…and this is a 
New Hampshire is working on legalizing gay marriage, and has a bill pending…unfortunately, it is being compromised.
The new version, which is expected to come up for a vote Wednesday, adds a sentence specifying that all religious organizations, associations or societies have exclusive control over their religious doctrines, policies, teachings and beliefs on marriage. It also clarifies that church-related organizations that serve charitable or educational purposes are exempt from having to provide insurance and other benefits to same sex spouses of employees.
Lovely. The first part is fair — I don't think churches should be compelled to endorse gay marriage — but the last part is odious. It's basically a loophole that says religious groups can be as bigoted as they want to be. In another decade or so, when gay civil rights are accepted as matter-of-fact and we look back on these years with the same disbelief and disgust that we look back on the days of racial segregation in the 50s now, remember that religion actively lobbied for the right to cling to discrimination and the denial of civil rights to a segment of society.
Comments
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 30, 2009 1:50 PM
how very Christian of them
Posted by: Sock | May 30, 2009 1:50 PM
I don't think any of us will forget, and what delicious ammo it will be to use against religion on that day.
Posted by: Rowan | May 30, 2009 1:55 PM
I think I startled my neighbors when I exclaimed "WHAT!!!" very loudly after reading the last sentence of the quoted paragraph.
I can only shake my head in disbelief.
Posted by: Alex Deam
|
May 30, 2009 1:58 PM
We won't forget PZ, but you know everyone else will conveniently misremember how these times played out.
Posted by: Joe
|
May 30, 2009 2:03 PM
"...with the same disbelief and disgust that we look back on the days of racial segregation in the 50s now, remember that religion actively lobbied for the right to cling to discrimination and the denial of civil rights to a segment of society."
The Bible has been used to justify segregation, racism, and bigotry since it came out. Religion was used to JUSTIFY slaver, not to call for its abolition. Slavemasters were glad to read from the bible to their slaves: "See, it says here that I can own humans".
And don't forget the religiously driven notion of "Christianizing" "lower races".
Posted by: Becca Stareyes
|
May 30, 2009 2:04 PM
So, does that mean if my spouse or kids (de)convert -- or, heaven forbid! I marry outside my religion -- my church-based employer is also allowed to not pay for their insurance?
I mean, I really don't care if they want to decide the only marriages that are spiritually valid are for people born under the same sun sing and who have changed their names so that both have the same first initial -- that's their business. I just question why they should be allowed to deny their employees benefits when secular employers would be in court faster than you can say 'lawsuit'. Especially when they have to pay benefits to any other spouse or child, regardless of how they feel about that person.
(I suppose it's better than nothing, but doesn't mean I have to like it.)
Posted by: FishyFred | May 30, 2009 2:09 PM
Let them discriminate. They'll just look worse by comparison. They'll hang themselves with their own doctrines.
Posted by: Míl Espáine | May 30, 2009 2:10 PM
Polish your seer stone Joe Smith cuz' it ain't workin.'
Posted by: Anon | May 30, 2009 2:12 PM
Here in NH, the Governor runs for re-election every two years. As such, everything is short-term politics. In this case, he had made a (stupid) statement saying that he thought marriage should be between a man and a woman, and even in his reconsideration (which is the right thing for him to do), he is stuck being seen as breaking a promise. This compromise is better than nothing, but damn.
Worse, the local news keeps referring to the changes as "respecting religious tolerance" or some such. No, it is kowtowing to religious INtolerance. I certainly hope that the laws already on the books are sufficient to force the religious organizations, when they are using public funds or tax breaks, to give their services to any and all.
Posted by: Kobra | May 30, 2009 2:12 PM
Wow. And here I thought NH had a lot going for it, what with its high atheist population and nondiscriminatory nature and all. Guess I was wrong.
Posted by: FishyFred | May 30, 2009 2:13 PM
Oh, and one more thing: This isn't entirely surprising for New Hampshire. The state has a big libertarian streak. They don't even require people to wear seat belts.
I don't mean that as a knock on New Hampshire. I mean that this bill might not pass without the maximum amount of libertarian thought attached to it.
Posted by: Newfie | May 30, 2009 2:20 PM
I agree with Fred @ #7.
It's giving them the rope to hang themselves with, which they will.
Posted by: Alex Deam
|
May 30, 2009 2:22 PM
Would you say that to all discrimination?
Yeah, why not let the white power groups discriminate. They'll look worse by comparison.
Fuck that. How about just banning discrimination like a government is supposed too? I agree with PZ. The second sentence is vile.
