Up Front: Are We There Yet?
777 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 11 12 13 14 15 … 32 Newer→ Last
-
protected religious groups from participating
AKA: given them an excuse to be bigots.
-
But Mrs Skin quoted Tess in order to say "Disagree" and I'm agreeing with Mrs Skin on that.
Mrs Skin's disagreement was directed at the notion Tess had just put forth. So she was referring to Tess, and Giovanni was saying 'not sure that it’s what Tess is saying” in response to that. (It wasn’t a reference to the 'someone' in: “As someone noted upthread…” if that’s what got you confused.)
Does the state give such a preference? It looks to me that marriage so defined and civil unions providing the same rights and opportunities are there as options, with no formal preference for either.
The state gives two choices for formal state recognition to ‘two sex’ couples, but only one to same sex couples. If anything I understated it: the state doesn’t just give a preference to “marriage with a two-sexed essence”, it actually doesn’t allow for any other kind. The state shouldn’t discriminate. However, I’m okay with the idea that the state cease this discrimination by dropping any recognition of any particular form of marriage; or as Tess put it, not defining marriage for anyone; or as Giovanni put it, “stripping [marriage] of its legalistic definitions and making it a wholly cultural construct”.
By the way, if you agree with that post by Giovanni, I don’t see how you can also continue to agree with Mrs Skin on that issue.
-
I see the New Hampshire House just voted against the latest bill that would have made same sex marriage legal because of the Governor's amendment that would have protected religious groups from participating in same sex marriage ceremonies.
Well, I've got to go and record my PAR piece but I'm going to have to have a look at that the Governor's amendment actually said -- devil in the details and all that. But on the face of it, since I've never argued that the state should (or even could) force religious groups to do any such thing I wouldn't be opposed. But I sure can understand why folks would be extremely suspicious of Governor Lynch.
-
Giovanni:
I know... It's disgusting. Likewise the Irish Magdalene laundries.
My grandfather was a bit of a wild youth. His teacher, a nun, was horribly brutal and would beat the children with a leather strap. On his last day of school he and the other boys leaving tied her up and made her watch them cut her strap into tiny pieces and washed them down a drain. Then they locked her in the school cupboards.
-
AKA: given them an excuse to be bigots.
That's right. People should have the liberty to hold beliefs, even beliefs that some people find abhorrent.
Just as clergy shouldn't be forced to marry two men, and that's not just Catholic clergy, the other traditional faiths aren't hot on same sex marriage either unless you're talking about a reform portion of them, eg. reform Judaism, likewise traditional religious beliefs should not impede a same sex couple having legal protections.
You don't have to like what I believe, but you have to allow me the freedom to follow my faith, providing I'm not affecting yours.
-
It's a bit like chemists refusing to sell contraception though, isn't it? If you're clergy and you refuse to marry two of the faithful because of the number of penises in the partnership, you *are* affecting that person's life by 'following your faith'. Craig's a Catholic, and he wants to marry his partner. Is he somehow less of a Catholic because of this two-penis partnership? (Sorry to use you as an example, Craig, since I don't think you agree with me, but you happened to be handy. Heh.)
-
Quite.
I'm sometimes willing to allow for people to be bigots on their own terms. I don't want the state telling any particular church, or any other group, that they have to perform same sex marriages. I just want the state to marry same sex couples if it's going to be in the business of marriage - or alternatively, get out of the business of "marriage" altogether.
And I agree with Craig.
What's wrong with me - I keep agreeing with Catholics! I need a beer.
-
My comment above directed at Tess's
-
You don't have to like what I believe, but you have to allow me the freedom to follow my faith, providing I'm not affecting yours.
Naturally, except that it's a faith tied to an institution with a long history of repression, racketeering (selling indulgences, attempting to monopolise the institution of marriage), and outright abuse. That said, it's obvious to all but the two most recent popes that the church is far from being a monolithic institution. Expressing disgust at revealed cases of abuse years after the fact does come across as hollow cant when it's accompanied by apologies for the lack of action by reactionary popes.
