…and this is a 
One more joins the ranks of states on the side of goodness: the New Hampshire legislature has passed the last few bills needed to legalize gay marrriage in that state. Unfortunately, part of the compromise is a set of exemptions for religious organizations, who won't need to do the right thing. Just remember, no one can point to the atheists and claim they tried to hinder civil rights here…we didn't ask for the privilege to discriminate.
(via Digital Cuttlefish, who naturally has a poem to go with it)
Comments
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | June 3, 2009 6:09 PM
I learned something when same-sex marriage finally came to MA...it's fun to win.
This spring has been fun.
Posted by: GumbyPhobe | June 3, 2009 6:13 PM
Slightly off-topic, but -
Here's a POLL that seriously needs some pharyngulation:
The rightwing ilk is focussing on LGTB children.
The issue:
In their May 28th KRXQ 98.5FM broadcast, two Sacramento radio jocks devoted an half-hour segment to a vicious diatribe AGAINST TRANSGENDER CHILDREN. They recommended "verbal abuse on the part of the parents, or even shock therapy" as a "cure" to this "mental illness" and basically encouraged parents to beat the "freak" out of their sons, if they dared to don female attire.
Unsurprisingly they're trying to make this a free speech issue and put up a poll on their website.
The option "They've completely crossed the line." is at 39% righ now. It could use a boost.
The poll:
http://www.robarnieanddawn.com/newsite/index.html (scroll down a bit)
If you have a strong stomach - read the full article on Huffpost:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-rowe/krxq-sacramento-radio-hos_b_210637.html
Posted by: Arnold T Pants | June 3, 2009 6:14 PM
I love watching bigots lose!
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | June 3, 2009 6:14 PM
Damn, PZ, you're fast.
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | June 3, 2009 6:16 PM
Actually, PZ, not only did the legislature pass the bills, but the Governor just signed them, a bit less than an hour ago. The law takes effect Jan. 1.
Posted by: Zeno | June 3, 2009 6:18 PM
I decry the silly compromises, but I'm a dedicated supporter of salami tactics. Get what you can and keep coming back for more until you have enough for the whole sandwich. NH supporters of equality can now work on paring back the religious exemptions to the essentials (no church is required to perform same-sex marriages) and get rid of the foolish pandering (religious organizations don't have to provide spousal benefits to same-sex partners of their employees).
I hope we raise the ante in California's domestic partners law (full civil union statutes that erase the legal difference between "marriage" and "union") while preparing to expunge Proposition 8 from our constitution in a future election.
By the way, Robert Bork just wrote me a sweet personal note to warn me about the threatening gay agenda and how I can help a Catholic lobbying group fight against it. Oh, my! I fear he's going to be disappointed with my response.
Posted by: Levi in NY | June 3, 2009 6:19 PM
We're trying hard here in New York, but things aren't looking too good right now. My state senator recently came out on the side of hateful bigotry, and I just sent her a nasty e-mail about it.
But congratulations New Hampshire! I traveled there last year to campaign for Obama when polls were showing Obama and McCain neck-and-neck, and now it appears the Granite State is more progressive than my liberal bastion here.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 3, 2009 6:20 PM
It may not be all that it should have been, but it is still a good step in the right direction. And I saw a netnews item where a poll showed the people (not the legislature) in RI supporting gay marriage. So, maybe all of New England within a couple of years...
Posted by: Sastra
|
June 3, 2009 6:21 PM
Opponents of same-sex marriage are fighting a losing battle: bottom line, whether gays are allowed by the State to marry is just as significant to civil rights -- and just as insignificant to one's own, personal marriage -- as whether people of different races are allowed to marry. The government can't make a compelling argument against it -- and neither can anyone else.
(By the way, I love the poll on Cuttlefish's site:
Which of the following is the most logical argument summarizing the "evolution and Intelligent Design are compatible" position?
( ) Come on in, slip off your skin, and rattle around in your bones!
( ) There once was a man from Nantucket.
( ) Kitties!!!
( ) Hey, nonny nonny.
That's kind of a tough one, actually.)
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | June 3, 2009 6:25 PM
Only 21 hours left to vote on it, Sastra!
Posted by: Gruesome Rob | June 3, 2009 6:27 PM
I have no objection to the exception. As an atheist, I didn't even attempt to get married in a church, why would I?
Let them have their little club. Of course, I'd love to see the refusal tied to removal of the tax exempt status...
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 3, 2009 6:30 PM
It will take me that long to quit laughing...Posted by: Sastra
|
June 3, 2009 6:33 PM
Cuttlefish, OM #10 wrote:
Oh, I voted -- but once the poll gets Pharyngulated, the results will be all skewed, and won't be fair anymore. Damned Godless kittie-hating Liberals.
Posted by: truthspeaker | June 3, 2009 6:51 PM
I agree. Churches already can refuse to marry heterosexual couples if the church doesn't approve of the union. Couples who don't meet a church's criteria can get a civil marriage, which is all the government should be concerned with anyway.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
June 3, 2009 6:59 PM
Oh, I woulda voted kitties, if instead it had said, "Cuddly baby tapirs!"
Posted by: Mrs Tilton
|
June 3, 2009 7:07 PM
Haven't read the bills, so I'm not sure what religious exemptions PZ means. But if it is just a provision that a church or minister need not perform a wedding ceremony that its or his beliefs object to, I see nothing wrong with that.
As long as a church is not permitted to arrogate to itself a monopoly on the right to perform legally valid weddings, it is only fair to let them refuse to marry people they dislike, just as I myself married in a registry office (albeit a beautiful one, built in the 17th c.) because I disliked certain things a church wedding would have entailed.
On a completely different topic: Cuttlefish doing free verse -- wow! Never thought I'd live to see the day.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | June 3, 2009 7:10 PM
Mrs. Tilton,
It also includes a provision such that religiously-affiliated organizations that do service/charity or educational work are exempt from providing spousal benefits to same-sex spouses of employees.
Posted by: Arnold T Pants | June 3, 2009 7:12 PM
I believe the language in the bill that PZ is referring to exempts religious organizations from having to provide benefits to same-sex spouses, e.g. health care.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
June 3, 2009 7:12 PM
This move by New Hampshire brought me tears of joy. After the last two decades with the Bush dynasty dangling a federal same-sex marriage ban in our faces, I can't believe how fast the gains happened this year.
