Rebuttal on Gay Unions

A Response to The History of Marriage: Poly & Gay

I have accurately pointed out that the distinction “civil union” is more appropriate for the gay community and it provides parity without re-writing the definition of marriage. And the definition of marriage doesn’t change at all just because you can point out that history reveals abundant examples of polygamy and homosexuality.

By-the-way, I would like to know where I even inferred that the GLBT community was inferior in any way to mainstream society. What I did say was that Gays seem to get priorities out of order. What do they gain by having the traditional label of “marriage” and what do they lose by having their unions labeled under the emerging societal adjustments? Any middle-schooler would understand that the answer is: they lose nothing in either case.

No Walls Tumbling

A Response to The Wall is Tumbling Down

The "wall of separation between Church and State" is quite safe in our political system in the U.S., despite any secularists' worry about a rising "dominionism" sponsored by Tea Partiers and the like. Let's recall, for instance, a little bit of 19th century history that was inspired by White Anglo-Saxon Protestantism and flourished under a religious banner of "manifest destiny." (See the influence of Henry Cabot Lodge, Sr., who was advocating a most ambitious brand of imperialism in the GOP at the turn of the 20th century.)

My point is that there is nothing new about radical posturing. It will have no effect on our long-cherished constitutional liberties, even though such liberties do suffer from periodic contractions when worries of sedition sweep the nation. Politicians who are clearly ignorant of our history with regards to civil liberties, such as Michelle Bachmann and others, will generally suffer from that ignorance.

Again, if the past is any measure, the GOP is not in any danger of succumbing to the current wave of radicalism, such as might be termed "dominionism." During our lifetime, the Republicans have been very much aware of the political danger of choosing the most conservative candidate for an election with a possible exception of 1964 when, by the way, the presidential election represented a dismal loss for them. The lesson was cinched by that experience.

The History of Marriage: Poly & Gay

A Response to: Right? Marriage? Whatever do you mean?


Duane, on hearing how sympathetic you feel toward gays at the start of your post on "Marriage Rights," I was beginning to confuse you with a bleeding heart liberal. Then I reached the "but" and read what followed. 

You sympathize with gays but you aren't in favor of allowing gays to have the right to marry.  Your expression of sympathy for gays doesn't make your denying them parity with the dominant collective of heterosexuals more reasonable or palatable. Coming from a person who enjoys the privileged status of being among a dominant majority makes an expression of sympathy sound very condescending.  One can afford to be tolerant of those who are of an "inferior" class of people, so long as they are denied true equality.


The gay rights issue really highlights the inconsistent way that conservatives apply the "principles" they say that they live by. And then we see your remarkably uninformed comment, about the definition of marriage.  
You wrote:

“Marriage” has had a significant and restrictive definition since before the dawn of recorded history (one man and one woman).

This "definition" of marriage argument is at heart an argument from tradition.  Because something might have been a tradition doesn't make it "right."  We might recall that slavery was the tradition until the adoption of the 14th amendment made blacks citizens.


And that still didn't put an end to the unequal treatment of blacks.  The phrase "Separate but Equal" as a legal concept continued the underclass status of blacks until the Civil Rights movement forced and affirmed the concept of equal protection.  The idea of having a separate but equal label for gay marriage, ie. "Civil Union" is just another way to deny a minority equal protection.


Referencing a few verses from the Bible should dispel the notion that marriage has always been defined as between one man and one woman.

In Exodus 21:10, a man can marry an infinite amount of women without any limits to how many he can marry.
In 2 Samuel 5:13; 1 Chronicles 3:1-9, 14:3, King David had six wives and numerous concubines.
In 1 Kings 11:3, King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.
In 2 Chronicles 11:21, King Solomon's son Rehoboam had 18 wives and 60 concubines.
In Deuteronomy 21:15 "If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons...."

Had you cared to do a little research, you would have found out that there is, in fact,  a long history of recorded same-sex unions around the world, going back to ancient times. It is believed that same-sex unions were celebrated in Ancient Greece, Rome and in some regions of China, such as Fujian, and at certain times in ancient European history.  
Read More


So, you see our notions of what a marriage should be is purely a cultural construct.


Heterosexuals as a collective majority are not in the least hurt by allowing all individuals the right to marry the person of their choice. And I think all individuals should be able to decide on the significance of the issue. Does anyone have the right to tell another what is or should be significant to them.


Court decisions are a reflection of our culture, and occasioanally they help re-shape the legal framework in which we live.  But as we all know there are lots of laws that are still on the books but no one applies them, because people have moved on culturally.  The laws we care about are the ones that are actually enforced. 


And although you're right that the courts can't guarantee social equality, nor force people to change their minds about gays, the civil rights movement has accomplished what many thought was impossible. We no longer see blacks being forced to ride in the back of the bus, or to drink from a separate water fountain. And if you recall, it was the courts that forced the issue on those who were very reluctant to grant full equality and protection of  the law to blacks.


I think I should save a discussion of "affirmative action" and the concept of "hate crimes" for another post.


Just remember some of those rugged individuals that we admire as Americans are gay.

Rights? Marriage? Whatever do you mean?

I will get back to Pat’s “Tumbling Wall” a little later. First I want to address an issue that has been on my mind: Gay Rights and the issue of marriage.