-
I don't want the state telling any particular church, or any other group, that they have to perform same sex marriages.
But the state tells all sorts of groups that they're not allowed to discriminate on the basis of all kinds of things. Why should churches be exempt?
(I'm actually not sure what I think on this point, TBT, because there might be a perfectly good reason why churches should be exempt. I'm just throwing that out there.)
-
I'm actually not sure what I think on this point, TBT, because there might be a perfectly good reason why churches should be exempt.
So long as churches are empowered to perform a legal function - joining people in matrimony - you could argue that they should not be allowed to discriminate, and that if the state promulgates marriage equality then they'll need to start joining gay couples or else lose their licence, as it were. If there's anything to to gain for gay couples in getting married by the begrudging minister of a profoundly homophobic religion, I'm not so sure.
-
It's a bit like chemists refusing to sell contraception though, isn't it?
No, a chemist has professional obligations to the welfare of society from a health perspective.
If you're clergy and you refuse to marry two of the faithful because of the number of penises in the partnership, you *are* affecting that person's life by 'following your faith'.
Yeah, but if you refuse to get married to someone because they have/do not have a penis, or for any other reason, you are affecting their life - that doesn't obligate you to marry him/her.No one's forcing your faithful to be a member of the church. And if he's faithful, isn't he faithful to the church and what it believes? (And yes I realise when you are a member of a large organisation it's possible to want to continue membership while disagreeing with this or that particular; but surely "agree to disagree" apoplies in those cases, and life goes on.)
-
Well, I liked getting married despite accepting the institution as an Original Gangsta Misogynist Tool of the Patriarchy, so you never know.
-
I just loved the line from Reverend Garvey
that reading the report's "presentation of the history of our institutions, it is hard to avoid feeling shame"
Of course he managed to avoid feeling shame because he's just that kind of man, right?
Sometimes you just despair and lose all hope that there are any civilised people :(.
-
But the state tells all sorts of groups that they're not allowed to discriminate on the basis of all kinds of things. Why should churches be exempt?
I don't think the state should tell groups willy nilly what they can and can't do. The onus is on the person suggesting the intrusion (of the state into the group's affairs) to justify that intrusion (like Giovanni may have, see below). I think it can be justified in some cases (employment), but not assumed in all. Individuals are free to be bigots if they want, and free to associate with whom they want. If you want to join an organisation with weird ideas, go for it. Frankly, why would you want to join an organisation that had weird, bigoted ideas, and then change it? What's the point?
So long as churches are empowered to perform a legal function - joining people in matrimony - you could argue that they should not be allowed to discriminate, and that if the state promulgates marriage equality then they'll need to start joining gay couples or else lose their licence, as it were.
Good point. A further case for getting the government out of the marriage business, perhaps.
-
Frankly, why would you want to join an organisation that had weird, bigoted ideas, and then change it? What's the point?
That's why I'm not a Catholic. :)
-
So long as churches are empowered to perform a legal function - joining people in matrimony - you could argue that they should not be allowed to discriminate, and that if the state promulgates marriage equality then they'll need to start joining gay couples or else lose their licence, as it were.
I think I'd be happy with allowing sectors of society to refuse to marry certain people, as long as they do it politely, and as long as there are public celebrants who have to reasonably accept 'all-comers'.
But then I guess I'd be entirely unhappy if a restaurant refused to do a wedding reception on the basis that the couple were same-sex, so I suspect I need to think that through more.
-
Steve - let's pass on the confusion. I agree especially with the first 2/3rds of Giovanni's
Here's the thing, though: homophobia and misoginy are two of the very cornerstones of this cultural tradition, and marriage is historically steeped in both of them. So why would gay people (or women, for that matter) want to participate in marriage, instead of kicking it while it's down, is a source of genuine personal puzzlement. But so long as they do want to reclaim it, I think that the idea of stripping it of its legalistic definitions and making it a wholly cultural construct has some merit.
and also with the latter third, that that proposal has some merit, but there would be implementation difficulties in achieving majority support and think leaving marriage having a legal basis is more realistic.
