the conservative case for same sex marriage

[maycocksean]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

fascinating.

What I can't get away from is that this particular morality has more to do with something that heterosexuals find incomprehensible and repugnant--the "ick" factor is what we call it--and that most of the "moral opposition" over the millenia has more to do with that than with any logical, reasonable sense of right and wrong.

This moral stance doesn't come from the same place as most other morality, and that's why as a conservative evangelical Christian I don't have an issue with questioning the old moral stance.

[deep]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

fascinating.

after reading the Reverend's 800 word essay
I can say

He is lying
and he knows he is lying.

[maycocksean]

Originally Posted by deep

after reading the Reverend's 800 word essay
I can say

He is lying
and he knows he is lying.

What is he lying about?

[MrsSpringsteen]

Mayor Michael Bloomberg will officiate the wedding of two top city officials on July 24, the same day the new same-sex marriage law takes effect, NBC News reports.

Bloomberg will preside over the nuptials of his consumer affairs commissioner, Jonathan Mintz, and chief policy adviser, John Feinblatt. The ceremony will take place at Gracie Mansion.

The city announced Wednesday that the City Clerk's office would be open on the 24th, a Sunday, to accomodate the many same-sex couples that are expected to wed on the historic day.

"This is a historic moment for New York, a moment many couples have waited years and even decades to see – and we are not going to make them wait one day longer than they have to,” said Bloomberg, according to NBC.

Bloomberg has only officiated two weddings during his time as mayor, The New York Times reports-- once for his daughter, Emma, in 2005 and once for former mayor Rudy Giuliani (who, by contrast, recently went AWOL after promising to perform a wedding for a gay couple that once gave him shelter when his own marriage fell apart) in 2003.

Feinblatt and Mintz have been partners for 14 years and have two young daughters together, according to The Times. They worked closely with Mayor Bloomberg on the successful campaign to legalize same-sex marriage in New York.

[kramwest1]

Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen

Mayor Michael Bloomberg will officiate the wedding of two top city officials on July 24, the same day the new same-sex marriage law takes effect, NBC News reports.

Bloomberg will preside over the nuptials of his consumer affairs commissioner, Jonathan Mintz, and chief policy adviser, John Feinblatt. The ceremony will take place at Gracie Mansion.

The city announced Wednesday that the City Clerk's office would be open on the 24th, a Sunday, to accomodate the many same-sex couples that are expected to wed on the historic day.

"This is a historic moment for New York, a moment many couples have waited years and even decades to see – and we are not going to make them wait one day longer than they have to,” said Bloomberg, according to NBC.

Bloomberg has only officiated two weddings during his time as mayor, The New York Times reports-- once for his daughter, Emma, in 2005 and once for former mayor Rudy Giuliani (who, by contrast, recently went AWOL after promising to perform a wedding for a gay couple that once gave him shelter when his own marriage fell apart) in 2003.

Feinblatt and Mintz have been partners for 14 years and have two young daughters together, according to The Times. They worked closely with Mayor Bloomberg on the successful campaign to legalize same-sex marriage in New York.

Very cool.

[yolland]

Probably some readers of this thread have been following the back-and-forth over at Andrew Sullivan's blog between contributing writer Bruce Bawer and various commenters (several of them self-identified liberal and/or gay Muslims), in response to Bawer's remarks on a recent controversy in Canada concerning the Toronto speaking appearance of a Jamaican imam with a history of advocating homosexuals be executed. The relevant blogposts here--Islamophobia Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5 and Part 6.

Some chronologically arranged excerpts from Bawer's posts:

I’m not sure what the reader means by saying that tolerance has to be achieved "from within." Is the argument here that the West should continue to welcome immigrants who preach death to gays, as that imam does, and should not actively resist the spread of such barbaric teachings? If so, I beg to differ.

