Why Am I Against Gay Marriage?

[J.S. Mill]

J.S. Mill:

Do you believe SSM advocates have an agenda beyond the mere right to engage in SSM marriage? Why or why not?

Respectfully,

Mark Hannig

I don't think that SSM advocates are a homogeneous group, so to say they have a unified agenda seems the height of silliness to me. The vast majority of SSM advocates I have met, however, support it because they have a "live-and-let-live" mentality; I therefore find it highly unlikely that legalization of gay marriage will lead to a significant push from SSM advocates to require religions to honor such unions.

[Honorentheos]

I don't think that SSM advocates are a homogeneous group, so to say they have a unified agenda seems the height of silliness to me. The vast majority of SSM advocates I have met, however, support it because they have a "live-and-let-live" mentality; I therefore find it highly unlikely that legalization of gay marriage will lead to a significant push from SSM advocates to require religions to honor such unions.

I agree with your statement, JS Mills. I think, though , that it should be pointed out that there is a difference between a concerted, major push and a few individuals who may do so.

It is not hard to imagine a case where a single gay LDS man or lesbian woman desires to both marry their partner AND be accepted by the LDS church. And they could likely pursue this this using the clause of equal rights.

I agree, again, that this is unlike to lead to the forcing of religious leaders who oppose SSM to be forced to perform a civil marriage where they do not wish to do so.

My argument as to why? Let me ask, if it is really possible that SSM will lead to forcing Mormon bishops to perform marriages they do not want to perform or require the church to perform these marriages in the temple, why were no blacks married in the temple once the supreme court ruled on Loving vs Virginia in 1967 until after the Kimball revelation in 1978?

I call bunk.

[MormonMason]

Exactly. You guys who think that people with "the gay agenda" will successfully be able to force religions to perform same-sex marriages are paranoid and ignorant of constitutional law.

People already are chipping away at the Constitution. All that is necessary is a redefinition of the meaning and loopholes of Amendment 1. It already has been done with great success. See United States v. Reynolds for one example of such.

[J.S. Mill]

Do you think that honor killings should be legal? No? Then why on Earth are you in opposition to Reynolds vs. United States? You should be for the repeal or overturning of bigamy laws; not for the legal anarchy of a Reynolds-less government.

[MormonMason]

Do you think that honor killings should be legal? No? Then why on Earth are you in opposition to Reynolds vs. United States? You should be for the repeal or overturning of bigamy laws; not for the legal anarchy of a Reynolds-less government.

While I can see some good in the legislation, Reynolds v. United States opened the door for future legislation toward that and other ends. As I said, as a result all that now is needed is further redefinition and legislation from hardcore activists both in the public and on the bench.

[J.S. Mill]

It should be clear that the authors of the Constitution and its amendments did not intend for "freedom of religion" to mean "religious people get to do whatever they want, even if it's against the law". I'm somewhat sympathetic to claims of legislating from the bench, but Reynolds quite clearly doesn't do anything like that.

[MormonMason]

It should be clear that the authors of the Constitution and its amendments did not intend for "freedom of religion" to mean "religious people get to do whatever they want, even if it's against the law". I'm somewhat sympathetic to claims of legislating from the bench, but Reynolds quite clearly doesn't do anything like that.

No, it only opens the door. I said that above. Opening the door and being the doorway are two different things. I only give it as an example of how easy it is to amend the meaning of an amendment.

[J.S. Mill]

"Amending the meaning of an amendment" is what people mean when they talk about legislating from the bench. Is Reynolds an example of that, or not? I would say, "no". I can't tell what side you're on here.

[Honorentheos]

The exact wording of the Reynolds Ruling on religion vs the law of the land -

"Upon this charge and refusal to charge, the question is raised whether religious belief can be accepted as a justification of an overt act made criminal by the law of the land. The inquiry is not as to the power of Congress to prescribe criminal laws for the Territories, but as to the guilt of one who knowingly violates a law which has been properly enacted if he entertains a religious belief that the law is wrong.