Posted by: kyoseki | May 30, 2009 2:22 PM
Anything that illustrates the bigotry inherent in religion is fine by me.
The more special cases that religion demands the more people will call it on it's bullshit.
Posted by: CalGeorge | May 30, 2009 2:25 PM
"It also clarifies that church-related organizations that serve charitable or educational purposes are exempt from having to provide insurance and other benefits to same sex spouses of employees."
Sotomayor would no doubt approve.
Posted by: Míl Espáine | May 30, 2009 2:27 PM
That's not the proper role of government, dumb ass.
BIGOT, n.
One who is obstinately and zealously attached to an opinion that you do not entertain.
Posted by: Erp | May 30, 2009 2:27 PM
Actually churches are exempt from a lot of rules which many people being laid off are finding out (many don't pay into the unemployment benefit pool so their employees aren't eligible).
In New Hampshire at least the Episcopal Church will likely provide benefits to SS partners. Its bishop is in a civil union himself.
Posted by: Dan | May 30, 2009 2:33 PM
I don't understand why the second sentence is necessary in the first place. Presumably a religious institution which is "morally" opposed to financially supporting homosexuals wouldn't employ them in the first place. (Unless they're required not to discriminate in their hiring practices - are they?)
Posted by: FishyFred | May 30, 2009 2:36 PM
@Dan #18
I think they are exempt. I forget where I got this impression. I think there was a significant court case about it, but I can't remember it.
Posted by: NoGurus | May 30, 2009 2:41 PM
And one day, as Thomas Jefferson said so eloquently, we will look at Christianity the same way we look at Greek mythology today, and wonder how in the world could people have held such dubious beliefs.
Posted by: Míl Espáine | May 30, 2009 2:43 PM
Uh-huh. Whatever you say, Miss Cleo.
Posted by: amphiox | May 30, 2009 2:47 PM
I wonder how much real world effect this exemption would have if it became reality. Possibly not all religious organizations would use it. Of those that do, how many employees with same-sex partners are they likely to have?
And if the benefits exempted are still paid by a third party, such as the state, then there will be no harm, and the organizations opting for the exemption will be exposed as bigoted, greedy, or both.
The magnitude of real world impact is what would matter most for the "let them hang themselves" line of thought.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
May 30, 2009 2:52 PM
Christians used their bible to argue both sides, just as they do today, which simply demonstrates how useless it is as a guide to morality.
Posted by: Liam Clark | May 30, 2009 2:56 PM
The additional language is specifically designed to do nothing. It's purpose is to deflate the arguments claiming that permitting gay marriage would make it illegal for the churches to discriminate, which was false. Even without this additional language, the churches would still be allowed to discriminate in the same ways.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 30, 2009 2:56 PM
Oh, joy. Special rights for bigots.
Posted by: Rey Fox | May 30, 2009 2:58 PM
Well, all the better for forward-thinking individuals to abandon the crumbling, backwards religious institutions.
Posted by: Míl Espáine | May 30, 2009 2:58 PM
Hey, Jeff, congrats on getting your worthless degree in sociology. Are you gonna work at MacDonalds or Burger King?
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 30, 2009 2:59 PM
Even without this additional language, the churches would still be allowed to discriminate in the same ways.
Not true. It provides a special exemption regarding the provision of spousal benefits for organizations like, say, St. Anselm College.
Posted by: Míl Espáine | May 30, 2009 3:02 PM
As well it should. Churches should not have to subsidize sodomy, even in the context of a pseudo-marriage.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
May 30, 2009 3:07 PM
It's the exploitation clause. They'll be able to hire desperate gay people in a bad economy and use them cheaply.
Oh, and Míl Espáine? I'm about to ban your bigoted slaggin' ass.
Posted by: Alex Deam
|
May 30, 2009 3:08 PM
Míl Espáine, n.
1. One who types consulting his Bible, and not his brain.
2. One who hasn't taken all his medicine.
Posted by: Alex Deam
|
May 30, 2009 3:13 PM
OH NOES PZ, HES FRETTENIN UZ!
Posted by: Matt Penfold | May 30, 2009 3:14 PM
I think you will find engaging in sexual activity when supposedly working is grounds for dismissal. Unless you happen to be a Catholic priest in which case buggering underdage boys seems to a job requirement.
What a nasty little bigot you are. What gives you the right to decide who is ok for someone to fall in love with ? Why should MAJeff be treated like a second class citizen simply becuase a group of people think it would upset their god to extend to him the same rights the rest of us have. (In reality of course their god has nothing to do with it. They use their god as an excuse to try and ban things they do not personally approve of).
