Trefor Heywood
-
Posts
1,609 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Gallery
Posts posted by Trefor Heywood
-
-
quote:
From Rabbi Michael LernerA Bimonthly Jewish & Interfaith Critique of Politics, Culture & Society
Jan/Feb 2004 || http://www.tikkun.org
Gay Marriage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A recent Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling that insists on equal marriage rights for gays and lesbians may prove to be a huge gift for the Bush re-election campaign, allowing fears of "gay marriage" to propel many Americans back into support for an Administration whose war and economic policies have lost support. The challenge for those of us who support equal rights for homosexuals is to figure out a way to acknowledge and speak compassionately to people's underlying fears while simultaneously rejecting the homophobia in which these fears manifest.
The fears that arise in relation to gay marriage are many: the collapse of traditions that have provided a bulwark against the ethos of the competitive marketplace (marriage seen as a last vestige of an ethos of love that counters the "look out for number one" common sense of contemporary capitalism); the rejection of responsibility for raising the next generation; the fear of being soft in a world that requires toughness; the fear of pleasure in a world that requires discipline. It's not enough to point out that the desire for gay marriage comes from those who seek to bolster rather than undermine the tradition, that gays and lesbians are increasingly involved in raising the next generation and that's why they want the protections of hetero families, that the toughness and discipline required in the contemporary world are distorting factors that hurt all of us and need to be overcome (and, incidentally, that those distortions are just as prevalent in gay culture as in the cultures and lifestyles of heteros). The fears will only dissipate with a deeper societal healing process.
Replacing the language of "marriage" with "civil unions" may bring temporary relief, but the underlying issues will continue to fester until we develop a serious strategy to challenge and cure persistent American homophobia. Liberals' failure to do so and their dishonest attempts to avoid the issue ("don't ask, don't tell") may soon explode in our faces‹in the November 2004 elections.
Thought I should post a few viewpoints I have found from those who are both pro gay marriage and American....
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
-
Naturally I am pleased that some Americans can!
:D-->None of them appeared on The Weakest Link USA !
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
-
Long Gone:
I do not accept that the criticism you have made of my posts is valid. When I said "same old stuff" it is because the same aruments have been rehearsed over and over upon this thread. You could equally claim that the refutations I have made of them is "the same old stuff" too. I equally have tried to make reasoned arugments.
I have never equated the gay rights issue with slavery - I have simply pointed out that slavery was another one of those issues which took a long time to resolve, with Americans on both sides of the issue who were equally sure of their theological and political correctness.
I have not criticised your system of Government, I have made observations of how it holds certain issues in tension and how it can be used to perpetuate certain problems. That is far from unique to the USA, at least you have a written Constitution and are citizens and not subjects.
It may surprise you to know but in me the USA has a friend. Something you cannot even assume from some of your fellow citizens.
I have yet to meet an American who can name all 50 State Capitals.
I can.
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
-
A good point mstar1 - when people don't like it then it is a national issue and yet when people do like it it a state's rights issue.
Having your nose closer to the ground than many of us you may well be better enfranchised to keep some people the the original topic of the thread.
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
-
The posts about children I will leave to those who want to argue about them.
I don't believe that is the prime issue regarding same sex marriage as many partners would be couples rather than families,
The argument about money I find to be cynical, whereas money may be involved, it is still the issues of legal recognitions and protections. I have seen enough heterosexual marriages that are all about money and enough where the bearing and raising of children was not the intent.
I could argue civil fairness until I am blue in the face but verily it falleth upon deaf ears.
It is such a pity that heterosexual and religious majority rule feels it necessary to alienate and discriminate against a section of its own citizens.
Sometimes I am really glad I am not an American.
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
-
Long Gone:
I was not aware that GS was the exclusive preserve of Americans or that non-American people were not allowed to make comments.
Well tough s**t. No passports or visas are required here to be able to debate what is an important topic for all my gay brothers and sisters who are Americans.
If you want to comment on our system you can do so, it's no skin off my nose.
Thanks no doubt to TWI I have long been interested in America and things American. We no doubt get much more news over here about what is happening over there than the other way around.
No doubt I should tell Tony Blair to immediately withdraw all co-operation and support to the USA because you wish to revert to being isolationist?
That post was just so childish - grow up.
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
-
All I have seen with posts from groucho, laleo and long gone is the same old rehash of stuff. Similar arguments regarding other problems within US society have been made in the past about what should not be imposed as an edict.
Is there such a major difference between toleration and acceptance? Toleration is the acceptance of the fact that something exists and putting up with that fact, irrespective of whether one agrees or not. Toleration requires that arrangements need to be made to address the legitimate aspirations of a group of people to address a long standing problem.
There is nothing sacred about a civil marriage per se and this is what has been the topic of discussion.
I have declared previously that I have no major interest in what you call it, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. If a couple can be united in a civil and legal arrangement if they choose to call it marriage it does not bind anybody else to do so.
Just as heterosexual marriage does not bind the couple to have children simply because they can. I do not need to point out how casually heterosexual marriage is treated by some people but perhaps I need to reiterate how seriously gay people wish to take gay marriage or whatever terminology people wish to use.
The editorials that I posted were not designed to offend but to inform. I am happy to indicate in future those points that I might disagree with but not to quote the entire article would lead to charges of my being selective.
I do not see any politicians providing alternative proposals. I am glad that some people here are prepared to consider them. That is progress of a kind.