Congress cannot pass a law for the government of the Territories which shall prohibit the free exercise of religion. The first amendment to the Constitution expressly forbids such legislation. Religious freedom is guaranteed everywhere throughout the United States, so far as congressional interference is concerned. The question to be determined is, whether the law now under consideration comes within this prohibition.

The word "religion" is not defined in the Constitution. We must go elsewhere, therefore, to ascertain its meaning, and nowhere more appropriately, we think, than to the history of the times in the midst of which the provision was adopted. The precise point of the inquiry is what is the religious freedom which has been guaranteed.

Before the adoption of the Constitution, attempts were made in some of the colonies and States to legislate not only in respect to the establishment of religion, but in respect to its doctrines and precepts as well. The people were taxed, against their will, for the support of religion, and sometimes for the support of particular sects to whose tenets they could not and did not subscribe. Punishments were prescribed for a failure to attend upon public worship, and sometimes for entertaining

Page 98 U. S. 163

heretical opinions. The controversy upon this general subject was animated in many of the States, but seemed at last to culminate in Virginia. In 1784, the House of Delegates of that State, having under consideration "a bill establishing provision for teachers of the Christian religion," postponed it until the next session, and directed that the bill should be published and distributed, and that the people be requested "to signify their opinion respecting the adoption of such a bill at the next session of assembly."

This brought out a determined opposition. Amongst others, Mr. Madison prepared a "Memorial and Remonstrance," which was widely circulated and signed, and in which he demonstrated "that religion, or the duty we owe the Creator," was not within the cognizance of civil government. Semple's Virginia Baptists, Appendix. At the next session, the proposed bill was not only defeated, but another, "for establishing religious freedom," drafted by Mr. Jefferson, was passed. 1 Jeff. Works, 45; 2 Howison, Hist. of Va. 298. In the preamble of this act (12 Hening's Stat. 84) religious freedom is defined, and, after a recital

"that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion, and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty,"

it is declared

"that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order."

In these two sentences is found the true distinction between what properly belongs to the church and what to the State.

In a little more than a year after the passage of this statute, the convention met which prepared the Constitution of the United States. Of this convention, Mr. Jefferson was not a member, he being then absent as minister to France. As soon as he saw the draft of the Constitution proposed for adoption, he, in a letter to a friend, expressed his disappointment at the absence of an express declaration insuring the freedom of religion (2 Jeff.Works 355), but was willing to accept it as it was, trusting that the good sense and honest intentions of the people would bring about the necessary alterations.

Page 98 U. S. 164

1 Jeff. Works 79. Five of the States, while adopting the Constitution, proposed amendments. Three -- New Hampshire, New York, and Virginia -- included in one form or another a declaration of religious freedom in the changes they desired to have made, as did also North Carolina, where the convention at first declined to ratify the Constitution until the proposed amendments were acted upon. Accordingly, at the first session of the first Congress, the amendment now under consideration was proposed with others by Mr. Madison. It met the views of the advocates of religious freedom, and was adopted. Mr. Jefferson afterwards, in reply to an address to him by a committee of the Danbury Baptist Association (8 id. 113), took occasion to say:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions -- I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."

Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order."

(my emphasis on this paragraph)

In short, your religion has full freedom to influence your beliefs and opinions to the fullest extent possible. However, it's ability to influence your actions only extends to the point where it does not violate the law of the land.

I think any reasoning person would see this as necessary for maintaining order.

Think about this - if it weren't the case, a hypothetical terrorist could make a claim that they were killing infidels out of religious belief and direction from their ecclesiastic leader. In order to maintain a just law that gives equal protection to all religions, drawing the line at the law of the land is not only sound, but necessary to maintain order and ultimately to have a state government at all. Removing this understanding of the limits of religious freedom would place ecclesiatical leaders over government. Or force a ruling on the truth claims of a religion, establishing laws that apply to religions only (which would be a violation of the Bill of Rights), or otherwise eroding the boundaries between church and state.

You could not have the United States of America as it was intended, exists, and was framed by our founders and not have this understanding. This is as well-reasoned a protection of religious freedom as one could imagine in our world.