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
May 30, 2009 3:15 PM
Next time some homophobe whines about gays getting "special rights", I'm going to point to this.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 30, 2009 3:19 PM
Why should MAJeff be treated like a second class citizen simply becuase a group of people think it would upset their god to extend to him the same rights the rest of us have.
Duh, silly. I'm not fully human.
Posted by: Jeanette
|
May 30, 2009 3:19 PM
Anymore, Christians remember those few Christians who used their religion as a reason to oppose slavery, not the fact that in regions where slavery was ordinarily practiced, Christianity was the norm and was used to justify slavery.
There are religious people, including Christians, who support gay rights. That's the only thing Christians will remember in the near future when gay rights are a given. They won't remember that religion was a powerful force that held back civilization, any more than they remember that now.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
May 30, 2009 3:20 PM
Hey now. That's over the top, Matt. The RCC neither requires nor encourages child rape. I'm sure that priests who are caught having sex with children are given a good, stern lecture before they're moved to another parish, beyond the reach of the law.
Posted by: Guy Incognito | May 30, 2009 3:22 PM
(In reality of course their god has nothing to do with it. They use their god as an excuse to try and ban things they do not personally approve of).
Half the damn time it seems they do personally approve of it, they just don't publicly approve of it.
Posted by: AliciaMae | May 30, 2009 3:22 PM
The conservative newspapers here in NH have been running articles, and the churches have been running commercials, reminding the Governor of his "promise to protect marriage".
He's under some immense pressure, not that I agree with him. I just don't think politicians are strong enough to deal with reality. We'll just have to elect someone else next year and then we'll get it through.
Posted by: CSN | May 30, 2009 3:22 PM
I say: good. Once marriage is a freedom legally allowed to everyone the churches will be there with their pants down, looking like the bigoted institutions they are. Meanwhile the civilized world will move on and leave them in the past where they belong.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | May 30, 2009 3:26 PM
A couple of years ago there was an industrial tribunal case in the UK in which a gay man who initially had been offered a job working on Christian youth outreach programs for an Anglican diocese had the offer of employment withdrawn following a meeting with the diosecesan Bishop. The Bishop in his wisdom decided that since the man was gay, and was in a relationship, and since at the time civil parterships were not availible in the UK, then he was unfit for the position. The reason given for his being unfit was that he was having sex outside of marriage.
The man took the Church to court for unfair dismissal, and won. The tribunal rules that the lay employees of religious organisation were entitled to the same legal protection as everyone else. Sadly the Bishop did not loose his job as result, even though imcompetence is valid grounds for dismissal.
Now I do not like religion, and I do not care for religious organisations. I do not understand why someone would want to work for such organastions, especially ones that have expressed hostility to an important aspect of person's life. Unlike the bigoted Bishop, and some here, I do not think that my personal dislike should mean that employees of religious organisation are not afforded the full protection of employment law.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 30, 2009 3:28 PM
Unlike the bigoted Bishop, and some here, I do not think that my personal dislike should mean that employees of religious organisation are not afforded the full protection of employment law.
That's because you don't think that religious organizations should be exempt from the rule of law. They want special privileges and exemptions from it.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
May 30, 2009 3:29 PM
@Jeanette #36: Exactly. They'll only remember the MLK Juniors in the future, not the Jesse Helmses.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | May 30, 2009 3:29 PM
Yeap, fair cop. I will accept your correction!
Posted by: Rainbow Rascal
|
May 30, 2009 3:47 PM
[dons flak jacket]
As a gay guy, I don't have a problem with the language at all. Yes, it enshrines discrimination into their marriage law. Who gives a shit? It's already there smeared all over the rest of their laws.
Moreover, churches and their schools/charitable organizations aren't publicly owned so I respect their right to freedom of speech and sky fairy cultin'. I know they don't like me because of who I have sex with. I don't like them because of their foolish beliefs.
Do I wish they weren't bigoted? Of course. So I do everything I can to change that including hang tight with my MOR
MON coworker. Do I wish the legislature and Lynch had the balls to stand up to the cultists? Even more than I wish the churches weren't bigoted.Everyone has their idea of what is right and wrong. Morals are not absolute but are dictated by society. Right now, most of society believes I am icky and immoral. Fuck them; I live my life as full as I can and try to present an example of what I believe is good and right.
[remains in flak jacket until storm blows over]
Posted by: Seizure | May 30, 2009 3:55 PM
It's a pity that you constantly harp on Christians, when you're just as intolerant as the people you attack. Yes, the second part is wrong, but your high-handed attitudes are only winning you points with the bigots who read your blog.