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
-
quote:
Day 2: Mass. Lawmakers Debate Gay MarriageLos Angeles Times
February 12, 2004
BOSTON — Massachusetts reconvened its constitutional convention for a second day today, after defeating a constitutional amendment that would have defined marriage as between a man and woman but would have allowed same-sex civil unions.
In their frantic attempt to solve the state's crisis over gay and lesbian marriage, the legislators Wednesday also narrowly rejected a second amendment that would have banned same-sex marriage altogether.
Outside the Statehouse, demonstrators on both sides of the issue gathered for a second day on the narrow streets and sidewalks. Many came from out of state, a reflection of how divisive the issue has become — not just in Massachusetts but nationwide.
At the annual joint session of the Legislature, lawmakers are set to consider at least two other proposals to change the Massachusetts Constitution in the wake of a state court decision legalizing same-sex marriage.
Lawmakers said they hoped to reach an agreement.
"Things break down in this building by the minute, but it's going to be interesting," said Senate Minority Leader Brian Lees, a Republican. "I'm cautiously optimistic."
Lees, co-author of the defeated civil union amendment, said that a nearly identical bill would be introduced today under the sponsorship of House Speaker Thomas Finneran, a Democrat. Lees said he expected Finneran's bill to pass because state representatives outnumber their Senate counterparts and are more likely to endorse a bill supported by their leadership.
The legislators Wednesday voted 104 to 94 against the civil union amendment and defeated the same-sex marriage ban by just two votes.
The civil union measure was one of a series of hastily crafted proposals designed to negate the court ruling, which beginning in May would make Massachusetts the first state to allow gays and lesbians to marry.
A Supreme Judicial Court advisory opinion last week decreed that civil unions would not satisfy the court's requirements. That prompted fast action from lawmakers anxious to prevent Massachusetts from becoming a mecca for gay marriage.
Changing the Constitution — the oldest in America — requires legislators first to approve an amendment by a majority vote. One year after that vote, the Legislature must again vote its approval. Then the matter must be taken to residents as a referendum.
If legislators approve an amendment in the constitutional convention, the general population would not be able to vote on it until November 2006. Under the civil union amendment defeated Wednesday night, same-sex couples who married from May until the November 2006 election would have had their status converted to civil union.
Seeking to "minimize disruption of the commonwealth," Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican, said Wednesday that he opposed codifying civil union as part of the state constitution.
His preference, Romney said, was "as narrow a definition as possible — defining marriage only as a union between a man and a woman."
Only Belgium, the Netherlands and two provinces in Canada permit gays and lesbians to marry. Thirty-eight U.S. states have adopted defense of marriage laws.
The last paragraph is not completely correct. In addition, Norway, Sweden and Denmark also allow marriage as a specific term and various other countries allow civil registrations akin to marriage.
-
quote:
John R. Ballew, M.S.
Sexual orientation refers to the emotional, romantic, sexual and affectional attraction of an individual to a particular gender. The term orientation is generally used by professionals and researchers in human sexuality, as opposed to earlier formulations such as “sexual preference.” In general, human beings have one of three sexual orientations: attraction to individuals of the other gender is described as heterosexual; attraction to individuals of one’s own gender is described as homosexual; attraction to either gender is described as bisexual.
Along with biological sex (gender), gender identity (the psychological sense of being female or male) and social sex roles (cultural norms for masculine or feminine behavior), sexual orientation is one of the primary and enduring components of sexual identity. It should be noted that transgenderism--the sense that one’s biological sex and gender identity are not congruent--is a separate matter from sexual orientation. It should be further noted that research in recent years has revealed sexuality as much more complex than most laypersons imagine. Even biological sex is not a simple, either-or, male-or-female phenomenon, but exists along a continuum.
Sexual behavior is not always congruent with sexual orientation. That is, persons who are primarily heterosexual may engage in sexual experimentation with someone of the same gender (for example, during adolescence), or may engage in repeated activity when no other outlet is available (e.g., in prison). Similarly, homosexually oriented persons may engage in heterosexual acts, marry, become parents. In neither case does the behavior define the person’s enduring emotional, affectional and sexual attraction.
Sexual orientation is a modern concept. The term “homosexual,” for instance, was unknown in ancient times, and was first used in private correspondence in 1868 by Karoly Kertbeny. It first appeared publicly in two anonymous German pamphlets published in 1869 that opposed extending a Prussian anti-sodomy law to all of the German Confederation. The term “heterosexual” is of even more recent origin.
The American Psychiatric Association [[1]] has, since 1973, regarded sexual orientation as a matter of human variation, not mental illness. The American Psychological Association [2] adopted a similar position in 1975. In both instances, the decisions to declassify homosexuality were based upon research that indicated no differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals in social or emotional problems or in level of functioning. The following is taken from the American Psychological Association statement on homosexuality that was released in July 1994:
The research on homosexuality is very clear. Homosexuality is neither mental illness nor moral depravity. It is simply the way a minority of our population expresses human love and sexuality. Study after study documents the mental health of gay men and lesbians. Studies of judgment, stability, reliability, and social and vocational adaptiveness all show that gay men and lesbians function every bit as well as heterosexuals. Nor is homosexuality a matter of individual choice. Research suggests that the homosexual orientation is in place very early in the life cycle, possibly even before birth. It is found in about ten percent of the population, a figure which is surprisingly constant across cultures, irrespective of the different moral values and standards of a particular culture. Contrary to what some imply, the incidence of homosexuality in a population does not appear to change with new moral codes or social mores. Research findings suggest that efforts to repair homosexuals are nothing more than social prejudice garbed in psychological accouterments.