A reader replies:

"Do you mean for this to be a call to deport or bar entry to people whose political views you find abhorrent? It's important to note that there is no law barring you from declaring that 'X group of people deserve to be killed,' as it is so general and obviously political that it does not constitute incitement. Essentially you are calling for the deportation of people who have broken no laws because they express abhorrent political views--this is a very radical authoritarian proposal and if you really mean to make it, please do so in plain English, not empty phrases like 'stick [our] noses in' and 'actively resist.' "

...[P]erhaps one needs to have spent some time in Europe, where attitudes like this reader’s have already resulted in palpable, alarming, and perhaps irreversible social changes, to understand that this is not an academic discussion...[E]very country has an immigration policy that favors some prospective immigrants over others. Perversely, the current immigration policies of most Western governments favor, in practice, people who have contempt for, and represent a threat to, Western values.

Here’s what I was talking about: in most Western countries, the largest number of immigrants migrate thanks to a policy called “family reunification,” the intention of which is to enable people to live with their spouses, parents, and children. What this policy has led to, alas, is a pattern of forced marriages within patriarchal Muslim clans, whereby young Muslims in Europe or North America are wed to their cousins in South Asia or North Africa so that the latter can move to the West. Instead of favoring individuals from the Muslim world who seek to escape the stifling authority of their extended families and live in freedom, then, “family reunification” favors, in practice, the expansion of traditional Islamic patriarchies and the importation of their guiding values.

[Another] reader asks:

"…What is the sorting mechanism you intend to put in place whereby the vast majority of Muslims in the West who have nothing to do with the Imam you cited (even if many of them might find homosexuality morally abhorrent, a proposition no different from most Evangelicals in this country) are meaningfully distinguished from others of his ilk? I don’t believe it is Islamophobic to point out the existence of this problem, but it is Islamophobia per se if the intent is to hang on all Muslims the words and deeds of their most extreme elements and then make generalized demands that the community AT LARGE needs to change something about its behavior. I say this as a Gay Muslim who has had to waste so much energy unbundling rhetoric like yours from the far more complex and textured reality of Muslim life in the West. And it’s a waste of time precisely because it draws badly needed focus away from the need to create space within these communities for alternative points of view to thrive."

...[W]hen I criticize Islam in the West I’m not condemning Muslims; on the contrary, I’m supporting the right of Muslims to break free of oppressive Islamic structures and live as free individuals...Immigration officials must draw distinctions between people like that Toronto imam and Muslims who want to come to the West precisely to get away from people like that Toronto imam. The immigration system must strive to keep the former out and let the latter in.

...[Another] reader accuses me of diminishing Western evil while inflating Muslim evil; in fact he is one of many liberal and obviously intelligent Western Muslims (and I have heard from several of them in the last couple of days) who are loath to fully acknowledge the problems with Islam and the extent of the need for reform...This kind of reflexive defensiveness is dispiriting, because these liberal, intelligent Western Muslims are the very people who should be leading the effort to reform their religion.

I agree with Bawer that our immigration policies shouldn't "welcome immigrants who preach death to gays," though I'd phrase that something more along the lines of "If a prospective immigrant has a history of advocacy which would land an ordinary citizen on the FBI's hate-group watchlist, that should automatically be a huge red flag to immigration officials." But it's unnecessary to create some new priority-sorting category for 'prospective immigrants freeing Islamic persecution;' that's what asylum is for. And Bawer's response to the gay Muslim commenter inquiring into his proposed "sorting mechanisms" largely strikes me as an alienating nonanswer; at the very least, "I’m not condemning Muslims; on the contrary, I’m supporting the right of Muslims to break free of oppressive Islamic structures" calls for some unpacking and qualification. If you're a gay Muslim Pakistani (or whatever nationality) immigrant, chances are you have fairly strong feelings in general about the right of your fellow country(wo)men and coreligionists to receive fair consideration for immigration too, not just those who are on precisely the same page as you on every social and theological issue, because they're still your people and your community in a meaningful way. And Bawer doesn't seem to me to be thoughtfully listening to or trying to understand the fear of and frustration over being held collectively accountable for the inevitable and discomfiting fundamentalist presence. I doubt he means to make sweeping sinister insinuations about Muslims as a group, but particularly if lifted out of context (and considering the prominence of the blog they're appearing on), it would be quite easy to parlay his words into such.