Posted by: mus | May 30, 2009 3:57 PM
As another gay guy, I also don't have a problem with that language. As #12 said, "It's giving them the rope to hang themselves with, which they will."
I don't think government should be in the business of making churches and the rest look better- more open-minded, more tolerant, more willing to change, etc.
Posted by: Brian | May 30, 2009 4:00 PM
No, I personally would not say that to all discrimination, but I think just maybe perhaps in this case I would. More so than most other civil rights struggles, the status quo is now being financed and fought almost entirely by the churches. They more than anyone have claimed to have a stake in legally mandating inequal rights, and they have worked tirelessly to bring society in line with their forsaken beliefs. I do not want that fact to be quickly forgotten. I want it to be remembered for generations to come, that when the time came to stand up and acknowledge the humanity of their own friends and family, the church dug in its heels and loudly refused to budge. And when they were forced to change along with the rest of us, they came kicking and screaming every single inch.
Let that be how they are remembered.
Posted by: Rainbow Rascal
|
May 30, 2009 4:01 PM
[still in flak jacket]
I forgot to mention that there is little comfort in the few states that have authorized gay marriage as the voters in most have the power (as they did in CA) to amend their constitution and overturn the right to marry who I choose.
Additionally, the federal government has some pretty hateful ass policies toward the gays too. Indeed, Barack Obama has remained silent on gay issues and refuses to act to stop discharges under DADT. Similarly, the legislature via Nancy Pelosi has said that gay issues "are not a priority." Even if they espouse to support gay rights as candidates, my 40 years experience has shown them to be first class liars while I remain a second class citizen at best.
[gives bigots the finger while still wearing flak jacket]
Posted by: Felix | May 30, 2009 4:14 PM
I'm surprised that this is an issue. Most countries have laws exempting religious groups from otherwise binding regulations regarding employment. They can fire homos, divorced, employees with 'bastard' children, people living in an unmarried partnership etc. It is frankly not clear to me why they should have these rights but not the right to deny benefits to spouses. Of course one could argue that they then should be obliged to make the choice between either firing the married homosexual or paying up.
In Germany, people lie about their religion, their sexual orientation and/or their partnership relations just to get a job, because by law the state is obliged to offer the churches privileged access to operate social and health institutions (kindergartens, hospitals, senior care facilities etc.). In many regions trained nurses and kindergarten / nursery school teachers can't get a job from any other employer because there simply is none. Similarly many parents have to lie to get their kids into such an institution because the churches have the right to deny admission to members of other or no faith (usually beyond a certain quota).
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
May 30, 2009 4:18 PM
@Seizure #46: Look up "false equivalence". You're soaking in it.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 30, 2009 4:27 PM
On a related note:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXPcBI4CJc8
Posted by: heddle | May 30, 2009 4:37 PM
Joe, #5
Gee Joe--when you wrote this did you think to yourself--I need to say this because nobody ever made this point before! And, FYI, its not completely true--abolitionists were often motivated by Christianity.
Posted by: SocraticGadfly | May 30, 2009 4:41 PM
So, basically, the NH Lege has adopted Gov. Lynch's suggested veto-avoidance language. Tres wunderbar.
Posted by: GumbyPhobe | May 30, 2009 5:02 PM
I just stumbled across these asinine comments
http://davies.lohudblogs.com/2009/05/28/hallowed-institution/
by a diehard tinfoil-hat-wearing sample of the master race (screennamed "Soto") on Matt Davies' political cartoon blog.
I'm still scrubbing my browser cache.
Even mildly bad news on a gay rights issues tastes like brain-candy after that barfed up prime rib of pissance. Yuck.
Posted by: Rainbow Rascal
|
May 30, 2009 5:07 PM
@SocraticGadfly
It's important to note that Lynch's language was
The legislature's original language didn't mention the exemption at all while the final version changed to A subtle difference which results in a much broader exemption.I suppose the legislative thought was something like, "Oh, yeah. We should have included something to allow "freedom of religion. So let's make it as discriminatory as possible because gays are 'icky.'"
Posted by: Matt Penfold | May 30, 2009 5:10 PM
It is a point that bears repeating over and over again, at least until the religious stop telling the non-religious that morality is something only the religious can have. The evidence shows, at best, there is no correlation, and all to often that the religious are more immoral than the non-religious.
Until you, and the rest of your co-religionists get that, we will keep pointing it out to you.