[markwhannig]

I'd argue that I understand the salient history and theory of constitutional law better than the people in this thread who are worried that gays will be successful in foisting gay marriage on religious groups. I'm not sure if that's enough to call me learned in constitutional law, however.

I confess that I have not graduated from law school (I'm applying right now, actually). My constitutional law education consists of some undergraduate courses on the Constitution and the philosophy of law (I have a B.A. in Political Theory from UCLA, if you must know). I also read the court cases relevant to this topic, and discuss them with my friends who do have law degrees.

If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask them.

J.S. Mill:

Good luck getting into law school, and good luck practicing the legal profession thereafter.

I look forward to reading your posts a few years from now when you have graduated from law school, and after you have practiced law (to include arguing before a judge, or a panel of judges.)

I suspect, and hope, your rhetoric and logic skills will have matured by then.

Respectfully,

Mark Hannig

[mnn727]

You know, I was one LDS who was sympathetic to gays wanting to be married. I figured that what did it matter, they could not force Churches to marry anyone, but the more I see about the events surrounding Prop 8 and especially the lawsuit against E-Harmony forcing them to have a gay service, the more I am coming to realize that the Brethern knew exactly what they were doing and I need to repent of my attitude. It wouldn't take long for someone to bring a lawsuit toward a Church and an activist judge start requiring all Churches to marry anyone requesting it.

Sorry to any Gay people, but you lost me from your corner with your activities.

[CMZ]

I therefore find it highly unlikely that legalization of gay marriage will lead to a significant push from SSM advocates to require religions to honor such unions.

No, they just want to force eHarmony to extend their dating service to gays. Once they get their way in that realm they will be fully satisfied to stop there.

[semlogo]

No, they just want to force eHarmony to extend their dating service to gays. Once they get their way in that realm they will be fully satisfied to stop there.

eHarmony isn't a religion but rather a business, and as such does not enjoy the same protections.

[Daniel2]

You know, I was one LDS who was sympathetic to gays wanting to be married. I figured that what did it matter, they could not force Churches to marry anyone, but the more I see about the events surrounding Prop 8 and especially the lawsuit against E-Harmony forcing them to have a gay service, the more I am coming to realize that the Brethern knew exactly what they were doing and I need to repent of my attitude. It wouldn't take long for someone to bring a lawsuit toward a Church and an activist judge start requiring all Churches to marry anyone requesting it.

Sorry to any Gay people, but you lost me from your corner with your activities.

I am saddenned when I see that some people's support of civil rights or equality can be discouraged by terrorism of a smaller sub-set of individuals. I can understand the disgust and horror in reacting to the destructive, violent, and illegal actions taken by more vocal opponents of Prop 8. My own view of civil rights and equality for all, however, is not dependant upon whether or not minorities all "act nicely." If it's a civil right, it's a civil right--regardless of whether or not I LIKE those who differ from myself. I may not LIKE or AGREE with Satan Worshipers or their teachings, but I will defend the right for their religion to exist, even while condemning any Satan Worshipers who perform destructive, violent, or illegal actions. The same goes for my support of Mormons.

My view,

Darin

[markwhannig]

I am saddenned when I see that some people's support of civil rights or equality can be discouraged by terrorism of a smaller sub-set of individuals. I can understand the disgust and horror in reacting to the destructive, violent, and illegal actions taken by more vocal opponents of Prop 8. My own view of civil rights and equality for all, however, is not dependant upon whether or not minorities all "act nicely." If it's a civil right, it's a civil right--regardless of whether or not I LIKE those who differ from myself. I may not LIKE or AGREE with Satan Worshipers or their teachings, but I will defend the right for their religion to exist, even while condemning any Satan Worshipers who perform destructive, violent, or illegal actions. The same goes for my support of Mormons.

My view,

Darin

Darin:

I'm pretty much in the same boat as mnn727 -- as I suppose many other people are: up until the prop 8 post-election pissy-fits I was all for letting gays marry. Now I'm trying to educate myself about the issue and at this point, like mnn727, I am beginning to feel that there's no way we should redefine the word "marriage."