Some conservative religious groups and some psychoanalysts have continued to attempt to modify or change individual’s sexual orientation. Some homosexually-oriented persons have essentially renounced all sexual behavior as a result of such efforts; some are able to function sexually with someone of the other gender. In no case has research proven that these interventions have reoriented someone’s sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual.[3]
In the last quarter of the 20th century, religious and social conservatives have often voiced concern that lesbian and gay persons are more likely to sexually abuse children. A study published by the American Academy of Pediatrics[4] in July, 1994, researched 249 cases of child sexual abuse and found only 2 instances where the perpetrator was identified as gay or lesbian. In that sample, the child’s risk of being molested by the heterosexual partner of a relative was more than 100 times as great. This is consistent with statistical reports that more than 98% of sexual abuse in childhood is perpetrated by male adults upon female children.
The origins of human sexual orientation remain incompletely understood. If there is a consensus among researchers at present, it is that sexual orientation has it’s origins in genetics and inborn hormonal conditions, and possibly life experiences of early childhood. Sexual orientation is not a choice in the way that the term is customarily used. One does not choose to be heterosexual, bisexual or gay or lesbian. While sexual orientation often emerges during adolescence, along with the first sexual feelings, many individuals are aware of their sexual orientation long before their first sexual experiences--often as early as 3-5 years of age.
Research by Simon LeVay and others have indicated neurochemical and neurophysiological differences between individuals of different sexual orientations. (It should be noted that most research has been limited to male subjects.) LeVay, a neuroanatomist at the Salk Institute examined the hypothalamus of deceased men and found a difference in size between heterosexuals and homosexuals, suggesting a biological mechanism involved in sexual orientation[5]. Studies conducted at Northwestern University and Boston University found that if one sibling is homosexual, the chance of another sibling being homosexual is as follows:
52% for an identical twin
22% for a fraternal (non-identical) twin
10% for adopted or non-twin genetic siblings.
The results suggest a strong genetic component for sexual orientation[6]
Statistics regarding the numerical distribution of sexual orientations within the population are somewhat inconsistent due to the inherent difficulty in asking individuals to identify information which could subject them to homophobia and prejudice. Various studies have estimated that 3-10% or more of the population in the United States is homosexually-oriented. A common estimate is that 6% of adult males are exclusively homosexually-oriented. Somewhat fewer women than men share a same-gender sexual orientation; estimates are often 3-5% of the female population.[7] Less research and information is available about bisexuality.
What then, finally, can be said about sexual orientation? As research into human sexuality increases our base of knowledge, patterns are emerging:
Bisexual, homosexual and heterosexual orientations have been found throughout human history and human cultures
Sexual orientation appears primarily biogenetic in origin and is discovered rather than chosen;
Sexual orientation is not a predictor of social or emotional functioning--it is not a mental illness;
Efforts to alter sexual orientation through behavior therapy, psychoactive drugs, prayer, etc., have not affected primary sexual orientation.
[1] American Psychiatric Association, 1400 K Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005.
[2] American Psychological Association, Office of Public Affairs, 750 First St., NE, Washington, DC 20002-4242.
[3] Stein, T.S., Cohen, C.J., eds. Contemporary perspectives on psychotherapy with lesbians and gay men. New York: Plenum Medical Book Co., 1986.
[4] Pediatrics, The American Academy of Pediatrics, 1994 July 96:7.
[5] LeVay, S. The Sexual Brain. New York: Bradford Books, 1994.
[6] Bailey, J.M., Pillard, R.C., Archives of General Psychiatry, 1991 48:1089-1096.
[7] Stein, T.S., Cohen, C.J., eds. Contemporary perspectives on psychotherapy with lesbians and gay men. New York: Plenum Medical Book Co., 1986: 132, 99.
John R. Ballew, M.S., is a licensed professional counselor in private practice in Atlanta. He has a Master of Science degree in Clinical Psychology from Purdue University and is a member of the Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality. He can be reached at www.bodymindsoul.org or (404) 874-8536.
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
-
I am sometimes amazed about how people will claim that their opposition is logical and not biased and that is based upon love and compassion.
They extend "logic" to ludicrous lenghts and introduce all kinds of ludicrous material to obscure the issue which is actually being talked about.
It's almost like an attempt at fillibustering.
No matter how many times these ludicrous assertions are countered they are raised time and again.
When people are opposing they should at least try to find something original to say!
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
-
"Queer" is a term that some gay people have seized upon in order to turn what was a term of abuse into a term of affirmation and pride - ie that the word is no longer hurtful.
"Sodomite" is technically incorrect as the sin of Sodom was inhospitality. It is further incorrect in that what is tehcnically called "Sodomy" is not practiced by many gay people and it is also a heterosexual practice.
Whatever term is used we are still people and human beings. Words no longer have the power to hurt that they once did.
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
-
MJ412:
quote:
I guess I could hope if I didnt allow same sex marriage to happen that it would stop homosexuality in some sense by not giving legal consent or approval. but a reality check proves it isnt in our hopes that people live.