Family reunification policies may be more of a gray area, though there too I could see his casual use of the term "forced" marriage causing many readers to bridle. Is he denouncing the institution of arranged marriage (which remains normative in many, many countries, and not just Muslim ones either) altogether, or are we talking about forcing people against their expressed will into marriages (and relocations) they don't want? And how would he propose immigration authorities go about singling out this particular form of family reunification in reforms? Again, some unpacking seems called for.

Thoughts?

[MrsSpringsteen]

Wow, how old is he? He's in great shape. Don't know how airbrushed that is..I gotta go see what other athletes are stripped down..

NFL Hall of Famer Michael Irvin is the latest athlete to come out in support of marriage equality.

The former Dallas Cowboys wide receiver appeared shirtless on the cover of Out and gave an interview, discussing his late gay brother and how he supports marriage equality.

Irvin, who publicly spoke about his older brother Vaughn for the first time, talked about how he found out that he was gay in the late 1970s when he saw him wearing women’s clothes.

Irvin also says in the interview that he will "absolutely support" a player who comes out in the four major sports and that he believes the African-American community should support gay marriage too.

[MrsSpringsteen]

HUDSON, New York (Reuters) - A town clerk in western New York has resigned to avoid being forced to sign marriage licenses for gay and lesbian couples, citing religious objections to same-sex marriage.

Laura Fotusky, the town clerk in Barker, New York, said in her resignation letter that she will step down on July 21, three days before New York becomes the sixth and largest state to allow gay nuptials.

Governor Andrew Cuomo signed the same sex marriage law last month after the bill narrowly passed the Republican-led state Senate. Its approval in New York is seen as a catalyst for gay marriage elsewhere as well as helping push the issue to the forefront nationally ahead of the 2012 elections.

Much of the debate in New York focused on the scope of protections for those opposed to same-sex marriage. The new law exempts religious groups from performing same-sex marriages but does not extend those protections to individuals, including government employees.

Fotusky was not immediately available for comment, but in her letter, dated July 11, she said she believes the Bible takes precedence over man-made laws.

"The Bible clearly teaches that God created marriage between male and female as a divine gift that preserves families and cultures. Since I love and follow Him, I cannot put my signature on something that is against God," she wrote.

"I would be compromising my moral conscience if I participated in the licensing procedure," she wrote.

According to New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms, a conservative Christian nonprofit group that circulated Fotusky's letter to the media, she is the first clerk in the state to resign over objections to same-sex nuptials.

But she is not the first to raise concerns. Two weeks ago, the town clerk in the Syracuse suburb of Volney cited her own religious objections and requested that outside help be brought in to sign same-sex marriage licenses.

Cuomo, who had made the legalization of same-sex marriage a top priority this year, told reporters on Tuesday that he agreed with Fotusky's decision to resign because government workers have a responsibility to enforce the law.

"When you enforce the laws of the state, you don't get to pick and choose the laws," Cuomo said.

Conscientious objection among government employees has been an issue in some other states that allow gay marriage.

In Massachusetts, more than a dozen justices of the peace threatened to resign in 2004 after a state court ruled that barring same-sex marriages was unconstitutional, and at least one resigned. In 2000, the town clerk in Tunbridge, Vermont resigned even though state law would have allowed her to appoint someone else to sign marriage licenses.

Robin Fretwell Wilson, a professor at Washington and Lee Law School in Virginia, has lobbied lawmakers in New York and other states to exempt individuals, including government employees, from providing services to same-sex couples. In a 2010 paper, she argued that the religious beliefs of marriage officers should be accommodated as long as they pose no hardship to same-sex couples.

"Forcing a public employee with a religious objection to facilitate a same-sex marriage would be intolerant in the extreme when little is to be gained by such rigid demands," wrote Wilson, who was not available for comment on Tuesday.

[BEAL]

So is a 50% divorce rate amoung straight couples part of the divine plan as well?

Also, if gay marriage was such an important sin, why isn't it in the 10 commandments? Maybe we should add an 11th just so the bible can be a bit clearer on God's intent.

She has every right to resign, even if I disagree with her. But imo, holding some biblical laws above man made ones is a bit kooky!!! Hope she has read the parts where women are punished and accepts that divine word.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen

HUDSON, New York (Reuters) - A town clerk in western New York has resigned to avoid being forced to sign marriage licenses for gay and lesbian couples, citing religious objections to same-sex marriage.