Just so you get it. Christians are STILL claiming people who do not believe in god cannot be moral. Until they stop, we will point out the ills done in the name of Christianity. If you do not like that, I suggest you find a way of getting those Christians to shut up. Until you do, take you concern and stick it.
Posted by: Jorge | May 30, 2009 5:17 PM
IRR the "Faith Based Initiative" organizations are allowed to use our tax money to discriminate in employment of people who work the "Initiatives". I saw a list of organizations that have been approved for our tax money, but there isn't one non death cult organization on the list. Sorry for not having the backing research at the moment, but I am sure a couple of good googles will turn up the Bush List etc.
One of these days it should piss someone off enough to file a suit.
Posted by: Jafafa Hots | May 30, 2009 5:32 PM
Um, who exactly is this Míl Espáine commenter, and does he ever contribute anything besides hurling childish insults?
Posted by: CJ | May 30, 2009 5:37 PM
I'm not pleased with its current form, however, with a little modification I'd agree to their maintaining their institutionalized discrimination...
The new version, which is expected to come up for a vote Wednesday, adds a sentence specifying that all religious organizations, associations or societies have exclusive control over their religious doctrines, policies, teachings and beliefs on marriage. It also clarifies that church-related organizations that serve charitable or educational purposes are exempt from having to provide insurance and other benefits to same sex spouses of employees but will no longer be exempt from taxes and cannot receive any tax-based funding.
Posted by: Leslie | May 30, 2009 5:49 PM
If the second provision is enacted, then compliance requires all "religious" organizations to post prominent signs and have the disclosure on all documents for employees and church members. Why should they be allowed to hide what they are doing? They have a choice. People thinking about working for them, or attending services, get the same choice too.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | May 30, 2009 6:02 PM
I think you place too much faith in the fuckwits' ability to tie knots.
Posted by: maezeppa | May 30, 2009 6:19 PM
Don't worry. This is messy but smart. They'll add enough sugar to make the change go down and after it passes, the discrimination part will be found unconstitutional and repealed.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
May 30, 2009 6:31 PM
Goddists like Heddle would rather we forget that churches are some of the most immoral organizations around.
Posted by: xebecs | May 30, 2009 6:39 PM
1. I've never seen it before today.
2. Apparently not.
Posted by: robotaholic
|
May 30, 2009 6:42 PM
in 20 yrs or so or whenever it is legal everywhere in the united states, the christians will say you know christianity is where we got our morals like that homosexuals deserve equal treament or that black people shouldn't be slaves- they wont remember JACK SHIT!
grrr!
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 30, 2009 6:49 PM
in 20 yrs or so or whenever it is legal everywhere in the united states, the christians will say you know christianity is where we got our morals like that homosexuals deserve equal treament or that black people shouldn't be slaves- they wont remember JACK SHIT!
But there will always be Liberty "University" to remind us of the segregationist and anti-gay history of conservative evangelical southern Christianity.
Posted by: Jeff | May 30, 2009 6:55 PM
""Hypothetically, if I'm a Nazi - which I'm not - and I felt white supremacy should take place, do I now get an exemption because my conscience says if you're not blond and blue-eyed, I can discriminate against you?"" Says Rep. DiFruscia. Makes sense, but actually, the path of this bill has had more bizarre last minute plot twists than a M. Night Shyamalan film festival. Rep. Valincort, who approved of the original bill (sans the opt out clause for religious institutions) voted against the revisions Lynch made (letting churches say no) complaining that the language was clearly discriminatory-- and the bill failed by just two votes. The most recent compromise, meanwhile, came out of committee only after one committee member was replaced by the chair for wanting to vote the wrong way (yes you can do that in New Hampshire-- thank you oldest state constitution in the US). Later, another committee member complained the language was discriminatory and asked to have it amended, and got no support at all. Meanwhile, it's a little unclear who would be doing the discriminating. Conservative evangelical Christians are, thank God (sorry), a small minority in New Hampshire and the largest Christian denomination here (the United Church of Christ) is all in favor of gay marriage; when the Senate was first considering it the local UCC Conference Minister testified in favor of gay marriage. On the third hand the newest version of the bill really changes just one word, an "and" to an "or." From where I'm sitting (just north of Concord, NH) this looks like a political move; approve it now and get it the discriminatory language bounced by the courts. Still, if this goes back to the house and senate for approval (though I'm not certain it has to) all bets are off again. It's actually exhausting to watch.