And the point of civil rights is to deal with reality and not of theology. Is it not more moral to believe that if people are going to do something that you disapprove of that they are encouraged to do it more safely? Is it not better to encourage an ethos of relationships rather than just of sex? Is it not better to offer responsibility and commitment than to deny it? You acknowledge that you cannot stop people doing things they choose to do. Religious reasons and civil reasons can be different and it is the civil reasons we are thinking of.
You can offer heterosexual couples living together an alternative to "living in sin" and they can choose to take it or leave it. Gay couples do not have that choice and even if you still think it is a sin, you may be helping them to keep their level of "sin" down.
There are not many useful things that I remember from PFAL but I am reminded of the story that VPW related about the alcoholic who came to his church. He preached against it with all the strength he had and thought he had earned brownie points with God.
Did that help the alcoholic at all? Not at all, because the alcoholic knew far more about what it was like than VPW did. Gay people know far more about what it is like to be gay than heterosexuals do. They know what it is like to love, they know what it is like to be disapproved of and discriminated against. They know that what they ask for in civil terms will be a problem for many people with a religious faith, they know it is an uphill struggle.
But they know that their homosexuality is not going to go away, they know whom they love and wish to share their lives with. Christian ones will already have examined their faith and their homosexuality and have come to a different conclusion about it than others do. They do not ask for religious toleration but for civil toleration which does not require religious approval. There are many civil freedoms which go against one group or anothers view of the Bible. Even the Catholic Church acknowledges civil divorce, whilst at the same time reserving to itself the right to decide whether a marriage truly existed or not in the case of divorced persons wishing to be remarried in the Catholic Church. Mormons may not like tobacco or alcohol or tea or coffee and encourage abstinence from them but even in Utah they are not prohibited for sale.
Just a few items for thought.
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
-
Something I found on the net which may be pertinent to the thread as concerning the Commonwealth of Massachussetts:
quote:
From The Boston Globe, February 8, 2004:For Massachusetts, a Chance and a Choice.
By Peter J. Gomes, 2/8/2004
WHEN THE PILGRIMS landed at Plymouth in 1620, among the first things they did
for the well-ordering of their new commonwealth was to institute the Dutch
custom of civil marriage, with which they had become familiar during their long
sojourn in the Netherlands.
The Dutch made civil marriage the law of the land in 1590; and the first
marriage in New England, that of Edward Winslow to the widow Susannah White, was
performed on May 12, 1621, in Plymouth by Governor William Bradford, in
exercise of his office as magistrate.
There would be no clergyman in Plymouth until the arrival of The Rev. Ralph
Smith in 1629; but even then marriage would continue to be a civil affair, as
these first Puritans opposed the English custom of clerical marriage as being
unscriptural. Not until 1692, when Plymouth Colony was merged into that of
Massachusetts Bay, were the clergy authorized by the new province to solemnize
marriages. To this day in this Commonwealth the clergy, including those of the
archdiocese, solemnize marriage legally as agents of the Commonwealth and by its
civil authority. Chapter 207 of the General Laws of Massachusetts tells who
may perform such ceremonies.
This little bit of social and legal history should prove instructive in the
current debate concerning marriage in this Commonwealth, and the controversial
ruling thereon by the Supreme Judicial Court in Goodridge vs. Department of
Public Health. The petitioners did not address religious issues, and the c ourt's
ruling was not premised on religious grounds: Marriage, its definition,
rights, and responsibilities, was understood here as a civil matter, as it has been
since 1621.
Thus, while the legitimate interests of religious communities in what some of
them regard as the sacrament of marriage are worthy of consideration,
those interests must not be confused either with the civil law of the
Commonwealth or the civil rights of the citizens under its constitution.
No clergy of any denomination are required to wed anyone of whose union they
do not approve: There is no civil right to be married in church, or with its
blessing. The civil law is just that, and the distinction between it and
ecclesiastical law is as important as the necessary distinction between church and
state. Surely, after two years of protracted debate between church law and
civil law in the child-abuse scandals we should appreciate the necessity of these
distinctions.
It is to the civil rights of the citizens of Massachusetts that the Supreme
Judicial Court responded in the Goodridge case, and this was no attack on the
church, nor on religion. It was recognition that the social custom restricting
marriage to heterosexuals, a custom long sanctioned by church and society, was
no longer to be regarded as consistent with the rights of citizens under the
constitution.
We have seen this before. When the courts eventually invalidated
long-established laws sanctioned by church and society that forbade interracial marriage,
the so-called "miscegenation" laws that obtained in many parts of this country
within living memory, the courts that did this were invariably maligned as
interventionist, arbitrary, and usurpatious.
Most now would agree that those laws were wrong, indeed unconstitutional, and
that the courts were right in their judgments on behalf of the petitioners.
"Judicial tyranny" is a phrase usually heard from those whose prejudices have
not been sustained by a court's decision. Happily, the fundamental rights of
citizens in this Commonwealth and republic are in the long run defended against
another form of tyranny even more dangerous, the tyranny of the majority.
Legislatures more often than not are subject to the prevailing passions of any
majority that can muster sufficient votes; rarely are legislatures in the first
instance instruments of social change. It was, after all, legislators who,
reflecting the views of those who elected them, kept in place every oppressive law
on the books until challenged by aggrieved citizens who sought relief in the
courts.
If society waited for majority opinion and legislative action,
African-Americans, for example, would still be enduring the indignities of separate but
equal accommodation and the other manifestations of legal, social, and p olitical
segregation. If the decision of the Supreme Judicial Court in Goodridge is
"judicial tyranny," let there be more of it.
