Dispatches from the Creation Wars

This needs to be widely distributed. A rare show of good sense and logical thinking. I hope more videos on controversial topics bringing this cool and composed display of facts over rhetoric are in the offing.

Posted by: Gary Roibnson | April 20, 2009 9:33 AM

This is a fantastic video! I support religious freedom and gay marriage and yet I learned a great deal about these issues that I did not know before.

Posted by: Madison homes for sale | April 20, 2009 10:20 AM

Excellent video. Unfortunately, it ignores the fact that all these arguments are just code phrases for, "Ewwwwwww." People are going to hate gays or they won't. A five minute video about why they're wrong isn't going to change much.

Posted by: Brandon | April 20, 2009 10:30 AM

I'm glad to see that he brought up the religious freedom of gay-friendly churches such as the MCC. Maybe I've missed it, but this seems to be a crucial argument that's being underused. Or maybe those churches are simply being overlooked because they're not "real" Christians.

Posted by: WikipediaBrown | April 20, 2009 10:38 AM

I've said this before.

Clergymen of conservative religions refuse to marry people all the time.

For example, would an Orthodox rabbi marry a Muslim to a Catholic? I rather doubt it.

or...

Would a Catholic priest marry a Buddhist to a Methodist? Not unless they both were converting to Catholicism as well.

How would one formulate a law to force clergymen to perform such marriages without violating the establishment clause?

Posted by: Jim Ramsey | April 20, 2009 11:17 AM

HA! What a great vid. Maybe Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Myers will pick it up and spread it through teh interwebz.

Posted by: Julian | April 20, 2009 12:06 PM

This photographer, anyone got details on that? Did the photographer agree to photograph the couple, then pull out when he found out it was a gay couple? If so, would that be a breach of contract?

DJ, IIRC, the photographer was a woman who was approached by a lesbian couple to photograph their commitment ceremony. The photographer refused on the grounds it was against her religion to "promote" homosexuality, or something like that. There was no breach of contract, because the photog had never agreed to the job, but the state law banning discrimination in public accommodations was broad enough even to cover independent contractors like the photographer (I don't think all state laws are as broad, but I may be mistaken).

In the reports of the case I have read, the specific manner in which the photographer declined the job was not revealed, but I have a feeling she got sanctimonious about her refusal. Had she just claimed a prior engagement, nothing could have been done; likewise she could have gently declined, saying something like "I may not be the best person for the job because my personal beliefs..." rather than "you dirty lesbians..." - that sort of thing.

When people have expressed concern about the broadness of this law and the fine imposed, I always ask them to replace lesbian with Jewish to see if they still agree.

Posted by: CPT_Doom | April 20, 2009 4:02 PM

Here's another good one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9VoXfuWtdA

Posted by: Gordon S | April 20, 2009 5:15 PM

People really don't think very coherently about the whole topic of marriage -- in particular, they seem not to understand that there is more than one aspect to this ceremony (and this video, though generally on the mark, does little to dispell the confusion). There is the religious aspect, which has whatever spiritual significance their tradition gives it, and is administered by the religious institution they are members of (and which can place whatever arbitrary rules and caveats it likes on it, such as: can't ever get divorced, no previous marriages, only straight couples of our faith are eligible, no interracial couples, everyone has to be naked, whatever, etc....). Then there is the legal aspect, which is administered by the civil government, and basically amounts to signing a few papers.

There is an argument to be made that we should remove from clergy the authority to enact the civil contract altogether -- churches/synagogues/mosques/temples can hold whatever commitment rites they wish, but they would have no legal force (just as baptisms, confirmations, funerals etc. have none). If you want a legally-recognized partnership, then you also go to City Hall and sign the papers (which most people have to do anyway, to get a marriage license).

There would be an outcry -- but it would solve the problem.

Posted by: Eamon Knight | April 20, 2009 8:34 PM

There is an argument to be made that we should remove from clergy the authority to enact the civil contract altogether

That would solve the problem, yeah, but it would never pass. Then the gays would literally be taking the church's marriages away. Or something, I dunno.

Posted by: Brandon | April 21, 2009 1:27 AM

Cheers all for the info. - DJ
"Neutral laws, the are ordinarily applied, do not generally violate the 1st or 14th Amendment, even though they may hamper a religion or belief system."

Posted by: DingoJack | April 21, 2009 9:02 AM

That would solve the problem, yeah, but it would never pass. Then the gays would literally be taking the church's marriages away. Or something, I dunno.

I didn't say it was politically practical ;-). But the objection you suggest rests precisely on the confusion I pointed out. When I got married (29 years ago this week) I was still deep in my fundamentalist period, but I had no trouble seeing this distinction (as a general principle -- gay marriage wasn't even on the radar yet). So I'm annoyed that

The irony here is that, by insisting that the secular legal definition of marriage somehow impacts the religious significance, the opponents are implicitly ceding to the government the power to do their theology for them. Is that really a position they want to take? (One obvious answer is, Yes -- and they want the government to be run by like-minded folks, according to their rules).

Posted by: Eamon Knight | April 21, 2009 11:01 AM

The videographer also blogs, at Waking Up Now.

Posted by: Liz Ditz | April 21, 2009 6:47 PM

its not discrimination, its our religion.
in the bible it tells you that being gay in the first place is not natural, and it is not right.
now by accomidating them by marriage, THAT would be hypocrisy.
its as simple as that.
i support love, i believe if anyone is lucky enough to find true love there should be no restrictions what so ever...
but theyre is no difference in being together for the rest of your life and marriage EXCEPT a religious promise, but by being gay, your breaking that promise to God himself already.

Posted by: erin | May 30, 2009 11:30 PM

Erin - Yes and the bible says that eating shellfish, wearing blended clothing and trimming ones hair and beard is an abomination too. It says picking up sticks on a Saturday, adultery (even if it's rape), and many other thing besides, are capital offenses. It says that murder is one of the top ten 'no-noes', at the same time it has your god encouraging and abetting in genocide and mass rape.
The bible says lots of stuff. It's an Iron Age set of myths and legends, badly written, badly translated and badly edited, over the last 26 (or so) centuries.
Guess what? Societies change, grow & develop. Adhering to rules suitable for an Judean Iron Age Society doesn't work in the 21st Century America (or any where else, even the Taliban controlled Northern Afghanistan).
I wouldn't pay too much attention to the bible does or doesn't say.
"i support love, i believe if anyone is lucky enough to find true love there should be no restrictions what so ever..." Which is a great argument for allowing marriage for all people. If they love each other who are we to gainsay that?
"but [there] is no difference in being together for the rest of your life and marriage EXCEPT a religious promise, but by being gay, your breaking that promise to God himself already." Actually a marriage is not a primarily a religious function. You can have any kind of ceremony you want, if you wish (or none at all), it's the signing of the marriage certificate that makes you married. Marriage is a CIVIL function, conferring benefits (and responsibilities) on each of the parties involved. This is exactly what homosexuals want, 'equality under the law'. Why shouldn't they be treated just like you or me, like human beings? - DJ
PS: I never promised god anything, and I am not responsible for promises that Iron Age Judean Goat-herders made to their imaginary friend 2600 years ago. I was not party to any such agreement (if such an agreement was made and there is no solid evidence of that), and to expect such a promise to be kept would be immoral, illegal and unfair.

Posted by: DingoJack | May 31, 2009 3:56 AM