I thought it was important that New Hampshire pass the marriage equality bill despite the religious-homophobe protections because it sends a clear signal to homophobes that they can't win the argument on any reasonable basis. Marriage equality obviously can exist in harmony (for the most part) alongside exclusionary religious beliefs and a homophobic governorship, and if the poor homophobes won't look to Massachusetts to see proof of that, then maybe this little baby blanket of law will comfort them for a while until the bad feelings go away.
Posted by: Hammurabi | June 3, 2009 7:13 PM
I agree that no church should be compelled by the state to perform a ceremony that they don't want to, but I don't get why they refuse to pay spouse benefits for same-sex couples. Does the church also seek to refuse to pay benefits for adulterous couples? What about couples who blaspheme? What about couples who wear blended fabrics?
If churches don't want to have to support their law-abiding employees then they should pay their taxes so that the government can pay those benefits for them.
Posted by: truthspeaker | June 3, 2009 7:20 PM
PZ mentioned both exemptions. The one you mention is one I would like to see done away with if I lived in New Hampshire. The other one I support, but it was unnecessary because the First Amendment already provides it.
Posted by: Seraphiel | June 3, 2009 7:22 PM
Actually, PZ, not only did the legislature pass the bills, but the Governor just signed them, a bit less than an hour ago. The law takes effect Jan. 1.
Why the delay?
Six more months is going to feel like a very long time for people who have already waited far, far longer than they should have.
Posted by: Yoritomo | June 3, 2009 8:28 PM
I too was delighted by Cuttlefish's poll. I went with the most hospitable.
Posted by: JHS | June 3, 2009 9:08 PM
Let it be noted far and wide that the *only* group to cry out for "special rights" in the fight for marriage equality -- be it in NH or elsewhere -- has been the church.
Despite the moronic wet kiss to religious organizations they stuck in there, good on you, NH.
Posted by: Piltdown Man | June 3, 2009 9:22 PM
CHICK TRACT!!!
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | June 3, 2009 9:24 PM
Posted by: Piltdown Man | June 3, 2009 9:22 PM
blah blah blah blah blah
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
June 3, 2009 9:27 PM
CHICK TRACT!!!
Why do I picture you in a dark room with chick tracts plastered on all flat surfaces like wallpaper?
Posted by: Piltdown Man | June 3, 2009 9:30 PM
This one's a classic -- it's even got the Pazuzu statue from The Exorcist in it!
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 3, 2009 9:33 PM
Nah, I picture Pilty in a dark basement with S&M porn on the walls and desktop.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | June 3, 2009 9:36 PM
Nah, I picture Pilty in a dark basement with S&M porn on the walls and desktop.
I thought he'd be hanging out with Rooke, a poodle, hand lotion, vampires, and a woman thrown down a basement well.
Posted by: Bridget McKinney | June 3, 2009 9:37 PM
Religious organizations and individuals *should* be exempt from participation in what they consider morally repugnant. No matter how unjust and bigoted some ideas may seem, I think it's important to remember that some of that stems from true ignorance. There are many otherwise kind people who truly believe things that they are indoctrinated with. This is why it's important to lovingly educate them rather than belittling their beliefs.
Sometimes, unfortunately, people don't want to be educated. Even though that is a terribly frustrating thing, I believe it's important to respect THEIR right to choose, even if you don't agree with their choice.
The important thing is for all individuals to be treated equally under the law, which purpose it is to protect the freedom to choose, not to dictate what choices we're allowed to make.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
June 3, 2009 9:37 PM
I picture Pilty in a dark basement with S&M porn on the walls and desktop.
how is S&M Porn so different from Chick tracts?
Posted by: foxfire | June 3, 2009 9:37 PM
Hurray NH! Now if Oregon would just get off it's duplicitous butt and get rid of the marriage wart on its state constitution....
@ Zeno #6 - great post on your blog!
@ Cuttlefish - magnificent poem, as usual. I can't decide on the poll, so I refuse to vote (Kittehs?).
I don't mind the exemption that religious organizations don't have to marry gay couples. I *do* mind that (as MAJeff #17 so aptly wrote)
The only reason such organizations hire gay people is because they *have* to, in order to comply with Federal law that allows them to retain their Federal tax-exempt status. I'd love to see Americans United (AU) file an IRS complaint when one of these organizations denies benefits to gay spouses, while allowing benefits to het spouses.
Hey! I'm a member of AU....I can go gripe at the AU website! And MAJeff, I am *so* going to steal your wording.
Posted by: Bridget McKinney | June 3, 2009 9:48 PM
@Ichthyic
I've been collecting Chick Publications for years now as a curiosity. Just found out the other day that I can get all 100 that are in print right now for $15. This was at the same time that I learned about the voodoo that is practiced in Catholic church, which I totally don't remember from when I was a little Catholic girl. I think that would have made Sunday mass a lot less boring.
In any case, Chick tracts are way WAY more amusing than S&M. S&M leans more towards icky, while Chick tracts lean toward freakin' hilarious.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | June 3, 2009 9:51 PM
S&M leans more towards icky, while Chick tracts lean toward freakin' hilarious.
Actually, having a very large, muscular, very butch man say, "Fuck my man-pussy" can be quite amusing.
Posted by: Michael Hawkins | June 3, 2009 9:51 PM
New Hampshire has gone too far with its religious "rights". I believe the First Amendment unfortunately protects religions from marrying homosexuals, but it does not extend its protections to the denial of insurance and other benefits. These things are secular concerns - insurance and tax issues are in the realm of the government, not religions. If they hire homosexuals, they must also provide them with what is rightfully theirs. Benefits can only be denied based upon blanket, universal principles - in other words, all part timers, all lower level employees, all such-and-such status people may be denied benefits. If a, say, 1-year full timer gets benefits, then all 1-year full timers get benefits.
Posted by: Bridget McKinney | June 3, 2009 9:52 PM
So, the voodoo thing is in a Chick tract *and* on the internet, so that makes it true, right?
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
June 3, 2009 9:55 PM
Nah, Chick tracts are way ickier than, say, a flogger. Admittedly, I may have an atypical perspective.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 3, 2009 10:04 PM
Yep, sounds like Pilty's mind alright, icky...Posted by: MadScientist | June 3, 2009 10:13 PM
I wonder what the religious exceptions are; if it's only that the churches don't have to allow such a ceremony within their cult that's fine because we can't tell them what strange delusions to believe. If it's stuff like denying individuals things which are guaranteed by other laws then that's yet another case of the state bowing down to religion.
Posted by: foxfire | June 3, 2009 10:22 PM
@ Bridget McKinney # 31 - regarding
and
With respect to the first statement; that's why so many scientists take an exorbitant amount of time and energy (away from research/publishing/teaching) trying to explain the nature of science and subjects such as evolution. Sometimes the *luv* only goes so far...