For the sake of your SSM activist friends, I suggest you focus your energies on disabusing them of the shenanigans of criminal activity and slander. Day after day we see the pro-SSM activists spill their hate to the world.

Call it what you may, (you prefer to call it "civil rights and equality") but many of us are beginning to see that the SSM activists are not about "civil rights and equality". They are about hate. If you and other SSM proponents have a more moderate view than the SSM holigans out there, I suggest you do something to moderate their uncivil and unequal actions -- else ya'll will alienate many many more otherwise nuetral-minded people.

Respectfully,

Mark Hannig

Respectfully,

Mark Hannig

[mnn727]

I am saddenned when I see that some people's support of civil rights or equality can be discouraged by terrorism of a smaller sub-set of individuals.

It wasn't so much the violence as it was the lawsuit to force e-harmony to have a gay section. It awakened me to the fact that I was wrong when I thought there was no way to force a Church (any Church) to marry gays. All it would take is 1 lawsuit and a liberal view of the law and the Constitution (nothing against liberals - I am one) which has already been the case a number of times in allowing gays to marry in different states.

Personally I think we should have Englands system; A civil ceremony (for anyone; Staight or Gay) followed by a Church wedding for those so inclined if permitted by their religion.

[CMZ]

Call it what you may, (you prefer to call it "civil rights and equality") but many of us are beginning to see that the SSM activists are not about "civil rights and equality". They are about hate. If you and other SSM proponents have a more moderate view than the SSM holigans out there, I suggest you do something to moderate their uncivil and unequal actions -- else ya'll will alienate many many more otherwise nuetral-minded people.

We can't realistically expect Darin to moderate the behavior of the radical fringe. No moderate member of any group should be held responsible for the acts of their radical fringe. Unfortunately the radicals are still out there.

[Daniel2]

It wasn't so much the violence as it was the lawsuit to force e-harmony to have a gay section. It awakened me to the fact that I was wrong when I thought there was no way to force a Church (any Church) to marry gays. All it would take is 1 lawsuit and a liberal view of the law and the Constitution (nothing against liberals - I am one) which has already been the case a number of times in allowing gays to marry in different states.

Hey, I'm with ya on the eHarmony thing. At the end of the day, had eHarmony decided to stand by their principles, I believe they (like the Boy Scouts) would have retained their right to only offer services to straight individuals. eHarmony did NOT lose in court... they apparently decided that the fight wasn't worth their time, effort, publicity, and/or money. As I understand it, no one "forced" them to give in to having a gay section. Many I know supported them, even as we disagreed with them. It all goes back to that old saying: "I may disagree with what you say, but I'll fight with my life for your right to say it."

Churches or clergy have never been forced to perform civil marriages against their religious principles (The Catholic Church and it's priests are not FORCED to re-marry divorcees, for example, even though marriage--and re-marriage--is a legally-sanctioned civil right for straight U.S. citizens). Forcing a church to do so would violate the principles of our Constitution in the very same way that prohibiting ANY church from marrying them does.

Personally I think we should have Englands system; A civil ceremony (for anyone; Staight or Gay) followed by a Church wedding for those so inclined if permitted by their religion.

I agree this would seem to be a compromise for both sides.

Darin

[markwhannig]

We can't realistically expect Darin to moderate the behavior of the radical fringe. No moderate member of any group should be held responsible for the acts of their radical fringe. Unfortunately the radicals are still out there.

CMZ and Darin:

You are right about moderating the "radical fringe."

I apologize for my tone in response to Darin's defense of the SSM arguments.

I am an attorney whose practice consists of a signicant amount of civil rights law. I cringe that the SSM defenders call their cause a civil rights and equality issue, and I think such word play cheapens the genuine injustices inflicted upon racial, religious and ethnic minorities through the history of the United States.

Respectfully,

Mark Hannig

[mnn727]

Churches or clergy have never been forced to perform civil marriages against their religious principles

Unfortunatly we have to add 'Not Yet' to that. I can envision a day when they do require it

Forcing a church to do so would violate the principles of our Constitution in the very same way that prohibiting ANY church from marrying them does.