In the forthcoming constitutional convention, the legislature will be
pressured to develop a politically expedient alternative to the clear and unambiguous
meaning of the Supreme Judicial Court's Goodridge decision. It will be a
stretch of rationality if it can do so. His excellency the governor is as
misguided in his efforts to find an agreeable alternative to the court's decision as
he is in seeking an error-proof justification for the reintroduction of capital
punishment into this commonwealth. Surely, he has other matters with which to
concern himself.
These legislative and executive maneuvers are not unlike those of such
southern Democrats as Harry Flood Byrd, George Corley Wallace, and Strom Thurmond,
who, after Brown v. Board of Education, which just 50 years ago mandated the
end of segreg ation in public schools, sought to use every political and
legislative means at their considerable disposal to nullify the meaning of the court's
unprecedented decision. Is there anyone, save for the most retro-racist, who
says now that Byrd, Wallace, and Thurmond were right and Earl Warren and his
court wrong?
William Sloane Coffin, former Yale chaplain, civil rights and antiwar
activist, in his most recent book defines hell as "truth seen too late."History
indicts those who in time of trouble and transition choose the past over the
future.
There are always conscientious people of deeply held religious conviction
who, alas, on the basis of those convictions find themselves on the wrong side of
history, such as those in our own Commonwealth who hanged witches in the 17th
century and embraced the fugitive slave laws in the 19th century; and those
who in our own time find the support of custom, reason, and faith in their
pre judices against Roman Catholics, Jews, and persons of other colors and
ethnicities.
This resistance to extending not special rights, but civil rights to
homosexuals in marriage is but the most recent instance of this dubious legacy, and is
not made any more palatable or respectable today by the support given to it
by visible and highly placed clergy across denominational lines, from whom we
have a right to expect better.
The way to the future is always paved by extending, not restricting,
liberties, especially to those who heretofore have been excluded. The health of a
republic may well be determined by its capacity to adapt itself to the extension
of its own privileges and responsibilities to those whom it would be easy by
custom and conviction to ignore.
John Adams's Massachusetts Constitution, the oldest such document in the wor
ld, laid down the rational basis for a civil body politic whose capacious
hospitality has successively embraced people and views not contemplated by the foun
ders. The Great and General Court ought not to betray the fundamental
principles of our Commonwealth's constitution by promulgating amendments that will,
for the first time in our history, restrict rather than extend the rights and
liberties of all of our citizens. To do so will do nothing to restore the
difficult circumstances of modern marriage.
Divorce will not be halted, abuse will not be eliminated, frivolous
heterosexual liaisons such as the recent publicity stunt of Britney Spears will still
be lawful, and annulments will still be sought and obtained in the church
courts. Nothing will be done to save marriage, and yet in the name of doing so,
incalculable, retrogressive, and even punitive damage will be done to those of
our fellow citizens who under the civil law crave the legitimization of their
loving relationships.
The defense of marriage dem ands much more than legislative manipulation
enshrining the status quo. The defenders of traditional marriage argue that
marriage has been a heterosexual affair since "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve," and
at the same time they argue that this exclusively heterosexual institution is
in serious trouble.
Logic would suggest that such troubles as marriage experiences cannot be laid
at the door of those who have been, at least until Goodridge, rigorously
excluded from it.
To extend the civil right of marriage to homosexuals will neither solve nor
complicate the problems already inherent in marriage, but what it will do is
permit a whole class of persons, our fellow citizens under the law heretofore
irrationally deprived of a civil right, both to benefit from and participate in
a valuable yet vulnerable institution which in our changing society needs all
the help it can get.
The Legislature has a choice, and a chance to do the right thing. In this
case, it is to do nothing. That shouldn't be so hard.
---------------------------------------------
Peter J. Gomes is the Plummer Professor of Christian Morals and Pusey
Minister in the Memorial Church at Harvard University. He is an American Baptist
minister.
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
-
Long Gone:
If I get you right it could be more the terminology rather than fact itself? Also you are concerned that the "full faith and credit clause" aspect might have impact where you don't think it should?
This kind of thing is a problem of the Federal system - that's one of the reasons why Congress panicked and passed DOMA. Here in the UK an act of parliament affects the whole country unless it is specified to affect only part. Scotland for example historically has different legal arrangements and historically what defined a legal mariage was diferent to that of England and Wales. Hence many couple used to run off to get married at Gretna Green but when they returned home their marriage was accepted as legal even though it would not have been legal if it has taken place in England or Wales. This would appear to be something similar to the arrangements that you have. Now marriage has been standardised.
I can fully appreciate that states are proud of their own independance in non-federal matters and that Texas, particularly, has its own history as an independant republic.
Yet some rights by their nature have to apply federally and this would seem to be the main area of contention. It's not just a case of "well you can go and get married in another state or live in one that suits you better."
I honestly wish there was an easy way of sorting it out that would work for all parties. Marriage has more international implications that individual states cannot in themselves resolve.
If a US citizen marries a foreign national for example then the foreign partner is allowed an immigration status. My cousin married an American girl and now lives in Philadelphia. Quite a few Brits married Americans through TWI and now live there also.
Now that status applies to all US states. No individual state may determine its own immigration laws. So even if you have some states which accept gay marriages or civil partnerships and some which do not, there are still other implications that need to be resolved. International gay relationships have long been a problem all over the world. These are being resolved in countries which have allowed civil gay marriages but, failing a federal solution in the US is still going to lead to problems there.