With respect to the second statement; that's why there is so much cheering in this forum about states that recognize the right of gay couples to marry and enjoy the same civil liberties under the law as heterosexual couples enjoy. As far as choices...sometimes that's not an option. I can easily change the color of my hair and changing my sex, age, skin color, sexual preference or other more "ingrained" phenotypical/neurological aspects ain't that much of a choice.
Sometimes the uneducated need to be real clear about what is selectable before they try to define the law.
Posted by: foxfire | June 3, 2009 10:28 PM
@ MadScientist # 40: It's both. See # 17 above.
Posted by: H. Lewis Allways | June 3, 2009 10:35 PM
Of course churches should not be forced to recognize marriages they don't want to recognize. That would be a clear violation of the First Amendment, and I'm surprised that anyone would advocate it.
If I was governor of NH, I would veto a bill that tried to force religious groups to officiate or recognize marriages they did not want to. The last thing I want is to give the bigots an easy way to knock this law down in court.
Posted by: A Dog Smirk
|
June 3, 2009 10:56 PM
@36
How does a religion marry a homosexual? IT'S ADAM AND EVE, NOT ROMAN CATHOLICISM AND STEVE!!!
Sorry, couldn't resist. Too much beer, not enough sleep...
Posted by: Eustace P. Winbagg III | June 3, 2009 11:06 PM
This is TERRIBLE news. I will NOT be buying that granite kitchen counter top now.
http://teabaggingforjesus.blogspot.com/
Posted by: JohnnieCanuck
|
June 3, 2009 11:10 PM
Ahh, Cuttlefish.
I just realised another reason why I get so much pleasure from your work -
Sharing a common ancestor means we are cousins. So proud.
Posted by: Jason | June 3, 2009 11:23 PM
I'm totally for gay marriage in every state. But I don't think you should force churches to do the marrying. WTF, eating meat is legal in every state but we don't force PETA to offer up steak every time someone who disagrees attends one of their meetings.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 3, 2009 11:28 PM
I think you will find very few of us for churches being required to marry gays against their theology. The problem is with the exception required by the governor for allowing church related charities to be able to discriminate in employment benefits against gay partners.
Posted by: Kseniya | June 3, 2009 11:54 PM
Pretty funny stuff, Eustace.
Posted by: Kseniya | June 4, 2009 12:01 AM
Yes. I wonder how long that will hold up.
Posted by: Arnold T Pants | June 4, 2009 12:15 AM
@Bridget: I would encourage you to not give Jack Chick a dime. Just read his interpage for free, and use that fifteen dollars for anything else. Flush it down the toilet if you want- it's better than sending it to Chick.
@Seraphiel #22: Laws always (as far as I know- I'm no lawyer) have a lead time before enactment. This isn't anything specific to this law.
Posted by: Pygmy Loris | June 4, 2009 12:36 AM
I just wanted to say: YAY!
More civil rights are a good thing. Way to go NH :)
Posted by: Rey Fox | June 4, 2009 1:01 AM
"( ) Kitties!!!"
Kitties trump everything.
As far as Piltdown's basement is concerned, given his continued support and defense of the Catholic Church, I really don't want to know what he's into.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 4, 2009 1:05 AM
pffft
Apparently you haven't been introduced to bacon.
Posted by: geru | June 4, 2009 1:33 AM
Don't the exemptions mainly hurt those who work for religious organizations? This sends a nice message from the churches: work for us and we'll screw you over because we're bigots.
Some jackass mentioned in a recent article that even though the number of the non-religious is rapidly increasing, society still needs the moral values of the church. But again organized religion shows us that it's values are horribly outdated, and that the church is actually hurting the development of moral values of the rest of the society.
Posted by: Psychodigger | June 4, 2009 2:03 AM
Way to go New Hampshire!
It will take time, but you will get there yet. I am always astounded by the vociferousness of the religious extremists, and the airplay they receive to spew their bigotry in the US, but they're fighting a losing battle and they know it.
Good work.
Posted by: PCB | June 4, 2009 2:29 AM
Cheers for civil rights!!!
Posted by: Citizen of the Cosmos
|
June 4, 2009 3:21 AM
If the government decides on marriage, then they should hand out certificates to organisations who would like to perform weddings. But they would have to go by the rules and not discriminate against gay couples.
So not only should you not force the churches to do the marrying, you shouldn't let them unless they follow the rules. All or nothing. Seems fair.
Posted by: Sili
|
June 4, 2009 3:46 AM
S&M? YKAMKBTOK.
Yay! Equality!
Why would anyone with a same sex partner want to work for a bigotted church in the first place? Is the bagel really that bad?
Posted by: Piltdown Man | June 4, 2009 4:53 AM
Bridget McKinney @ 31:
They always have been -- both heterosexuals and homosexuals have always enjoyed the equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex.
Citizen of the Cosmos @ 58:
Why should the government get to decide on what constitutes marriage? Who gave it the right to impose its morality on me?
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | June 4, 2009 6:48 AM
What's with all the people going "I don't think churches should be forced to marry gay people"? Who the hell is talking about that?
Oh, yeah...the anti-gay right is talking about that. The Governor of New Hampshire bought their lies and insisted on new language. And, apparently some commenters here, like jason in comment 47, have also bought it as well.
To say, "I don't think churches should be forced to marry gay people," is quite simply irrelevant. No one, other than liars, is talking about doing so. Stop reinforcing their nonsensical point of view.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | June 4, 2009 6:50 AM
Posted by: Piltdown Man | June 4, 2009 4:53 AM
blah blah blah blah blah
Posted by: Kel | June 4, 2009 6:55 AM
Oh good, so you agree that our morality shouldn't be dictated by the Roman Catholic Church.Marriage = legal institution.
Authority on legal institution = the government
Morality = social construct
Authority on morality = the will of the people
If you think that gay marriage is immoral, then don't get gay married. No-one is forcing you to get gay married so it doesn't affect you in the slightest. What is legal and what is moral can be two different things, and you are right that it is not the government's job to dictate morality. But to deny that gays should be married because you think it's immoral is imposing your morality on the rest of the population.
Piltdown Man once again showing that he's a hypocrite
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | June 4, 2009 7:01 AM
Piltdown Man once again showing that he's a hypocrite
Nope, just a superstitious, bigoted, anti-modern misanthrope.