I appreciate that she is a woman of principle (even if I disagree) and she took the right course of action rather than keeping her job and then refusing service. Fundamentalist pharmacists, I'm looking at YOU.

[deep]

Her place in Heaven is assured.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen

NFL Hall of Famer Michael Irvin is the latest athlete to come out in support of marriage equality.

the article is well worth a read.

Out Magazine | Slideshows | Michael-Irvin-The-Playmaker-Preaches: Michael Irvin: The Playmaker Preaches

Irvin is a perceptive guy. some good stuff:

Growing up, Irvin greatly admired his [gay] brother Vaughn, who was a successful bank manager while still living in “the ’hood,” says Irvin. That success made him “God” in his younger brother’s eyes. “He was the smartest, most charismatic man I’d ever seen in my life. We would all say, ‘Can you believe -- white people put Vaughn in charge of all that money?!’

The quarterback of Irvin's all-conquering team was Troy Aikman, infamously "outed" by sportswriter Skip Bayless in his 1996 book, Hell-Bent. Bayless wrote, "I had heard the rumor since 1991. An off-duty Dallas police officer who traveled with the Cowboys and worked security at their hotels first told me that the 'word on the street' was that Aikman was gay. Over the next four years, I heard the rumor from two more police officers who worked around the team, and I know they mentioned it to team officials."

Did Irvin and his teammates discuss Aikman's sexuality? Irvin pauses for a while before answering, "No, we didn't. I didn't think Troy was gay, but even if he had been, I think we could have handled it. Would it have affected the team? No sir. I was going to make sure of that."

Irvin wants to eradicate homophobia in every corner of American society. He points to churches that have skewed the word of God to persecute those who don't share their dogma; he shakes his head at the black culture he says has gone adrift in a sea of homophobia; and he said it's time to end the second class citizen status of gays in the eyes of the law.

"I don't see how any African-American with any inkling of history can say that you don't have the right to live your life how you want to live your life. No one should be telling you who you should love, no one should be telling you who you should be spending the rest of your life with. When we start talking about equality and everybody being treated equally, I don't want to know an African-American who will say everybody doesn't deserve equality."

[Irvine511]

finally.

Vatican Reverses Stance On Gay Marriage After Meeting Tony And Craig

July 13, 2011 | ISSUE 47•28




VATICAN CITY—In a stunning and unexpected reversal of long-standing doctrine, Pope Benedict XVI proclaimed the Roman Catholic Church's unequivocal support for gay marriage Tuesday, just hours after meeting Stonington, CT couple Tony Ruggiero and Craig Housinger.

The papal decree—which authorizes priests to administer the sacrament of holy matrimony to same-sex partners and explicitly states that "homosexual relations between two consenting adults is not, and never has been, a sin"—was reportedly a direct result of the pope sharing an afternoon of engaging conversation and hearty laughter with the gay couple.

"Not only are Tony and Craig complete sweethearts, but anyone who spends more than two minutes with them can see they're clearly perfect for each other," said Benedict, who in the past has described homosexual behavior as a grave disease that threatens all of humanity. "They're fun, gracious, and simply wonderful company. And you can tell they have something special just by the way they look at each other."

"They're soulmates, really," added the pope, smiling. "Allowing them to formalize their union in the Church is the least we could do for them."

Vatican officials said the vacationing couple and the Supreme Pontiff met during a routine papal audience at St. Peter's Basilica, and "really hit it off" after discovering shared interests in photography, the piano, and Spanish cuisine.

Enlarge ImagePope Benedict XVI claims that any law respecting the wishes of Tony and Craig is "a law I support wholeheartedly."

Though sources said the 84-year-old Benedict, a lifelong scholar of antigay ecclesiastical law, initially appeared skeptical upon meeting the pair, he was reportedly put at ease after Housinger spoke a few humorous lines to the pope in his native German and Ruggiero effusively complimented his gold cuff links, touching off a friendly conversation that effectively upended 2,000 years of Roman Catholic teachings.