My heart bleeds over the anguish many gays suffer for the simple (and courageous) act of declaring themselves to be homosexual. I despise the hateful ways in which gays are punished by society in general and religious communities in particular.

While I am sympathetic and supportive of gay rights I am not in favor of the right of gays to “marry”. During the last 25 years they have mostly won the same legal protections of mainstream society. The barriers to legally recognized civil unions have been removed. So why do some gays continue to fight for the additional “right” to the term “marriage” be attached to their unions? “Marriage” has had a significant and restrictive definition since before the dawn of recorded history (one man and one woman).  That fact alone overrides any of the current arguments to the contrary, I’m afraid.

Sometimes it seems to me that this struggle over marriage rights is simply a “movement of disruption” with no underlying significance.

The struggle now for the GLBT should be for social equality, the marriage issue having been resolved through the courts; but social equality can’t be achieved through the court system, it being by nature a struggle for the hearts and minds of the people.

Strange as it may seem I am not against adoption by gay couples in certain circumstances. I believe that children are best nurtured in a heterosexual environment, but if that isn’t possible for whatever reason, a loving home should take precedence over all other considerations including gender.

For the record I am against all “Special Rights” declared by the government. I don’t abide by distinctions such as “affirmative action”, or “hate crimes” (all crime being hateful) or all the other rights of so-called minorities. One of the greatest documents ever written is our Constitution and it has provisions to assure that “ALL men are created equal” as stated so eloquently by Martin Luther King. We don’t need more distinctions we need more adherence to the Constitution. 

The Wall is Tumbling Down

In the first amendment of the Constitution, there are two clauses that have traditionally been recognized as creating a "wall of separation between church and state".

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion  -- read More

and

 ... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...  read More

But  it was Jefferson who actually first used the phrase in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. The letter contains the phrase "wall of separation between church and state." The phrase is now used as short-hand way of referring to the Establishment Clause.  read More


Jefferson himself admired the teachings of Jesus, but, as a man of the enlightenment, he couldn't stand the biblical references to miracles and supernatural events.  They bothered him so much that he wrote his own version of the New Testament.  read More

Jefferson apparently couldn't stand the overbearing demands to conform that permeated religious communities of his day.  He was, one might say, a free thinker.  He obviously preferred secular reasoning be used in matters of governance.


In the privacy of one's own mind, people should be free to "believe" as they want.  But no religiously motivated agenda from an outside source should be imposed on another against their will.


Nine of the original 13 colonies had official religions.  Though most of the founding fathers were deist, they worried that a religion might gain a disproportionate influence if religion were left unchecked in the wider public arena of governance. In their day, the word "secular" didn't carry the negative connotations that it does today.


Ironically, the true danger to our constitutionally guaranteed right to free thought (freedom of religion) doesn't come from the all inclusive secular community but from a more narrowly defined religious agenda.


No one can any longer believe that politicians are merely leveraging voters by wrapping themselves in a mantle of religiosity.  It is an all out cultural war.  And it is a war started by the religious right to defeat secular reason.  The history of this war goes back several decades and it may have, in fact, always been present here in America, perhaps from even before the Constitution was adopted.


And it is clear that the GOP backs the "Culture War" against our secular system of government.  read More

Duane's Response to "Dominionism"

A Response to: The Culture of Dominionism

Pat, the term “dominionism” was not completely defined in your post. First of all I couldn’t find the word in either Webster’s or Random House. And when I went to Wikipedia I found this quote:

“The use and application of this terminology is controversial. Apart from a handful of social scientists who first coined it, the term is almost exclusively used by journalists and bloggers, and there’s a lively debate about whether the term is even useful at all.

That makes me feel the term doesn’t come from a legitimate source. Instead it seems it is an invention of faux academics trying to convince people there is a problem where little or no evidence supports it.

My question is how can “threads of dominionism run deep in the GOP” when the concept exists only in the imaginations of small-minded men? I’m not saying you are a small-minded man, of course, but maybe you read short books.

It is natural that people having deeply held convictions, whether they be religious or secular, are going to believe that “real” solutions are to be found within their own moral code. There is nothing wrong with that as long as we follow the constitution. I personally haven’t seen any evidence of a resurgence of the “Spanish Inquisition” or the equivalent of Sharia Law being imposed on the nation by anyone, not even the hated GOP.

The Culture of Dominionism

Many Americans may never have heard of dominionism.

 Dominionism is the belief that Christians have a God-given right to rule over all earthly institutions. Originating among some of America’s most radical theocrats, it’s long had an influence on religious-right education and political organizing.

 If you want to understand Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry, understanding dominionism is a necessity.

The threads of dominionism run deep in the GOP.  And it is no accident that Ann Coulter's Newest book, is titled, Demonic: How the Liberal Mob Is Endangering America.


Does this mean that all republicans stand together on "moral" grounds and agree that theocrats should be be empowered?  Of course not.  


But the evidence of the "Christian" agenda within the GOP isn't at all hidden.  When asked about it many candidates will speak openly about their religiously motivated goals.  Is it a sinister plot, a conspiracy to take over the government?  Is it dangerous?


The answer to these questions depends on what your religious affiliation, political beliefs, and yes, even your sex and or sexual orientation may be.