Posted by: 386sx | June 4, 2009 7:06 AM
They always have been -- both heterosexuals and homosexuals have always enjoyed the equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex.
No they haven't! El wrongo, dude.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM
|
June 4, 2009 7:11 AM
Wasn't that what Catholics called themselves before they came up with the word 'Catholic'?
Posted by: Citizen of the Cosmos
|
June 4, 2009 7:19 AM
Piltdown Man @60
You cannot be serious. The government regulates everything. That's what it does, you know.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | June 4, 2009 7:22 AM
You cannot be serious. The government regulates everything. That's what it does, you know
He's still fighting for the Church's right to rule, and the state's subservience to the Pope.
Posted by: Kel | June 4, 2009 7:27 AM
that'll work really well for the catholic church. If they control the government and the media, then they can continue to cover up the child-molesting priests without anyone to tarnish the name and reputation of the church... most people would admit their organisation's fallibility, but fallibility is for non-Catholics - apparently.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 4, 2009 7:29 AM
Show me what is done in this case that personally effects you. Because I can't see anything that personally effects you. That just makes you a waste of logic, a bigot and an idiot.Posted by: Wowbagger, OM
|
June 4, 2009 7:44 AM
Inclusiveness, personal freedom, fairness and equality must make baby Jesus cry.
Posted by: Kel | June 4, 2009 7:55 AM
God said marriage is between one man and
manyone woman of thesame skin colourof any ethnicity whocan be bought through a family arrangementwho can choose her partner of her own free will.It was a lot easier when you could just buy a slave wife and be done with it :P
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 4, 2009 9:06 AM
Nah, I picture Pilty in a dark basement with S&M porn on the walls and desktop. Nerd of Redhead
Nah, Pilty doesn't need S&M porn - he'll be getting his jollies from thrashing his kids (his wife too, probably).
Posted by: Carlie | June 4, 2009 9:12 AM
The real problem with the add-on isn't that it exempts churches from marrying gays, but that it allows church-run tax-exempt organizations to refuse to insure spouses of gay employees.
Being tax-exempt in the first place is a taxpayer subsidy, and this is codifying discrimination against a particular group of people with the help of those people's tax dollars.
Posted by: Kseniya | June 4, 2009 9:21 AM
Says the man who wants to impose his morality on everyone. LMAO
Pilty: Read what you write - and think hard about it - before you post. It'll save you
a lot ofsome ridicule.Posted by: MAJeff, OM | June 4, 2009 9:23 AM
Ah, the exceptions desired by the religious in action. The nurse was just exercising her rights, after all:
http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/comments/ca_lesbian_couple_claims_discriminatory_treatment_at_fresno_hospital/
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 4, 2009 9:33 AM
Yep it's a nice big stinky Red Herring used to play on the already frayed fears of the religious. It moves the argument away from addressing the real issue of equal rights to...
NOT IN MY CHURCH DAMN YOU!!!!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 4, 2009 9:36 AM
Pilty that's a stupid argument even for you.
But it is the second or third time I've heard it used recently. Did the "Fear the fags" crowd put out a new operations manual recently?
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | June 4, 2009 9:54 AM
But it is the second or third time I've heard it used recently. Did the "Fear the fags" crowd put out a new operations manual recently?
It's been around for a long time. It's actually the very same argument used to uphold anti-miscegination laws: "Everyone is free to marry a member of their own race, so no one's rights are being violated."
The Iowa Supreme Court answered that:
It is true the marriage statute does not expressly prohibit gay and lesbian persons from marrying; it does, however, require that if they marry, it must be to someone of the opposite sex. Viewed in the complete context of marriage, including intimacy, civil marriage with a person of the opposite sex is as unappealing to a gay or lesbian person as civil marriage with a person of the same sex is to a heterosexual. Thus, the right of a gay or lesbian person under the marriage statute to enter into a civil marriage only with a
person of the opposite sex is no right at all. Under such a law, gay or lesbian individuals cannot simultaneously fulfill their deeply felt need for a committed personal relationship, as influenced by their sexual orientation, and gain the civil status and attendant benefits granted by the statute. Instead, a gay or lesbian person can only gain the same rights under the statute as a heterosexual person by negating the very trait that defines gay
and lesbian people as a class—their sexual orientation.
But, of course, inhumane bigots like Pilty actually want us to "negate the very trait" that defines us as a class.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 4, 2009 10:03 AM
Damn.
Well I'm glad I've missed it. Because it's fucking stupid.
Posted by: strange gods before me | June 4, 2009 11:17 AM
I do like the counterargument that makes the issue one of gender discrimination. A man can marry a woman, but a woman cannot marry a woman, so the woman is being denied an opportunity that is being granted to the man. She's being discriminated against, solely on the basis of her gender.
It's not as intuitively obvious as the discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, but gender discrimination has a longer history of court precedent to work from. And it goes directly against the stupid "right to marry someone of the opposite sex."
Posted by: ABradford | June 4, 2009 11:57 AM
While not allowing the exceptions would have been quite a blow to certain churches in New Hampshire, I don't have a problem with what's currently written. Having gotten married in New Hampshire in a completely areligious ceremony, I can say confidently that there are loads of great options there for soon-to-be couples. I can also guess that there will be quite a number of churches that will allow it, as it was never hard to point out the more independent churches there. New Hampshirites love their freedom.
Posted by: bybelknap, FCD | June 4, 2009 12:24 PM
Hooray for NH.
And my kitties love bacon.
Posted by: Alyson Miers | June 4, 2009 12:59 PM
I still don't like the exception made for religious organizations, but if we understand it to mean, "If you are LGB in New Hampshire, DO NOT WORK FOR A RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION," then it works out.
Posted by: zigackly
|
June 4, 2009 1:42 PM
Piltdown Man (#60)
And now, thanks to this law, both heterosexuals and homosexuals in NH will soon be able to enjoy the equal right to marry someone of the same sex.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 4, 2009 1:48 PM
There you go Pilty. Equal rights for you.
I'm sure theres some nice young man available for you in NH.
Live free or die!
Posted by: Ranson | June 4, 2009 1:52 PM
@ Rev BDC, per #54
John Scalzi solved that paradox by taping bacon to his cat. I think it's a lesson that can teach something to all of us.
Posted by: Mark | June 4, 2009 2:00 PM
Even as a staunch atheist I have not a single problem with NH's exceptions. Why on earth would the state feel the need to compel churches to perform marriages they don't want to perform? That is intrusion of the first degree!