"They were witty and cultured, but also very friendly—I really don't meet too many people like that," the pope said of the couple, who excitedly suggested to him several off-the-beaten-path sights and "to die for" restaurants after he mentioned an upcoming trip to Buenos Aires. "Craig has a great passion for Italian painting, and I learned a lot from him about the Church's collection of Caravaggios. He's a real Renaissance man."

"I know what scripture says about homosexuals, but when I stop to think about it, I can't get past the fact that the Bible is just a book, and Tony and Craig are real people," Benedict added. "Love is love. Man-woman, man-man, woman-woman—who cares? The Catholic Church recognizes it's not the Stone Age anymore."

Invited on a personal tour of the Vatican, Housinger and Ruggiero were said to have charmed the College of Cardinals with amusing anecdotes from their seven-year relationship, displaying a playful yet tender affection for each other that deeply moved the clergy.

High-ranking officials within the Holy See said they were pleased to learn both partners were practicing Catholics who attend mass regularly, and were surprised to discover Housinger was employed as a general contractor, a profession none of them considered gay at all.

According to reports, the highlight of the afternoon came when the couple shared photographs of their adopted 14-month-old Cambodian daughter, Lorraine, whom the swooning clergy universally described as "angelic."

"Even if you just meet Tony and Craig for a few minutes, it's easy to see how supportive and patient they are," said the Most Rev. Francesco Coccopalmerio, the Vatican's top expert on canon law, who noted the two partners have a stronger bond than some of the married couples he knows. "You can tell they've created a perfect household for a child to grow up in. I just wish everybody could be raised by parents as devoted and caring as them."

Following a warm farewell in which Ruggiero hugged Benedict—an incident the Holy Father described as "not even weird or anything"—Vatican leaders are said to have unanimously agreed that it was "completely hypocritical" for anyone, especially those who have taken a vow of celibacy, to tell people whom they can or cannot share their lives with.

"If Tony and Craig want to exchange vows before God and their friends and family, where's the harm in that?" Benedict said. "It's not as if they're offending the sanctity of life, like those wicked birth control users who will toil for all eternity in hellfire."

Vatican Reverses Stance On Gay Marriage After Meeting Tony And Craig | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

[MrsSpringsteen]

CNN) - He may not agree with the vote in New York to legalize gay marriage, but former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani said the Republican Party should butt out of the bedroom and stick to fiscal policy.

"I think the Republican Party would be well advised to get the heck out of people's bedrooms and let these things get decided by states," Giuliani said Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union." "We'd be a much more successful political party if we stuck to our economic, conservative roots."

New York became the sixth state to legalize same sex marriage in June when a bill passed by the Republican-controlled state legislature was signed by Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo.

Giuliani, who is considering a run for president in 2012, has long supported civil unions. Although he said he believes marriage is between a man and a woman, he can "live with" the legalization in New York.

"I think it's wrong, but there are other things that I think are wrong that get decided by democratic vote," Giuliani told CNN Chief Political Correspondent Candy Crowley. "I see more harm, however, by dwelling so much on this subject of gays and lesbians and whether it's right or wrong in politics."

[MrsSpringsteen]

Guard cracks down on hand-holding at Stein exhibit

Jane Levikow went to the Contemporary Jewish Museum Sunday afternoon to look at art. She ended up with a refresher course in San Francisco civil rights.

Levikow was in the gallery with her partner when she noticed a young lesbian couple in heated conversation with a security guard.

"They were holding hands," Levikow said, "and he told them they couldn't hold hands in the museum."

The couple did not agree. A small crowd began to form and the guard attempted to shoo the couple out the door to quiet things down.

"And they said, 'No we are not leaving and we want to talk to somebody in authority right now,' " Levikow said. "The idea that in 2011, in San Francisco, at the Jewish Museum, this guard could be that out of touch was shocking."

Daryl Carr, museum spokesman, says museum officials are active in supporting the LBGT community and that they have asked that the guard, who works for a private security company, be reprimanded.

Levikow says she did get a smile out of everyone when it was pointed out that the feature exhibit is devoted to examining the "evolving public personae, lifestyle, and relationships," of Gertrude Stein, the famous lesbian artist.

"Does anyone see any irony here?" Levikow asked.