I suggest marginalising the bigots is politically important, rather than pumping oxygen into their fantasy that the availability of the civil union option for all will destroy marriage and society. And that Emma's post on the more advanced evolution of language in Britain around essentially the same laws points the way things may go in NZ soonish.
-
The more I think about what I wrote earlier, the less comfortable I am with it. In fact, I am forming the opinion that giovanni tiso at 11:43 deep down is actually a bigot. I'd like to distance myself from this unsavoury character.
Because several people in this thread have made the back of the bus comparison, and it can be a useful way of thinking about it. In particular: saying that maybe there's nothing to be gained in making the church uncomfortably and begrudgingly marry gay people might in fact be tantamount to saying that there was no point de-segregating schools in the American South, since black students would be discriminated against anyhow.
So I'm coming around to yes, let's have gay marriage in the churches, by golly.
-
but you have to allow me the freedom to follow my faith, providing I'm not affecting yours.
Not 'yours', 'you'. Provided I'm not affecting you . It's a nitpick, but a really important one. I'm not my religion, and that's a line that applies to atheists as well.
Here's the line. If Catholic priests want to refuse to marry gay people as part of the practice of their religion, the state shouldn't stop them. And if I want to go naked as part of the practice of my religion, the state shouldn't stop me. And if a Rastafarian wants to smoke marijuana as part of the practice of their religion, ditto. But if someone felt they needed to assault Maori as part of the practice of their religion, that's not okay, because you can't possibly do that without impinging on someone else.
But. If a church wants to be an employer, or run adoption agencies, or run hospitals, they MUST comply with all state laws in that area, including human rights law.
(All of this, btw, is amusingly compliant with the entirety of Wiccan doctrine, which is eight words long.)
-
Tess: the amendments the New hampshire House rejected weren't just about performing marriage ceremonies, but about the wider provision of goods and services related to marriages or the promotion of marriages. Including - and this was mentioned explicitly - housing. In other words, a broad based "except for married fags" exemption to state anti-discrimination law.
That's just wrong. you can stand on your faith if you don't want to marry people (and they'd be pretty odd people if they wanted to marry someone who didn't want to marry them) - but you can't hide behind it for ordinary, everyday bigotry in refusing to sell them something. If you participate in the market, you do so equally. if you can't stomach that, you don't offer the service. EOFS.
-
I'd be unhappy at the restaurant in Kyle's example, but I still see it as their decision. Although it's not a restaurant I'd ever go to again (under that management).
-
I'd be unhappy at the restaurant in Kyle's example, but I still see it as their decision.
Hm. If you're a bigot, can you still hang a sign in a shop window saying 'no blacks, no dogs, no Irish' without legal repercussions?
I don't know, for IANAL.
-
Here's the line. If Catholic priests want to refuse to marry gay people as part of the practice of their religion, the state shouldn't stop them. And if I want to go naked as part of the practice of my religion, the state shouldn't stop me. And if a Rastafarian wants to smoke marijuana as part of the practice of their religion, ditto. But if someone felt they needed to assault Maori as part of the practice of their religion, that's not okay, because you can't possibly do that without impinging on someone else.
But. If a church wants to be an employer, or run adoption agencies, or run hospitals, they MUST comply with all state laws in that area, including human rights law.
Amen.
-
So long as churches are empowered to perform a legal function - joining people in matrimony - you could argue that they should not be allowed to discriminate
And legally, in NZ, they're not. Quite apart from the ordinary provision of goods and services clauses in the Human Rights Act (muddied by the question of whether the couple are employing the celebrant or whether the celebrant is providing a service), marriage celebrants are performing a public function. And that means the BORA applies, which in turn rules out discrimination (oh, and that's not just discrimination against gays - its also religion. So Catholic priests cannot legally refuse to marry non-Catholics).
Post your response…
This topic is closed.