Posted by: MickyW | May 30, 2009 6:59 PM
Robotaholic @ 66; Yes, of course they'll try that, but they won't get away with it without having to admit that the bible is not inerrant, or is a "product of its time, because the bible doesn't equivocate on homosexuality the way it does with slavery, divorce and racism. This is why those who believe that the bible is inerrant and take every word literally are so scared of the gay movement. They won't be able to claim that Christianity supported gay rights simply because the bible is so anti-gay.
What we should all start doing is saving screen shots of all these anti-gay sites, to be used in the future to nail them in whatever way possible. In ten or twenty years when everyone has amnesia and the bible is not so inerrant or literal anymore, we can haul out all the evidence.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
May 30, 2009 7:01 PM
Jeff #68
I'm reminded of the famous quote attributed to Otto von Bismarck:
Posted by: Andrew | May 30, 2009 7:20 PM
Oh great, so same-sex marriages will still be a kind of "marriage lite" that don't have all the benefits of superior hetero ones.......................
Ugh.
Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | May 30, 2009 8:05 PM
MickyW, I'm afraid that you're wrong. I have seen liberal Christians claiming that the prohibition of homosexuality in the old testament is:
a) only about rites of worshipping some Canaanite gods; and/or
b) superseded by Jesus' new covenant.
Also the NT is much more equivocal. There's very little explicit condemnation, and what there is can be explained away as prohibiting the use of boy prostitutes, and similar.
Now this is what liberal Christians do now, but I can't rule out the inerrantists later adopting this interpretation. Inerrantists never are actual word for word literalists - after all, how many of them now avoid lobster and mixed fabrics? They live in denial about their cherry picking.
Posted by: Russell Blackford | May 30, 2009 8:06 PM
I agree. The first part is fair ... the second part, well, not so much.
Posted by: FishyFred | May 30, 2009 8:08 PM
Re: Religious morality supporting both sides before being dragged kicking and screaming into the present
The New York Times Magazine has a weekly feature in which they interview someone in this condensed format. This week's interview was with Robert Wright, who wrote a book about the history of religion called The Evolution of God. I haven't read it, but I don't know if this sort of answer is encouraging or discouraging.
He appears to understand that malleable nature of religion that allows it to be used for any argument, but I don't know if he follows that to the conclusion that it is, therefore, useless as an arbiter of anything.Posted by: Joel | May 30, 2009 8:17 PM
And when that day comes, the religious will no doubt claim that it was brought here by their love of Christ and that they were the leaders in making sure it was acceptable.
Posted by: Grendel72 | May 30, 2009 8:19 PM
Kind of like how everyone remembers the major role religious leaders played in defending Jim Crow laws?
I figure the official truth will be rewritten within my lifetime, just as it has been in that case, because religious people know no shame.
Posted by: Kyle Fenner | May 30, 2009 8:37 PM
When churches start paying taxes they can have a say in what the government does or does not do. until then they can this cockamamie bullshit and apply it exacyly where the rest of guys think it ought to go.
Posted by: Nils Ross | May 30, 2009 8:44 PM
Sorry, but the problem here, as always, is that almost every religion's mythology establishes an ownership over the institution of marriage. The fact that even recorded history shows that marriage predated every extant religion, of course, doesn't figure for them: why start minding the evidence now?
When a liberal talks about 'marriage', they're talking about a legal institution recognising the pair bond between two individuals. When a religious person talks about 'marriage', they're talking about a bond that their mythology identifies as spiritual, which may have legal wing-wangs attached. You're actually talking at cross-purposes (although liberals are talking sense and the wingnuts are talking trash based on false premises).
Why not just give the people what they want? Legalise civil unions for all couples, with all the same rights as marriages. Recognise all current marriages as civil unions. Then cease marrying people, replace the state institution with the civil union, and LET the religious zealots own marriage if they want to. It's just a word.
Posted by: John Morales | May 30, 2009 9:31 PM
[slightly OOT]
So, I was catching up on my reading, and found this gem via Jim Downey at UTI I just felt should be shared.
Posted by: heddle | May 30, 2009 9:36 PM
Tis Himself,
I never forget it, so why should I care whether you do or do not?
Posted by: Anonymous | May 30, 2009 9:49 PM
when one gets "married", there is a STATE document signed by the witchdoktor who performed the ceremony.
marriage is a STATE licence and the STATE is usually bound by law to not discriminate.
Posted by: Dr.Woody
|
May 30, 2009 9:49 PM
Religion is the substitute given to people who cannot find purpose in their own lives.