I just don't see that, certainly not from the (incorrectly called) Seperation of Church and State in the Constitution.

2 weeks ago I was firmly on your side, but now I'm just shaking my head.

[Jaybear]

2 weeks ago I was firmly on your side, but now I'm just shaking my head.

Yeah, right. We all believe that you were a gay rights supported, soured by the discontent expressed by the gay community following the passage of Prop 8.

Sorry, but if that was the case, your support was paper thin.

Nice try.

[Daniel2]

CMZ and Darin:

You are right about moderating the "radical fringe."

I apologize for my tone in response to Darin's defense of the SSM arguments.

I appreciate that we can agree that non-participants should not be held accountable for the actions of "the radical fringe" in any movement.

I am an attorney whose practice consists of a signicant amount of civil rights law. I cringe that the SSM defenders call their cause a civil rights and equality issue, and I think such word play cheapens the genuine injustices inflicted upon racial, religious and ethnic minorities through the history of the United States.

The quest to overcome injustice and inequality, however large or small, and protect the civil rights of all citizens should not require us to rank or compare who's suffering has been greatest. I do not see how recognizing injustice in one segment of the population, and seeking to correct that injustice, "cheapens" injustice suffered elsewhere.

You may not perceive the suffering by gays and lesbians to be equal to those inflicted upon other racial, religious, and ethnic minorities. Throughout the history of the world, and along with said racial, religious, and ethnic minorities, gays and lesbians have historically (as well as contemporarily, depending on the locale) been targets of social injustice--up to and including violence or state-sanctioned death penalties. Even so, what becomes the point (as far as law is concerned) of the exercise of comparing suffering? Why is it important for a government that seeks to promote equality of opportunity for all of its citizens to point out that "one group's injustice has been MORE unjust than another's"...? In my view, using injustice to highlight our differences, rather than unite us in our shared humanity, violates the very spirt of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s words that, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."

More and more people are recognizing that civil marriage, enumerated as a civil right for straight couples for decades in America, is a civil right that should extend to all consensual couples, regardless of sexual orientation (whether such is "a choice" or not). This is true not only the state of California, but in others, as well. From this morning's news:

Panel: N.J. should OK same-sex marriages

Report says civil unions are a harm, not a help

Wednesday, December 10, 2008

BY SUSAN K. LIVIO AND CLAIRE HEININGER

Star-Ledger Staff

New Jersey should enact a law allowing gay marriage and waste no time passing it because the state's civil unions law fails to adequately protect same-sex couples, a report to be released today concludes.

The final report of the New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission says it gathered "overwhelming evidence" that the civil union law not only fails to provide the same protections as marriage, it also has created economic, medical and emotional hardships for gay couples.

The commission concluded that denying same-sex couples the right to marry is as unjust as government imposing racial segregation laws against African-Americans.

"Separate treatment was wrong then and it is just as wrong now," said the report, obtained by The Star-Ledger yesterday.

The 79-page report is the work of a 13-member panel created to evaluate the impact of the 2006 civil union law, which was supposed to provide the rights and responsibilities of marriage under another name. It will be forwarded to Gov. Jon Corzine and the Legislature.

"The report is a sweeping indictment of the failure of the civil union law," said commission vice chairman Steven Goldstein, head of Garden State Equality, which is campaigning to legalize same-sex marriage. "The report asks Governor Corzine and the Legislature: Do you want equality or not? If so, there is only one way to go."

As of yesterday, about 3,353 couples have entered into civil unions, according to Goldstein. He said Garden State Equality has received 1,502 complaints about civil unions.

Corzine could not be reached for comment last night. He has said previously he would sign a bill legalizing same-sex marriage, but wanted to deal with the issue after the November presidential election so a possible backlash would not be exploited by conservatives for political gain.

Assembly Speaker Joseph Roberts (D-Camden) said the report "should spark a renewed sense of purpose and urgency to overcoming one of society's last remaining barriers to full equality for all residents. As I have said many times before, same-sex marriage in New Jersey is only a matter of 'when,' not 'if.'"