NH's law is full separation of church and state. Indeed, no wedding is LEGAL unless the state gives one a document proving it legal. No one need ever step into a church to get married because NO WEDDING IN THE US IS LEGAL IF IT'S PERFORMED SOLELY BY THE CHURCH.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | June 4, 2009 2:05 PM
Even as a staunch atheist I have not a single problem with NH's exceptions. Why on earth would the state feel the need to compel churches to perform marriages they don't want to perform? That is intrusion of the first degree!
Where has this been proposed/threatened?
How is the right of religious groups to set ground rules for their own wedding ceremonies not already protected?
Another one who just isn't paying attention.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 4, 2009 2:06 PM
Mark, you adressed the issue everybody is in agreement on, and failed to adress the issue of benefits for partners of those working in church charities, where clear discrimination occurs.
Posted by: Watchman | June 4, 2009 2:08 PM
Mark, read Carlie's comment #74.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 4, 2009 2:14 PM
true, very very true
Posted by: a lurker | June 4, 2009 2:19 PM
The religious exception is just playing politics and saving face. The simple reality is that no church has ever had to marry a couple that they did not wish to. To force a church to perform holy matrimony unwillingly would have been a massive violation of the First Amendment. The state can however force its own justice of the peace (or whatever official they choose) to conduct the ceremony.
Posted by: Acronym Jim | June 4, 2009 2:47 PM
"John Scalzi solved that paradox by taping bacon to his cat. I think it's a lesson that can teach something to all of us."
Depending on where the bacon is taped, doesn't this present a paradox to the cat?
If it's Schrodinger's cat, is the bacon wavy or particley?
Posted by: Angel Kaida | June 4, 2009 3:03 PM
Yay New Hampshire! Can't wait til my adopted state joins the ranks of the enlightened. (North Dakota will probably take a few decades, but Michigan has a chance!)
As for you S&M bashers, you may fuck off. Thanks.
Posted by: Angel Kaida | June 4, 2009 3:14 PM
Gumbyphobe,
I scrolled and scrolled and I still can't find it! Any help?
Posted by: Angel Kaida | June 4, 2009 3:14 PM
Gumbyphobe,
I scrolled and scrolled and I still can't find it! Any help?
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 4, 2009 3:37 PM
but hey, at least cohabitation is no longer a crime here! ;-)
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | June 4, 2009 3:39 PM
but hey, at least cohabitation is no longer a crime here! ;-)
I'm still not getting a roommate.
Posted by: Rynaldo | June 4, 2009 3:41 PM
While I applaud greater civil rights in my southern neighbour's more enlightened states this whole argument seems so 20th century. In Canada, most legal benefits associated with marriage have been extended to same-sex partners since 1999. Marriage legislation was expanded to cover gay marriage country-wide almost 5 years ago.
Miraculously, nothing happened (except for a slight boost to the wedding industry and, sadly, the divorce lawyers). My wife and I noticed no change at all in our marriage and it feels just as valuable as it did before. My grandfather felt that everyone should get married - "Why should I be the only one to suffer?" he often joked (as a conservative Protestant he wouldn't have included gays but I attribute that more to the times he was raised in than any personal ignorance). My grandfather "suffered" for over 50 years and I hope that many of those who marry under the new legislation will enjoy similar long and happy unions.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 4, 2009 3:44 PM
I find that hard to believe as all the people who claim to know better are sure that my marriage will explode into a billion pieces taking with it my job and the ability for the country to continue having babies resulting in us as a species dying out should the gays be allowed to marry.
Posted by: Ranson | June 4, 2009 3:53 PM
Hickory, I think. You can see it at Baconcat
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | June 4, 2009 3:55 PM
Isn'y it funny as more LGBT people come out and demand their rights and scandalously live their lives that straight people continue to be straight and continue to produce offspring. It is like all of those straight people can continue to function despite living next door to people like me.
Posted by: Die Anyway | June 4, 2009 4:01 PM
re: "...religiously-affiliated organizations that do service/charity or educational work are exempt from providing spousal benefits to same-sex spouses of employees.
"
I see that a lot of you are having a problem with this exemption but I just can't get too excited about it. Seems to me that if you want to work for a bigoted organization, you should have to live with their bigoted personnel policies. Sort of "poetic justice" in action. And, as a corollary, if those bigoted organizations go out of business or change their policies because no one will work for them... well that's a good thing.
Posted by: Acronym Jim | June 4, 2009 4:16 PM
Thanks for the input Ranson. Fortunately, when I clicked on the link, the cat was more or less fixed at "alive" and the bacon at "wavy"...and hickory.
Another cat saved by observation.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 4, 2009 4:27 PM
nice
Posted by: robotaholic
|
June 4, 2009 4:28 PM
awesome- what state is gonna be next? any ideas?
Posted by: LE | June 4, 2009 4:32 PM
Die anyway@104
It must be nice to have so many employment options. What if you're a nurse and the only hospital within commuting distance is Catholic? What if you're a secretary and the major employer in your town is a Catholic or Evangelical College? The law doesn't just apply to church secretaries working for a parish - it applies to any charitable or educational organization or employer run by a religious group. You really think those organizations are going to go out of business because a couple of people refuse to work for them? Not everyone has the economic means to make that choice.
I have a different question: are religious hospitals required to recognize people's marriages when it comes to things like hospital visitation rights, etc? My reading of the law as written is really unclear on this - if they are just exempt from performing marriages they don't approve of, then that provision is redundant - it falls under their first amendment rights. But if they aren't required to recognize those marriages, then thats a different matter entirely. IANAL and am not entirely clear where the law currently draws the line under the First Amendment, but if this law goes further than that, it's problem.
Posted by: Acronym Jim | June 4, 2009 4:33 PM
I don't know robotaholic, maybe the eigenstate?
O.K., I'm done now.
Posted by: Tom Coward | June 4, 2009 5:45 PM
Concerning the exemption for religious organizations from providing spousal benefits to same-sex spouses of employees: It seems to me that a strong case could be made that such a provision is unconstitutional on Equal Protection grounds. After all, this is the rationale that led the courts in Massachusetts and Iowa to extend marriage rights to same-sex couples in the first place!
Posted by: strange gods before me | June 4, 2009 6:17 PM
Thank you, LE.
Posted by: Piltdown Man | June 4, 2009 7:40 PM
MAJeff @ 61:
I believe it was Citizen of the Cosmos @ 58.
Kel @ 63:
Kseniya @ 75:
Of course I want to impose my morality on everyone -- if by that you mean it being culturally normative -- just as you do.
It's a war, one which I cheerfully admit we're losing.
