Same-sex marriage, continued.
May. 11th, 2007 08:05 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rivkaI realize, at this point, that I am not going to make any headway in this discussion. But it's been useful to me to articulate my positions on these issues, so I'm continuing to hold onto my comments here.
Other person: If what we truly want is civil recognition of gay marraige for the purposes of property, beneficiary, taxes, power of attorney, etc. then why isn't Civil Union enough of a legal option? To many it is, but to some it isn't. Why? Civil ceremonies are what many straight couples choose with no religious attachment.
Me: Are you really under the misapprehension that "civil union" laws produce the same status as a civil marriage ceremony - all the legal and civil benefits of marriage, only just without the religious bits?
In the first place, that betrays a stunning ignorance about the position you are arguing. (And yes, yes, I know, this is all about rhetoric and you haven't stated your position about anything, at all, ever.) Civil unions, where they are legal, represent a separate and unequal legal status which does NOT carry the more than 1000 civil and legal benefits of marriage. The only thing they have in common with the "civil ceremony" that heterosexual couples use is the word "civil."
In the second place, you're continuing to completely ignore the question of religions which permit, and even embrace, same-sex marriage. Why should a gay couple who belongs to, say, the United Church of Christ content themselves with a legal status that has "no religious attachment," if their minister and their denomination would be delighted to perform their religious union?
The religious freedom issue is significant. For example: what would be wrong with a federal law that prohibited the ordination of women? Many religions, including Catholicism, the Southern Baptist Convention, and most conservative evangelical denominations, believe that ordination is a sacred status that pertains only to men.
Why shouldn't their religious convictions be respected by enshrining that status in federal law? Denominations which do ordain women could use a secondary status, maybe called a "lay worship leader." Those women could still do all the same parts of their job, but it would be clear that ordination is something sacred and different that women cannot be part of, and historically have never been part of. After all, liberals like the Episcopalians, United Methodists, Presbyterians, American Baptists, and so on can't expect to get to shove their modern, inclusive definition of who gets to receive a sacrament down everyone else's throat.
...If that seems like an obvious example of the federal government infringing on some people's religious rights in order to enforce other people's religious rights - and I hope that it does - you are left with the need to explain why some religious denominations' opposition to gay marriage trumps other denominations' support.
Other person: If what we truly want is civil recognition of gay marraige for the purposes of property, beneficiary, taxes, power of attorney, etc. then why isn't Civil Union enough of a legal option? To many it is, but to some it isn't. Why? Civil ceremonies are what many straight couples choose with no religious attachment.
Me: Are you really under the misapprehension that "civil union" laws produce the same status as a civil marriage ceremony - all the legal and civil benefits of marriage, only just without the religious bits?
In the first place, that betrays a stunning ignorance about the position you are arguing. (And yes, yes, I know, this is all about rhetoric and you haven't stated your position about anything, at all, ever.) Civil unions, where they are legal, represent a separate and unequal legal status which does NOT carry the more than 1000 civil and legal benefits of marriage. The only thing they have in common with the "civil ceremony" that heterosexual couples use is the word "civil."
In the second place, you're continuing to completely ignore the question of religions which permit, and even embrace, same-sex marriage. Why should a gay couple who belongs to, say, the United Church of Christ content themselves with a legal status that has "no religious attachment," if their minister and their denomination would be delighted to perform their religious union?
The religious freedom issue is significant. For example: what would be wrong with a federal law that prohibited the ordination of women? Many religions, including Catholicism, the Southern Baptist Convention, and most conservative evangelical denominations, believe that ordination is a sacred status that pertains only to men.
Why shouldn't their religious convictions be respected by enshrining that status in federal law? Denominations which do ordain women could use a secondary status, maybe called a "lay worship leader." Those women could still do all the same parts of their job, but it would be clear that ordination is something sacred and different that women cannot be part of, and historically have never been part of. After all, liberals like the Episcopalians, United Methodists, Presbyterians, American Baptists, and so on can't expect to get to shove their modern, inclusive definition of who gets to receive a sacrament down everyone else's throat.
...If that seems like an obvious example of the federal government infringing on some people's religious rights in order to enforce other people's religious rights - and I hope that it does - you are left with the need to explain why some religious denominations' opposition to gay marriage trumps other denominations' support.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-05-11 12:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-11 01:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-11 03:06 pm (UTC)Why shouldn't their religious convictions be respected by enshrining that status in federal law? Denominations which do ordain women could use a secondary status, maybe called a "lay worship leader." Those women could still do all the same parts of their job, but it would be clear that ordination is something sacred and different that women cannot be part of, and historically have never been part of.
This is such an excellent analogy!
no subject
Date: 2007-05-11 03:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-11 08:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-12 12:02 am (UTC)I *have* posted my position, and a second clarifying comment as well, in Char's post that was actually about gay marriage, here:
http://chargirlgenius.livejournal.com/260683.html
I also responded to your post in this journal encouraging your friends to read the whole thread and not just the parts you chose to quote:
http://rivka.livejournal.com/357927.html
Considering our current encounter, I think you'll be surprised by my position, and I encourage you to re-read my original post in Char's journal again, this time with the knoweldge that I do not oppose gay marriage. I suspect it will read differently this time.
http://chargirlgenius.livejournal.com/259895.html
I honestly wonder how others would have reacted in the same position? Several of your friends have said things like "nice of her to avoid points she doesn't agree with." I kept trying to focus on the original topic because I don't disagree with gay marriage in the first place. Char posted about how she thinks it's absurd that Christians feel like they're being persectuted. I posted about a lack of real discourse in politics on all subjects. I don't know how I am to be expected to fight with you to defend a position I don't hold.
I hope you and Char will give my posts a fairer reading this time.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-12 12:09 am (UTC)Regardless of your actual position (and I have read your other comment), I was engaging with the statements that you made. If you say, "why aren't civil unions enough of a legal option," then it's not unreasonable for someone to respond explaining why civil unions aren't enough of a legal option. If you say that gay marriage involves "liberal fundamentalists trying to force others to live by their rules," then it's not unreasonable for someone to underline the important distinction between "forcing others to live by my rules" and "not wanting to have to live by others' rules myself."
If you feel that I am misrepresenting your opinions by quoting you, perhaps you should reconsider the way you make your points.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-12 03:17 am (UTC)Well put.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-12 11:45 am (UTC)If I may quibble slightly while violently agreeing with the rest: I think it's a mistake to refer to the latter as "other people's religious rights". Their whole strategy is founded on trying to get other people to mistake their preferences for "rights." Don't grant them the point.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-12 02:02 pm (UTC)