John Tomicki, president of the New Jersey Coalition to Preserve and Protect Marriage and a leading opponent of gay marriage, pledged last night to make it an issue in next year's state elections.

Massachusetts and Connecticut are the only states that issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. California did until last month, when voters approved a proposition outlawing same-sex marriage.

The commission's interim report in February found civil unions are "not clear to the general public" and confer "second-class status" on the couples who form them. The final report says the civil union law "invites and encourages unequal treatment of same-sex couples and their children."

"In a number of cases, the negative effect of the Civil Union Act on the physical and mental health of same-sex couples and their children is striking, largely because a number of employers and hospitals do not recognize the rights and benefits of marriage for civil union couples," the report said.

Gina Pastino of Montclair told the commission about a run-in her partner had with an emergency room doctor this summer when Pastino was rushed to the hospital suffering from an irregular heartbeat. The physician "did not understand and hadn't heard of civil unions before," Pastino told the commission. He initially refused to share any information with her partner, Naomi Cohen, then did so reluctantly.

"We've had this issue every time we go into a health care setting, but this was the worst," Pastino said in an interview yesterday. "It's exhausting and frustrating and scary. People just don't realize the way we are hurt by not being able to say we are married."

The civil union law also has failed to guarantee health insurance benefits, the report said. With half of all employers in the state self-insured under the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act, they are not required to abide by New Jersey's civil union law.

Had New Jersey called the union of same-sex partners "marriage," more companies would be likely to provide health care benefits, according to testimony from labor attorney Rosemarie Cipparulo.

The commission's recommendation should not surprise opponents of same-sex marriage. Three months ago, representatives of the state's Catholic bishops, the Knights of Columbus and other groups held a press conference to denounce the commission as biased, and demanded that it be scrapped and reconstituted.

Much of their criticism was directed at J. Frank Vespa-Papaleo, who as the state's director of civil rights chairs the review commission, as well as Goldstein, the commission's vice chairman. Both are openly gay.

Tomicki criticized the commission as "set up to have no balance." He once again called for an amendment to the state constitution defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Tomicki said public polls and his conversations with lawmakers have led him to believe it would pass.

"The ultimate result should be the people should decide the definition of marriage," Tomicki said. "The biggest thing the commission is afraid of is the ballot box."

Goldstein said he didn't believe an anti-gay marriage effort would gain traction in New Jersey.

My view,

Darin

[markwhannig]

Yeah, right. We all believe that you were a gay rights supported, soured by the discontent expressed by the gay community following the passage of Prop 8.

Sorry, but if that was the case, your support was paper thin.

Nice try.

Jaybear:

Darin claims to be a "nonparticipant" concerned about "equal rights" and "justice."

I'm not sure what you mean by "support" but I'm not sure Darin's support was any greater than mnn727's. Perhaps you know: did Darin do anything more in support of anti-Prop 8 than merely post his opinions about equal rights on the MA&DB?

Respectfully,

Mark Hannig

[mnn727]

Yeah, right. We all believe that you were a gay rights supported, soured by the discontent expressed by the gay community following the passage of Prop 8.

Sorry, but if that was the case, your support was paper thin.

Nice try.

Jaybear -- You don't know me, you don't know my circumstances - so knock off the personal attacks.

You don't like my new current stance -- sorry, but its a free country and my responses were civil and expained my reasoning -- more than I can say for some people.

[markwhannig]

More and more people are recognizing that civil marriage, enumerated as a civil right for straight couples for decades in America, is a civil right that should extend to all consenual couples, regardless of sexual orientation This is true not only the state of California, but in others, as well. My view,

Darin

Can I ask you some questions Darin:

Why limit it to mere couples? If me and my consenting two girlfriends want to marry . . . is that any different than the "consensual couple" who are gay? Is there no equality, justice and common humanity for we three as well?

Also, what if the "consenual couple" is composed of two siblings? Is there no equality, justice and common humanity for them? What if the "consenual couple" is a father/son pair? Mother/daughter pair? Can they marry too? Shouldn't they enjoy "civil rights" as well?

Respectfully,

Mark Hannig