So I'm not a hypocrite. The hypocrisy is on the side of those liberals who pretend their partisan stance is manifestly some kind of benignly reasonable ideology-free neutral zone which only unreasonable people would reject.
Kel @ 63:
It's much, much more than that.
Only in the limited sense that it's the government's duty to enforce laws.
Nope, just culturally conditioned.
What does that mean? What "will of the people"?
"The people" are individual persons with wills of their own.
Do you mean morality is decided by a majority vote? You don't really believe that.
Nerd of Redhead @ 70:
No man is an island. It affects me because it affects the whole tenor of the culture in which I live in a way I consider unhealthy.
Rynaldo @ 100:
When people lose a sense of eternity (ie a religious sense) they lose their sense of time. You think a civilization collapses from one cause in just five years?
(Then again, perhaps it has collapsed and you just haven't noticed.)
And their sense of proportion. Why should your personal feelings about your marriage necessarily be a reliable indicator of cultural health?
Citizen of the Cosmos @ 67:
Well there is a school of thought that believes that. It's called 'totalitarianism'.
Some of us think subsidiarity is a sounder principle.
Rev. BigDumbChimp @ 78:
It was a serious point flippantly expressed.
What is going on here is not about "equal rights". It is an attempt to redefine the meaning of a particular word in order to alter the way people think. It is a classic example of "magical thinking" in the best Orwellian tradition -- he who controls language controls thought and hence reality itself.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, marriage remains exactly what it always has been -- the religiously consecrated union between a man and a woman, with the primary end of producing and raising children.
zigackly @ 85:
"Laws" which attempt to deny this primordial reality are just words on a page. Any state which attempts to apply them with coercive power is setting itself in opposition to constituted reality. "And great was the fall thereof."
MAJeff @ 79:
MAJeff, if you choose to define yourself primarily by your sexual preferences, you are free to do so. (Although it seems to me like you're putting all your eggs in one basket.)
If anyone else regards a particular sexual act as disordered and unwholesome, they are equally free to resist its cultural normalization to the best of their ability.
strange gods before me @ 81:
You make it sound as if gender were a trivial thing and discrimination a bad thing.
To discriminate means to discern differences.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | June 4, 2009 7:44 PM
Pilty, you really are an indecent human.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 4, 2009 7:47 PM
No it is precisely about equal rights, whether you want to recognize that or not. No magical thinking at all except by those who think their particular superstitions should apply to the rest of the human race.
for example, you
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | June 4, 2009 7:50 PM
Oh, Rev, you and your silly enlightenment.
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | June 4, 2009 7:55 PM
To discriminate means to discern differences.
And I am so grateful to secularism, it keeps the likes of the Hoax from doing what they truly what to do to those they want to discriminate against.
Posted by: SC, OM | June 4, 2009 7:56 PM
Excellent! Please describe, in detail, the two (or more) sides in this war. Specifically, what are your side's long- and short-term goals (again, please describe in detail), and how are you going about fighting for them in this war? What is not allowed for you in this war?
Posted by: Piltdown Man | June 4, 2009 7:58 PM
MAJeff:
Thank you for recognizing my humanity.
+++
"NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim June 2009 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month. I call upon the people of the United States to turn back discrimination and prejudice everywhere it exists."
. . .
"Moreover, freedom in America is indivisible from the freedom to practice one's religion. That is why there is a mosque in every state of our union, and over 1,200 mosques within our borders. That is why the United States government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab, and to punish those who would deny it. So let there be no doubt -- Islam is a part of America. "
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | June 4, 2009 8:01 PM
Thank you for recognizing my humanity.
It's more than you've been willing to do for gay and lesbian people.
SC, he seeks the destruction of gay and lesbian life, but thinks this means he desires no harm to gay and lesbian people.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 4, 2009 8:03 PM
Pilty, you made and unsubstantiated allegation, which confirms you are a homophobe, bigot, and idiot. The only way to change this is with proper evidence. And you have none. Do the honorable and moral thing, and either acknowledge that fact, or just STFU.Posted by: Ichthyic
|
June 4, 2009 8:09 PM
It's a war, one which I cheerfully admit we're losing.
Yeah, but are you imminently awaiting the trumpets to blow?
You fought the "good" fight, time to come on home, right?
so fucking get on with it already.
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | June 4, 2009 8:09 PM
MAJeff, you know that if we were living in the Hoax's ideal medieval world, he would be able to throw the flaming faggots on the burning fagots.
Posted by: SC, OM | June 4, 2009 8:10 PM
I want him to spell it out, explicitly and in detail - goals and strategies.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
June 4, 2009 8:11 PM
"Moreover, freedom in America is indivisible from the freedom to practice one's religion."
-B. Obama
Since you posted it...
Do you disagree?
If so, where does that leave you, other than with subversive ideas of overthrowing the state and re-writing the constitution?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
June 4, 2009 8:14 PM
This first sentence makes absolutely no sense. I've got an interest in history. I just finished a book about World War I in which an incident that my grandfather was involved in was described. I was wishing that my grandfather was still alive so I could discuss it with him, and the realized that my grandfather was born 117 years ago. Guess what, Pilty, I don't need religion to give me a sense of time.
The second sentence is arguable. The rise and fall of the Confederacy and the almost complete makeover of that society took less than five years and can be attributed to the Confederates breaking away from the Union.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | June 4, 2009 8:14 PM
MAJeff, you know that if we were living in the Hoax's ideal medieval world, he would be able to throw the flaming faggots on the burning fagots.
He may be polluting himself right now as he imagines the flaming flamers.
Posted by: Rey Fox | June 4, 2009 8:19 PM
"I want him to spell it out, explicitly and in detail - goals and strategies. "
And I'd like to hear just who the other side in the war is, and what their goals are. Bonus points if he can fit demons and demonic possession in there somewhere.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 4, 2009 8:21 PM
PZ, I know you hate to ban people, the Pilty is simply being stupid and disruptive these days. Unless, of course, he has gonads enough to apologize to the blog for his irrational behavior.
Posted by: Acronym Jim | June 4, 2009 8:39 PM
So Piltdown is saying that in his own carefully "created" version of reality, atheists, the elderly, male/female couples unable to procreate, and male/female couples unwilling to procreate should be denied all the rights and benefits conferred by marriage.
I for one am glad that dude's not making the rules.