As Lincoln said you cannot have a country that can work properly being half slave and half free. There are some things that have to have wider implications beyond the preferences of individual states.
Every so often things that have been in tension have to be resolved. It's not always a painless process because states may take different views.
In the nineteenth century is was slavery. In the 20th it was civil rights and possibly in the 21st century it is gay marriage and equal civil rights. This is not making an argument so much as stating a possibility based upon what has happened in the past.
We will have to see.
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
-
Long Gone:
quote:
You've got it backwards. I'm more than willing to consider almost any proposal. The onus is on you (or those advocating change) to show good reason to legally formalize and recognize same-sex partnerships as marriages. You haven't.
If you cannot accept that people regard it as a legitimate civil right that will end the current discrimination I don't see how we can progress to a concensus. In a free society, the rule of thumb is that things should be allowed unless there is a pressing reason why they should not be allowed. It is not whether a part of society agrees or disagrees. Nobody is forced to be a carnivore or a vegetarian, to drink or not to drink alcohol, to vote or not to vote. People are able to make choices the option for either is available.
Heteros can choose to marry or not to marry, gays are denied that option and to claim that it is because they can marry a member of the opposite sex is a non sequitur.
Laleos points regarding marrying non humans is equally a non sequitur. Further is it an argument ad adsurdam. No matter what arrangements humans may choose to make and there can be very complex arrangments, marriage requires a level playing field definition. If the state wishes to define it a one plus one at any given time then it is only discriminatory if if it states that only a certain one plus one human combination is allowed. Animals are incapable of making informed moral choices, they cannot make promises and say "I do". Animals are not citizens, they cannot vote or pay taxes and they are not the same flesh.
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
-
Calling it crap does not lessen the possiblity that power has something to do with it. I did not write the piece but there is certainly an element of power when it comes to religious leadership, it was not limited to the leadership of TWI.
Well if you cannot accept fairness and equality as a crucuial issue and fall back upon tradition as the last word upon any subject I cannot see how to progress with you. You either accept that it is a reasonable proposition or you do not - enough arguments have been made that should show that tradition needs to be questioned.
If VPW ever said a true word it was "a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."
I will argue that unless you can show a good reason to the contrary then you should consider the possibility of allowing it. Traditional marriage and families will not collapse, the sky has not fallen in those countries that now allow same sex marriage and heterosexual marriage in those countries carries on as it did before.
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
-
Another interesting take upon gay marriage that I found:
quote:
==========Defend and protect
gay civil marriage and
gay religious wedding
--> gay genealogy
==========
Dear friends:
Undoubtedly, a cultural war is taking place in our midst. It is being
waged from the long corridors of power, from the secret backroom
meetings of palatial establishments, from the civil goverment of the
White House and from the religious government of the Vatican.
It is a series of battles that have intensified in recent years,
especially in Christian countries, as nations like the Netherlands
and Belgium and Canada are already granting equal marriage rights to
same-sex couples, and as numerous states in the European Union (like
the provinces of Spain) and in the United States (like Vermont and
Massachusetts) are poised to grant similar legal recognition.
The so-called conservatives (such as civil president George W. Bush
in the USA and religious pope Karol Wojtyla [John Paul II] in the
Roman Catholic church) are mustering the forces of bigotry and
discrimination, waging bellicose calls to fight against glbti people,
and thereby fully displaying publicly their unrelenting and nasty
homophobic and homodious attitudes that still persist privately in
their minds and hearts and souls.
Theirs is a campaign based on fear and hate, in order to maintain
their positions of power, used abusively and inappropriately. They
claim to speak on behalf of socio-cultural and religious-spiritual
civilization, but in reality they are intent on diminishing and
marginalizing what profoundly matters in the real lives of glbti
people, not just Americans and not just Roman Catholics, but all
glbti people in the whole world.
But now, even some conservatives (pundits and elected politicians, as
well as ministers, priests, rabbis, imams) are breaking rank, calling
loudly for same-sex marriage, which would actually strengthen this
matrimonial institution (until now heterosexual only) and our
societies as well.
Why is gay marriage such a crucial issue? Why should those in civil
governments and religious institutions concern themselves with the
most private aspects that can occur between two persons in private,
in their most intimate sexual and affectional relationships?
By recognizing same-sex marriage, this not only legitimizes but also
clearly defends and protects the parity of love that can and already
does exit between two persons, no matter what their sexual morphology
(physical, biological, genetic) or their sexual orientation
(psychological, interpersonal, behavioral). This is indeed a
revolutionary consciousness that is rapidly spreading world-wide, a
sociological and spiritual phenomenon that is quickly gaining
momentum and increasing support everywhere.
Gay marriage does NOT change the very foundation of our societies,
because like heterosexual marriage it is based on tender loving
kindness, the most exquisite of human emotions and yearnings. Verily,
love is the essential "cement" that binds any two persons, the basis
of the family, which is the smallest social-spiritual union that can
exist and upon which are comprised the larger human unions --
associations and communities and even nations and churches, and the
entire global village itself.
Defending and protecting marriage, for any two persons, therefore
expands the definition of the smallest to the largest components of
our civil and religious entities, from the couple as family to the
entire human race as family. It fully recognizes the unique freedoms
that are inalienable to the individual, to the pursuit of happiness
(in civil parlance) to the supremacy of conscience (in religious
parlance) -- to behold the person with rights and responsibilities,
as well as with benefits and protections, individually and within the
context of a couple.