Bet the museum does now.


http://abcnews.go.com/US/vermont-inn...ry?id=14110076

By ANNE-MARIE DORNING
July 20, 2011

The Wildflower Inn in Lyndonville, Vt., bills itself as a "vacation sanctuary" where the welcome mat is rolled out even for the family dog. The inn, nestled in the mountains on 570 acres, was voted Best Family Resort by Yankee Magazine in 2010 and has enjoyed positive reviews in travel publications and websites that range from National Geographic Traveler to Trip Advisor.

But according to a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, that warm Wildflower welcome doesn't extend to gay couples.

Court documents filed in Vermont Superior Court claim that when Katherine Baker and Ming-Lien Linsley, a lesbian couple, tried to book their wedding reception at the Wildflower, they were told via email that innkeepers Mary and Jim O'Reilly "do not host gay receptions" because of their "personal feelings."

According to Dan Barrett, an attorney with the Vermont Chapter of the ACLU, that puts the O'Reillys in violation of the law. "We believe this is a straightforward violation. Businesses open to the general public must serve all customers. ... They cannot turn people away based on sexual orientation. That section of the law has been on the books in Vermont since 1992."

Linsley, 34, and Baker, 31, became engaged last October. The two wanted to hold their wedding in Vermont because, said Linsley, "we both have come here for years, and we had a strong connection to it personally."

Mother-of-the-bride Channie Peters set about trying to find a place to hold a wedding reception. With help from the Vermont Convention Bureau, Peters received an email from the meetings and events director of the Wildflower Inn that read in part "the Wildflower Inn would be the perfect location ..." and continued "You could not offer a better "destination wedding" location for your guests." But when Peters mentioned there would be a "bride and bride" instead of a "bride and groom," she received an email with the subject line: "I have bad news," and that's when the O'Reilly's alleged policy against holding gay receptions at their inn came to light.

Linsley and Baker, who both live and work in New York City, said they wanted to proceed with the lawsuit because up until last October, they said they hadn't experienced much discrimination as a same-sex couple. "People before us have stood up and spoken out" to fight for their rights, said Linsley. And Linsley and Baker wanted to do the same. "It is hurtful to see that we are less welcome than the family dog," said Linsley.

Calls to the O'Reilly's home in Vermont were not returned. And a woman who answered the phone at the Wildflower Inn said she could not comment on the lawsuit. The inn updated its website today to say it is "no longer hosting weddings or special events."

The lawsuit's allegations are particularly jarring, given that Vermont is known as one of the most liberal states in the country. The Green Mountain State has allowed civil unions between same sex couples since 2000, and gay marriage has been legal since 2009. Tourism is one of Vermont's main industries, and gay-marriage related business has been brisk.

The O'Reillys have 20 days to file a response to the allegations. The ACLU's Barrett believes he has a solid case. "We understand this to be a policy of the owners. We understand that this has happened to other potential customers," he said, adding that his clients are asking for a declaratory judgment, which means they want the court to declare that what happened to them was illegal.

Despite their experience at the Wildflower Inn, the couple did find a place to host their wedding reception, and the ceremony will take place this fall. "We are thrilled," said Linsley.

[BVS]

Gosh, I thought gay relationships were being "championed" and homo polygamy was running rampant.

No? Why does Faux News lie?

[MrsSpringsteen]

‪Franken Takes Down Anti-Gay Witness For Mischaracterizing Study‬‏ - YouTube

[INDY500]

Be nice if Senator Franken inquired as to the percentage of same-sex nuclear families that were in the study. Not exactly a solid baseline established yet.

The Senator might also look into that statistics concerning children raised by single mothers. It is indeed troubling.

[PhilsFan]

Considering the topic was DOMA, it would not have been pertinent for him to address the single mother issue.

[deep]

Originally Posted by INDY500

The Senator might also look into that statistics concerning children raised by single mothers. It is indeed troubling.

So which are in favor of:

a. abortions to prevent single mothers

b. more (free) contraception to prevent single mothers

c. stoning of immoral women to prevent single mothers

d. women staying in abusive relationships to prevent single mothers

e. locked chastity belts to prevent single mothers

f. plural marraige to prevent single mothers