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | June 4, 2009 8:53 PM
Nerd, I have to say, I respectfully disagree with your plea to plonk the Hoax. He is useful to have around. None of us have to construct a persona that pines away for a traditional catholic society. The Hoax gleefully spews out all of his inhumane ideals. I like to think that just his words is enough to have humane people (Be them religious or atheist.) fleeing in horror from what he holds sacred.
Also, I find myself strangely fascinated by his attempts at humor. It is rare that I see such an anti-funny person try so hard to be funny.
(I am afraid this makes me yet an other rubbernecker, staring at the wreck on the highway.)
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM
|
June 4, 2009 8:59 PM
Another litany of cluelessness from the hoax:
Real world? You believe in an invisible magic man in the sky, that bread and wine magically become blood and flesh when awizard casts a spellpriest prays over it, and in demonic possession. And you're lecturing us on the real world? Hah! True - well, except for all those thousands (millions?) of civil unions that didn't involve any religious consecrations whatsoever. Of course, since Pilty has his fingers in his ears, he can pretend they never happened... And what about infertile/voluntarily childless couples, Pilty? Are you saying that unless people guarantee they're going to produce children they shouldn't be allowed to marry?Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 4, 2009 9:10 PM
in other words, pilty's "real world" does not and has never existed, seeing as children have been made and raised outside of marriage, common law marriages have always been common(until the various churches decided to outlaw them, at which point we simply had a lot of people "living in sin"), most marriages were and are economic rather than religious unions, and "between a man and a woman" is a globally rare and modern way of organizing families.
Posted by: Noodly James | June 4, 2009 9:54 PM
For the record I am pro-gay marriage ie pro-equality.
-
My thoughts on the exemption of the religious groups from the law (ridiculous) is that this will end up being a benefit to atheism and evolution. Why? Because it is yet more proof of the hypocrisy and and hatred of the more dogmatic christians sects. By being inflexible on equality for all people they chase logic, compassion, and intellect out the door.
Posted by: Carlie | June 4, 2009 10:16 PM
And, as a corollary, if those bigoted organizations go out of business or change their policies because no one will work for them... well that's a good thing.
On the contrary, they might well do better. Remember, they are tax-exempt because of being religious. There's an enormous financial advantage. Now, add on that they don't have to pay as much in spousal insurance benefits as other companies do, since by fiat they declare many of them ineligible. They could well outcompete other similar companies because their costs will be lower.
And the part about hospitals can't be stressed enough - it wouldn't only be the employees who are affected, but patients as well. Picture happily, legally married couple A, who are visiting relatives in state B when one of the couple has a heart attack and is transported by ambulance to the only hospital in town. But it's a Catholic hospital, and their legal spouse is not recognized. No visitation. No being able to make decisions.
That's not hypothetical - it's already happened over and over to gay couples who have every legal document duck in a row. This concession codifies that behavior into law.
Posted by: Sami | June 5, 2009 12:21 AM
You know, I'm in favour of churches not having to go along with these things.
Know why?
Because my church WILL. And good Christians will flock to churches like mine after they attend gay weddings with us.
And then, we shall crowd out the douchebags, and reclaim Christianity for good people through the POWER OF GAY.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 5, 2009 12:33 AM
Yep, my grandparent's Baptist (no I did not stutter) church in Raleigh NC was performing gay ceremonies a decade or more ago and actually were the first baptist church in the south to elect an openly gay lead pastor. Granted the Southern Baptist Convention despises them, can't get a better endorsement than that.
They have a healthy congregation of tolerant mostly rational people. So making it a choice instead of a requirement is fine by me.
Posted by: Kseniya | June 5, 2009 12:50 AM
Piltdown:
NO. That is not what I mean. At least, that's not ALL I mean. I think you know this. Read on.
Jesus Christ, Pilty! How can you NOT see the difference? HOW? Surely it's been spelled out right here on Pharyngula and elsewhere, more times than either one of us would care to count.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 5, 2009 12:57 AM
Because to Pilty allowing people to live with dignity means we're forcing him to do something he doesn't want, namely allowing people to live with dignity.
Posted by: peter | June 5, 2009 8:50 AM
I can't easily imagine the legalization of gay marriage extending much beyond the New England states anytime in the next few years, can you? Maybe New York, New Jersey, Hawaii, California, and Oregon, but certainly not in any of the old Confederate states or any state that borders one of those states.
Iowa seems more like a "freak of nature" than a harbinger to me.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | June 5, 2009 8:58 AM
I can't easily imagine the legalization of gay marriage extending much beyond the New England states anytime in the next few years, can you? Maybe New York, New Jersey, Hawaii, California, and Oregon, but certainly not in any of the old Confederate states or any state that borders one of those states.
Iowa seems more like a "freak of nature" than a harbinger to me.
Minnesota could after the next Gubernatorial election. There's a bill in the legislature, which is fairly overwhelmingly DFL, but with Pawlenty in the way, there's no way. So, it'll be a few years of working with legislators to get something ready for a (hopefully) DFL Governor in 2012.
Rhode Island will also need to wait for a new Governor, in all likelihood.
The next states are likely to be more like Nevada and pass lesser partnership recognition packages. New Mexico and Illinois were on the verge this session. Washington approved an almost equivalent domestic partnership bill.
Then we also start getting to the states with constitutional prohibitions, both on marriage and any other forms of recognition (29 total). Those are going to take longer, and are likely going to require more plebiscites. So, that's automatically going to take longer (and *yay!* bring increases in anti-gay violence during the campaigns, as usual)
Posted by: Kel | June 5, 2009 9:07 AM
To paraphrase an intolerant bigot: Who gave you the right to impose your morality on me?Posted by: Kseniya | June 5, 2009 10:06 AM
Iowa as harbinger? Perhaps. Perhaps not a harbinger of things to come over the next two, three, or five years, but a harbinger nonetheless. We'll see what starts happens across the country when, after ten or twenty years, people realize that the social structures of the New England states and Iowa haven't collapsed into the ruinous anarchy of utter depravity. As a young Iowan woman said (to an older protester of the gay marriage ruling), and I paraphrase:
"You don't get it -- you've already lost. Our generation doesn't care."
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | June 5, 2009 10:13 AM
As a young Iowan woman said (to an older protester of the gay marriage ruling), and I paraphrase:
"You don't get it -- you've already lost. Our generation doesn't care."
Actually, wasn't that what the Iowa Senate Majority Leader reported his daughter as saying to an older co-worker?
I've actually been thinking a lot about Iowa lately. I got my BA at Iowa State, and was pretty heavily involved in the (unsuccessful) struggle to gain access to family housing for same-sex couples in the 93-94 academic year. The previous year, I became the first RA to come out while living in the res halls (which caused more than a little tension). I'm proud of that state, and it's nice to know I was a little part of the longer-term movement in that state.
