean things; when they stop meaning things is when trouble starts. Laws are routinely struck down as “void for vagueness;” this is because not only do we have a right to know what charges we may face but predictability is a good thing when it comes to law. Marriage has a longstanding defined meaning that, other than perhaps the past few decades, has remained unchanged (polygamy is serial marriages, not one huge marriage). Homosexualism activists are demanding something that isn’t theirs, by right or by sense. If it’s all about visitation and inheritance and tax benefits, then why is what it’s called an issue?
June 10th, 2009 at 8:41 am
Because S&W own their name and the rights to use it, you dolt. You don’t own the word marriage nor the right to control how it’s used.
That’s an idiotic comparison. Gay marriage is NOT analogous to copyright infringement. You and the state don’t own the word marriage or the right to define what it means and who can use it, so your argument here is well beyond pointless.
As painfully stupid as your argument is, let’s drill down on it–this is precisely what we’re asking you! What possible “trouble” do you think can come from gays using the word? How will it actually mean anything different?
How is your use of the word marriage impacted? Your marriage should be the same regardless of what gay people say and do.
I think that’s the point. Who the fuck are you to say it is or isn’t their right?
Funny to see people who object to the RKBA being taken away from them turning a blind eye to other people having something they think is their right taken away. If you wanna protect rights important to you…it helps to respect rights that aren’t important to you to. Liberty isn’t an a la carte menu.
My point exactly–since that’s all it’s about…tell us again how it harms you if they call it marriage? You’ve been dodging that question for some time now.
June 10th, 2009 at 8:44 am
so essentially the objection to gay marriage is a linguistical one?
June 10th, 2009 at 8:59 am
deez–one could argue that if that was really the case, you wouldn’t see the opposition calling themselves “defenders of marriage”.
Still waiting for a coherent explanation of how marriage between men and women is damaged by gay people getting to enjoy the same benefits.
Shouldn’t we be encouraging long term monogamous relationships?
June 10th, 2009 at 9:09 am
Sebastian-PGP:
Do you kiss your mother with that mouth? I don’t have to take that kind of abuse from you.
Deez:
Language is the form the argument is taking, but it’s not the substance. It’s important that we know what words mean and that we not redefine them at whim. What would happen to contracts if we suddenly decided that “dollars” could also mean “minutes spent in prayer?” A triangle’s just as “good” as a square; should we not allow a three-sided figure to be called a square simply because it doesn’t have four sides?
Those advocating for “gay marriage” are asking for a novel thing; shouldn’t they have to come up with a novel name for it and not confuse the issue? It’s not that there’s “so little at stake,” but that there’s so much: a very vocal minority is demanding something that they claim to be a right but which cannot logically be so. Once you take away the logical absurdity, you still have people demanding something from the government, like health care or a job, that isn’t theirs by right. I’m tentatively okay with civil unions, as it seems to me that a state has the power to recognize those as much as it does business corporations, but there’s no need to go overboard.
June 10th, 2009 at 9:31 am
well if there are two types of couples (three really: man/woman, man/man and the best kind, woman/woman) and they all want equal treatment before the law, does it really matter to you that they adopt a common word for such treatment? I mean I don’t really see a valid objection here.
BTW Hello from Bodymore, Sebastian.
June 10th, 2009 at 9:41 am
No, you don’t, but you also don’t have any reasonable expectation that you can post such illogical, poorly reasoned nonsense in an echo chamber without being confronted on it.
You still haven’t explained why they can’t logically expect marriage as a right, or how it impacts you and your marriage.
June 10th, 2009 at 9:51 am
“abuse”…?
i gotta say — and my apologies to our blog host if he disagrees — but if anything on this thread really counts as “abusive” to anybody, then that somebody could well improve themselves by growing a rather thicker skin.
meanwhile, real live people out there are going without health insurance because their same-sex unions carry no legal weight. i would say that, while perhaps still not technically “abusive”, comes a good deal closer to it than being called silly names by some random guy on the intarwebz. in other words, along with that thicker skin? try for a sense of perspective.
June 10th, 2009 at 10:08 am
Nomen Nescio,
Yes, and there are children starving in Africa. Are they not worthy of your mention? My perspective is that people are demanding something to which they have no right, and they have no right to it because state (in the political entity sense) recognition of a union (marriage, homosexual union, corporation, etc.) is not a natural or constitutional right. A state could properly choose not to recognize any corporations, marriages, or homosexual unions. It could decide to recognize polygamy, man-toaster unions, vestal virgins, or whatever by the conferring of benefits, subject to existing law. A state cannot recognize “gay marriage,” though, because there is no such thing. Proponents of it have as much natural and constitutional right to recognition of it as do advocates of actual marriage: none.
As for thicker skin, I don’t see why I should be expected to respond to anyone who resorts to ad hominem attacks. I’m under no obligation to him.
June 10th, 2009 at 10:09 am
I also think that that “echo chamber” wasn’t the metaphor Sebastian-PGP was looking for.
June 10th, 2009 at 10:35 am
i see mr. Wolfwood also doesn’t know what a red herring is. fry one up, they’re tasty with breading!
…that is, on top of not knowing that the right to marriage is indeed a fundamental civil right in the USA. cf. the supreme court, Loving v. Virginia, 1967. now, of course you can disagree with that legal decision, but just flat out stating that something is or is not a right in this country without even mentioning what the supreme court of the land has said in directly addressing the issue is disingenuous at best.
June 10th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
I doubt anyone would have an issue with the government not recognizing gay marriage if it didn’t recognize straight marriage. The issue is not recognition of marriage by the government, but equal recognition of marriage by the government – and the resulting withholding of specific benefits from an entire class of citizens.
Whether or not there is a right to government recognition of marriage is irrelevant. The issue is the right to equal treatment under the law.
June 10th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
The above should have read:
“The issue is not recognition of marriage by the government, but unequal recognition of marriage by the government – and the resulting withholding of specific benefits from an entire class of citizens.”