The basic vital civil records that are kept include birth, marriage
and death certificates -- sometimes curiously referred to as the
hatch, match and dispatch documents. Similarly, religious
institutions oftentimes include the spiritual versions of these civil
records, in parish records that document baptism, wedding and funeral
ceremonies. Baptism is the spiritual birth, wedding is the spiritual
marriage, and funeral is the spiritual death.
These documents, civil and ecclesial, represent the basic elements
for family historians and genealogical researchers. An individual
does not choose one's birth or death intentionally (unless parents
opt for a C-section or induced labor for birthing their child; and
unless an individual decides to die, by one's own hand or
purposefully, as in suicide or in a war action) -- but generally
speaking, an individual along with another individual choose
conscientiously their civil marriage and their ecclesial wedding.
This represents possibly the most important decision that any person
might make in one's life, in conjunction with another person.
To defend and protect this fundamental human pact, as exemplified by
the public recognition of a private matter, is where the civil
marriage and the ecclesial wedding come into play, politically and
spiritually.
Therefore, defending and protecting glbti Catholics, in regard to the
matter of gay marriage/gay wedding, represents the prime event of our
volitional lives, truly the central aspect of our mutual lives,
dedicating ourselves to each other, privately yes and publicly yes,
as epitomized in the socially recognized institutions of civil
marriage and of ecclesial wedding.
The city hall marriage and the church wedding are thus two sides of
the same coin; the officiant may be a civil justice of the peace or a
religious minister, priest, rabbi or imam (etc.), registered by the
state to sign the marriage certificate and recognized by the church
or synagogue or temple or mosque (etc.) to sign the wedding
certificate.
As civil gay marriages and religious gay weddings are increasingly
recognized, this central life event - the bonding of two individuals
into a couple, into a family, where children might or might not be
included - takes on greater significance and meaning to glbti persons
and to the glbti community, as well as to couples at-large and to
society at-large.
By expanding the definition of marriage and wedding to include glbti
people, the era of gay genealogy is being inaugerated. Decades and
centuries from now, family historians and genealogical researchers
will be able to examine these documents - civil gay marriages and
religious gay weddings - and undoubtedly will be able to trace how
these couples and families (and their children) developed and
proceded through many generations.
We must defend and protect gay marriage/wedding institutionally,
equally alongside heterosexual marriage/wedding, not just for our
mutual sake as glbti/straight individuals and couples, but also for
the mutual sake of our already actual (and yet potential) children as
well as of our mutual future progeny.
For this, let us fervently pray and let us make it so by our
purposeful actions,
--- Sal
Gay geneology should be of interest to the Mormons at least!
:D-->Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
-
dmiller:
It's interesting that this should be the case.
Anybody applying for US citizenship has to take a test on such matters. My cousin in Philly had to learn this stuff and be able to answer questions about it - also on US History.
And yet native born citizens do not and I wonder how deeply it is covered in schools?
It's like somebody visiting a city often knows more about the facilities and attractions than somebody living there!
Even here we learn stuff about the USA even though it's not directly applicable to us.
It can be easy to mix up what is in the Declaration of Independance, the Constitution itself and the Bill of Rights. People may well remember a phrase but cannot remember where it is.
I can remember the phrase (off the top of my head):
"Congress shall not enact any law regarding the free exercise of religon or the establishment thereof"...
Now it might not be word perfect and I cannot cite whether it is in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, but I think that is the phrase people are thinking of when they say "separation of church and state."
But I'm a Brit and therefore have an excuse
:D-->Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
-
laleo:
quote:
You told Zixar that "homosexuals do NOT have to prove their right to exist to you or anybody else," as if a "right to exist" was ever in question. If Zixar is questioning your "right to exist" as you say he is, then what is he, if not a "gay-basher"?
Not at all. Zix has consistently demanded a reason that justifies homosexuality to him and no argument that I made appeared to satisfy him. I don't think for one moment that Zix means that gays do not have the right to exist as human beings!
It was in that sense that I said what I said, to question the need to justify to an individual our lives, feelings, aspirations to equality etc.
I lose count of the people who come up with the same old chestnut that it is fair because I can marry a woman like any other man can. When the object of one's love (as opposed to one's lust) is a man it hardly solves the problem and indeed creates others.
The claim was made that marriage was there for the protection and the dignity of the woman. I merely pointed out that this was not always the case. Many women had no choice - they could not work, their families arranged it etc.
You cannot have "family stability" without children. A man and a woman without children are a couple, not a family. Yet there are gay couples, on the other hand, who do produce families one way or another, by adoption or other means. They raise the children as decent citizens, there is no indication that this influences the development of their sexuality, just as being part of a family does not prevent gay people from being gay.
As to this hostility and jealousy towards women - not at all. This case is on behalf of Lesbians as well as gay men. Mysogyny was for centuries practiced by (presumeably) heterosexual men - goods, chattels, temptresses like Eve, cannot vote etc. It was once even questioned whether or not a woman had a soul! Gay men on the other hand often have close female friends and lesbians close male ones. The only difference is the sexual attraction is not there.