Posted by: TigerHunter | May 30, 2009 10:43 PM
Seeing as they're already allowed to violate federal anti-discrimination laws in their hiring process, I doubt there are many gays working for any organizations that would take advantage of this. So I guess it's not so bad.
Still a pitiful way to cave to the bigots, especially since the reasoning behind it is probably that moronic "It hurts businesses!" argument.
Posted by: Mogemstone | May 30, 2009 11:04 PM
Please consider another attitude about religious organizations having exceptions to some equal-rights laws. I wish to be open with my motive for making this comment: legal exceptions in this context can be effective in isolating, confining, and diminishing an organization which deserves less tolerance than it offers to others.
Equal-rights laws are typically applicable only for taxpayer-supported or public organizations. Fraternal organizations may restrict membership in ways that are not acceptable or legal outside that organization. The last time I checked, the KKK was not required to allow blacks, Jews, or Catholics to be members. They have not gained advantages from this 'freedom'. It has served to define them and inform society of their true nature (as if, in this extreme case, it were not obvious).
Let churches have internal rules which are not 'fair'. If they want to hire only members to work for the church, then those members must know to expect treatment according to the church's standards. If they dislike that treatment, they can work for a secular employer. If a church chooses to be a place of public accomodation in offering employment, then the government has a legitimate role in protecting the rights of the public. That is 'fair'.
A church-related organization that serves charitable or educational purposes should be treated exactly as the church itself. If it takes public money or provides publicly-accessible services, then it may expect its fair share of public influence.
In any case, there are limits to religious conduct. Human sacrifice is illegal, and it is the secular government which enforces this limit on any and all religions. Such limits are appropriate and will continue even if some restrictions on churches are loosened.
In regards to religious organizations, associations or societies having exclusive control over their ... beliefs on marriage:
Marriage has been, in many cultures and for eons, tied to traditions, superstitions, and other social strictures. The problem we are arguing about - gay marriage - is only a problem because marriage is confabulated with religion. Governments have maintained this strange (although understandable) combination with laws which give some emphasis in marriage to churches and clergy, while providing no legal distinction between a church marriage and a civil marriage. One aspect of this is that a religion or church has no unique legal control over its members' marriages. For example, the Catholic Church (among others) maintains that divorce affects the standing of members - yet the Catholic Church cannot legally prevent members from divorcing.
It is time to remove the artifice of this combination of religious and civil marriage. We need marriage laws which serve secular governmental interests apart from religious (or other social group) interests. This can be accomplished by having a 'civil union' secular marriage which establishes the marriage status required for income tax filing, joint property and inheritance, other legal, financial, and medical issues, et al. No, I do not know what this would be called; many folks have objections to the terms 'civil union' and 'marriage', for differing reasons. A separate 'social union' religious marriage would have only one secular provision: that the members of the marriage could legally refer to themselves as married, and use appropriate titles. Government-recognized religions (and possibly other social groups) would be free to conduct and regulate 'marriage' according to their specific rules and beliefs. For example, Denomination "X" might choose to require that marriages of their members cannot be dissolved without clergy-directed counselling. Or they might require members to have children, or live in a 1-story house, or keep pets. None of this would affect the secular standing of the married parties. A denomination might even require that members not have a 'civil union' in addition to their 'social union'.
If a religion wishes to sanctify certain relationships, then let us place the burden for maintaining that sanctity on the religion. The public, and secular society, has enough to do with maintaining the public mechanisms (of those relationships) that serve public, secular interests.
Thank you, John Morales - "Sex With Ducks: the Music Video by Garfunkel and Oates" is great.
Posted by: John Morales | May 30, 2009 11:12 PM
heddle @81, your admission does you credit.
Posted by: Izgad | May 30, 2009 11:46 PM
There was a lot wrong with the Civil Rights movement. At its heart was the notion that the government could tell people how to conduct their private businesses. If someone wants to not hire or serve blacks, or for that matter Jews, gays or people whose last names begin with the letter K, than that should be their right. One has the legal right to sell pornography, despite the non physical indirect harm it can cause, so one should also be allowed to “sell” racism. Not that I have any love for segregationists. As far I am concerned, when it comes to getting one’s rights trampled on, it could not have happened to a more deserving people. As a true follower of the liberal tradition, though, I know that it always begins with those people who you do not like. I fight the battle for the rights of the accused when it is people who have been accused and are most likely guilty of terrorism because I do not want to be fighting this battle when it is my next door neighbor. Similarly we have set ourselves up in a situation where we started by going after segregationists and now we are paying for it by having to worry about the rights of mainstream churches and synagogues. A decade ago we had a close call with the boyscouts. That was scary. We won but, so it seems, we are still not safe.
Posted by: strange gods before me | May 31, 2009 2:16 AM
Why anyone ever thinks this is clever is beyond me.
What you are proposing will take forever. That one word is in thousands of different laws. They would all have to be changed; it's an absolutely monumental task. And it would be legitimately fought tooth and nail by everyone who's already married, who would see the government delegitimizing their claim to that word. Secular people want the word marriage too, and there's no good reason why secular unions should be socially inferior to marriages, but that's exactly what you're advocating, because the social norm is the word "marriage." So not only would the task of rewriting all those laws take forever even without any opposition, you'd have greater opposition to that move than you would to gay marriage. Evidence for this assertion? Reality itself:
We've already succeeded in bringing gay marriage to five states. Zero states are even considering your proposal. All the momentum is on the side of gay marriage. And yet you think it's clever to bring up this tired old crap, wherein you essentially advocate that all gay people now have to shut up and wait, wait for government to eliminate civil marriage entirely, a move that would be political suicide for everyone involved even if they had any incentive to do it in the first place, which they don't.
Maybe it seemed a clever idea when you first heard of it, years ago. That you're still hanging onto the notion, though, is strong evidence of intellectual laziness.
Please, everyone, the next time you feel tempted to make a blog comment along the lines of "we should get rid of civil marriage instead," shut up, back away from the keyboard, and have a good hard think about political reality. Gay couples should not have to wait for your inane pedantry.
Posted by: strange gods before me | May 31, 2009 2:22 AM
And if black people happened to live in a small town where the grocery store owners were ticked off about that Martin Luther King, then they could just starve to death.
Go away, libertrollian.
Posted by: John K | May 31, 2009 9:37 PM
Hey, I'm not the biggest fan of the second part, but I can live with that. Gay people should just stay away from these bigoted religions, who do absolutely have the right to discriminate within their organizations. Where the line needs to be drawn is allowing those organizations doing charity work to discriminate against those in THE PUBLIC who are gay. That means, if you run an adoption agency, you don't get to only let straight couples adopt, no matter what religion you are. It is my understanding from reading this that those types of things would NOT be allowed, only discriminating against the organizations own employees, does everyone agree with that reading or am I missing something.
Posted by: Wesley Voorhies | June 1, 2009 2:22 PM
Why should any corporation be required to provide benefits for any employee in the first place? The matter of not extending them to gay partners is "odious" from the point of view that they provide them to hetero-sexual partners, but not in the sense that an employer can make decisions that impact the business in general. Why compel them to provide benefits in the first place?
Posted by: Kildar | June 2, 2009 4:05 PM
Hate to say it, since i'll be ridiculed.
But, This country was founded on Christian Principals.
In the bible it says multiple times, "If a man lies with a man as with a woman they have both done what is detestable, and must be put to death, their blood is on their own heads."
So, in short, Gays suck. (no pun intended)
And all gay people should be shot.
GO STRAIGHT PEOPLE!!
I'd rather kill my first born son, because he was gay, than let him live in this world.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | June 3, 2009 4:42 PM
New Hampshire legislature passes the marriage bill today:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2009/06/nh_legislature.html
On to the Gov, who said he'd sign this version of the bill.
Rhode Island is the lone holdout in New England,but there will be a ballot measure in Maine this fall, so people like kildar will have the opportunity to play out their violent fantasies, like they always seem to do when gay people's lives are the topic of public controversy.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 3, 2009 4:47 PM
Poor Kildar, he believes in imaginary deities and a fictional bible. No wonder his grasp on reality is limited.
Posted by: Mogemstone | June 3, 2009 9:35 PM
Kildar's closing statement is either not representative of the language skills he exhibited in preceding sentences, or it is a disclosure of incredibly twisted pathology.
Is he saying that he had a son, whom he nurtured and loved for more than a decade, and that he then murdered the son when the boy exhibited a (possibly transient and confused) interest in other boys? Is he saying that, in the event that his first son were gay, he would murder him and allow other sons to live? Is he saying that his motive "...than let him live in this world." is to save the son from having to live with hateful, murdering heterosexuals?
All of these possible interpretations have a common element - self-loathing. It is an emotion that can fuel murder, prolong fractured relationships, and unconsciously announce its own existence.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
June 3, 2009 9:45 PM
But, This country was founded on Christian Principals.
In the bible it says multiple times,
I missed the part in history class where the bible replaced the US constitution.
Hate to say it
another liar, representin'.
should have worded it:
"I have hate to say."