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
-
I found this in one of my newsgroups and thought it pertinent to share. I am not asking people to agree or disagree - I didn't write it, but I think is gives an interesting take upon the proposed amendment to the US Constitution:
quote:
The Gay Marriage Paradox: Why Americans won't tolerate a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriageBy Alan Wolfe
Most Americans oppose gay marriage -- polls generally suggest somewhere around 60 percent say they don't agree with extending marriage to homosexual couples. But most Americans -- to roughly the same extent -- oppose amending the Constitution to make gay marriage impossible. A January ABCNew/Washington Post poll put it at 58 percent.
What gives? The numbers suggest that the issue touches Americans in significant ways. Marriage involves love, sex, children, intimacy, and care -- all things Americans experience personally (unlike, say, tariffs), and about which they develop strong opinions. True, gay couples share these experiences; they can adopt (or, given the wonders of modern science, have) children, just as it is true that heterosexual couples can be childless. But try explaining that to someone who believes (and the majority of Americans seem to) that the mystery of sexuality was created by a God who believed that children should be brought into the world through an act of passion by a man and a woman deeply in love.
If they do not like the idea of gay marriage, why are so many Americans so resistant to amending the Constitution to prevent it? The Bible, that same believer will insist, was written by God, but no one claims He wrote the Constitution. While it has assumed an Scripture-like reverence, the Constitution is a political document written by real people in human time. It outlines a perfectly usable, if difficult to realize, process for its own amendment, and it has been amended from time to time on matters as morally serious as slavery. Surely, if we can change it to prohibit drinking alcohol, we should be able to change it to prohibit something people consider even more sinful. So why don't we?
One interpretation of the paradox is that opposition to gay marriage, while broadly shared, is not very deep. The president of the United States appears to buys this interpretation. If a politician wants to signal opposition to something while letting his or her inside-the-beltway audience know the opposition shouldn't be taken literally, the politician calls for a constitutional amendment. Out there in the sticks, the theory goes, his followers say he must really care. In more sophisticated circles everyone knows that the process of actually passing a constitutional amendment is so cumbersome that no one will be called upon to do much about it until the controversy fades away.
In his recent State of the Union address, Mr. Bush took an even weaker route, suggesting a constitutional “process” -- as if he did not want to be pinned down to something as a specific as an amendment. The decision by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts that rejected civil unions as an alternative to gay marriage increases the pressure from the president's conservative Christian base to support an amendment, and he will almost certainly sharpen his language in response. But the fact that the majority of Americans are unenthusiastic about elevating this issue to constitutional status will likely sway him more.
But that's politics. What about what we believe? Americans are not avid readers of their Constitution. Many would have a hard time identifying the 14th Amendment as the one that ended slavery by guaranteeing no person should be deprived of due process of law. Yet this may be exactly why Americans do not want to see their opposition enshrined as a matter of constitutional permanence. In a way that doesn't require knowledge of constitutional theory, they see that a marriage amendment would add intolerant clauses to a document famous for its tolerance.
The Constitution is not only a text, it is a symbol; and all Americans, religious believers especially, appreciate the power of symbols. No one wants graffiti written on the Lincoln Monument; even the most zealous anti-gay marriage proponent might have second thoughts about changing a written monument so closely identified with Lincoln’s leadership. Like any sacred text, the Constitution is not really of this world. Marriage, children, and sex very much are. To blend the two is to mix the sacred and the profane in uneasy ways.
By coincidence, Americans are finding their feet on this issue at the start of a national election year. Increasingly the Republicans are perceived as the party willing to take risks, whether those involve the financial burdens of future generations, or the possibly higher costs of an Iraqi war. In such an environment, the Democrats have appeared as the more conservative party, calling for balanced budgets and overseas caution.
That same topsy-turvy dynamic can now be applied to cultural issues. The great irony of America’s puzzling attitudes toward gay marriage is that while they give the Republicans the opportunity to paint Democrats as out of sync with mainstream values, they also give Democrats the chance to paint Republicans as radicals willing to tamper with sacred things. If gay marriage becomes an issue in 2004--it is hard to imagine how it could not--it will be interesting to watch the traditionally liberal party speak as if the Constitution were untouchable while the traditionally more conservative one urges it be changed to keep up with the times.
Alan Wolfe is a professor at Boston College and author of, most recently, "The Transformation of American Religion: How We Actually Live Our Faith"
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
-
HAPe4me:
Thanks. I wondered if I had missed a few pages too!
:D-->When you put your head above the trenches you need a thick skin. Bit of a mixed metaphor there!
;)-->Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
-
This is such a difficult question to answer because few things are totally good or bad and we had experiences and met people etc that otherwise we would not have done.
It's much easier to reply to the question "Are you glad to be out of TWI?"
There is no doubt that our lives could well have taken different courses and we might not be where we are now.
But thinking of what might have been is always speculation.
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
-
Two years ago I lost a cat I had owned for 19 years also.
His name was Watsit, a tabby I had from a little kitten. He loved to cuddle in the crook of my arm when I was lying on the sofa.
One day he went out and never came back. Despite an extensive search I never found his body. I was later told that this is not at all unusual, that they know they are doing and find somewhere hidden to die.
I still miss him.
Unlike TWI, I believe that love can never die.
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
-
HAPe4me:
Yes, I just noticed Zix's post and was wondering that myself! I have tried not to get ad hominem and to attack viewpoints, not people.
I would appreciate Zix quoting where I called him a gay basher...
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Same sex marriage-Massachusetts
in The Birds and the Bees
Posted
From "Mark" in the "matthewshepperd" yahoo group.
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"