Posted by: Dana | June 5, 2009 11:11 AM
"Meanwhile, back in the real world, marriage remains exactly what it always has been -- the religiously consecrated union between a man and a woman, with the primary end of producing and raising children."
Except when it's a state-recognized legal union between two people which may involve a religious ceremony from any of many faiths or no religious ceremony at all, which brings with it numerous secular legal and financial benefits, and which is allowed even between two people who are incapable of, or have no intention of, producing children.
"To discriminate means to discern differences."
Discerning differences is fine. Basing the denial of rights and benefits on those differences is not.
"Why should the government get to decide on what constitutes marriage? Who gave it the right to impose its morality on me?"
Because the government grants rights and benefits based on being married, so they have to have a *legal* way to define marriage, and basing that on any one faith's definition, or even requiring a "religious" marriage at all, would violate the First Amendment.
"No man is an island. It affects me because it affects the whole tenor of the culture in which I live in a way I consider unhealthy."
Those of us who believe in equality could say the same about laws *banning* gay marriage. But the fact remains that laws banning gay marriage *directly and immediately* affect (restrict) the lives and decisions of gay people, and laws allowing gay marriage do not so affect the lives of people who oppose them. Who's trying to impose whose morality on whom?
Posted by: Watchman | June 5, 2009 11:31 AM
"To discriminate means to discern differences."
This isn't the first time I've heard the specious argument that relies on this ill-used definition. It's dictionary sophism employed to justify social inequities. Nothing more, and nothing less. Shame on those who resort to it.
Posted by: Timothy (TRiG) | June 5, 2009 2:48 PM
And in Iran, everyone has the right to worship Allah.
(I picked up that response from Donald at the CARM forums.)
Exemptions.
1. A religious organisation will not be required to marry same-sex couples.
Slap Upside the Head
This law is completely redundent. It's merely wasted verbiage on the paper. That's a bad law.
2. Religious organisations won't have to recognise gay marriages.
(a) Why should these people get special rights just because they have an imaginary friend?
(b) Does this put the government in the absurd position of deciding what is and what is not a religion? Religion is, basically, a form of hobby. Whould a group of philatelists operating a company be exempt from these laws?
TRiG.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 6, 2009 6:44 AM
Who's trying to impose whose morality on whom?
projection and denial are symptomatic of the underlying cognitive dissonance fundies go through daily. You will not find a single fundie that does not exhibit these symptoms.
It's no wonder they so often go insane and become murderers and terrorists.
Posted by: Piltdown Man | June 7, 2009 10:18 AM
MAJeff @ 119:
I don't know what you mean by "the destruction of gay and lesbian life". I've not called for the killing of homosexuals. Nor do I advocate any kind of systematic persecution of the homosexual lifestyle -- eg jackbooted police breaking down the doors of private dwellings and hauling off homosexual revellers to concentration camps.
What I object to is the cultural normalization of homosexuality, the promotion of homosexuality in an educational context, the appointment of known homosexuals to positions of authority over vulnerable adolescents (eg the Scouts or the priesthood) and the silencing of public dissent from this normalization.
Ichthyic @ 124:
I thought the two quotations by the Obamanation -- one pro-homosexal, the other pro-Islam -- highlighted an amusing dichotomy in the left-liberal mindset. I can imagine the cognitive dissonance liberals must experience trying to harmonize their love of all things Third World and multicultural with their feminist and homosexualist crusade against traditional sexual morality. You can almost hear their circuits fusing when the two inevitably clash ... smoke pouring out of their ears ...
'Tis Himself @ 125:
Religion may not be necessary but I think it helps insofar as it a.) discourages one from becoming too immersed in the immediate instant, and b.) involves a degree of identification with an institution or system of significant historical duration, viz. the great Victorian historian Macaulay's reflections on the Church.
I was referring to the gradual collapse of a society as a result of internal corruption, not the drastic destruction of a society by external aggressors as happened in the case of Anglo-Saxon England or the CSA.
SC @ 117:
In the blue corner we have the Holy Roman Catholic Church. In the red corner, there are her enemies -- hostile false religions such as Islam, Judaism, occultism, neopaganism etc, and hostile secular ideologies such as socialism, communism, capitalism, liberal democracy etc.
Currently, the position of the Church resembles that of Rocky or Godzilla in the early stages of a fight -- she's getting stomped.
The short-term goal is to simply survive in an increasingly hostile environment.
The long-term goal would be to instaurare omnia in Christo ("restore all things in Christ") with a renewed Christendom.
Humanly speaking, the long-term goal seems practically impossible at the moment. Catholicism is just too demoralized and culturally marginalized. I think there is a widespread unspoken dissatisfaction and unease about the direction of modern liberal secular society -- but the Church's post-Vatican II leadership is too corrupt & feeble & accommodating to act as the focus of any kind of effective resistance.
Of course, history can take unexpected turns. But our main weapons remain prayer and mortification.
Anything that contravenes Christian morality - eg gunning down abortionists.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | June 7, 2009 10:27 AM
But our main weapons remain prayer and mortification.
Your main weapon is talking to yourself?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 7, 2009 10:43 AM
Yep, Pilty falls into the tl;dr category so he can hear himself think. Those interested in seeing his train wreck logic actually read a little of it. Pilty also forgets every time he posts, and we respond to his paranoid phobias, he puts some coinage into PZ's pocket. Funny how those who hate atheists help them out so much...Posted by: Kel | June 7, 2009 11:00 AM
We should never had freed the slaves, allowed women equal rights or given blacks the chance to vote. Hell, we are even going soft allowing atheists to go untortured...Posted by: Rorschach | June 7, 2009 11:05 AM
Fish in a barrel.
Posted by: Acronym Jim | June 7, 2009 12:16 PM
Since our Catholic friend Pilty is such a fan of Chick Tracts, I think he will thoroughly enjoy this one:
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0074/0074_01.asp
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | June 7, 2009 12:29 PM
I don't know what you mean by "the destruction of gay and lesbian life". I've not called for the killing of homosexuals. Nor do I advocate any kind of systematic persecution of the homosexual lifestyle -- eg jackbooted police breaking down the doors of private dwellings and hauling off homosexual revellers to concentration camps.
Just keep in mind, the Hoax longs for the good old days when the Church ran the Inquisition. The Hoax thinks it was justified because civilization is war. Keep that in mind when the Hoax claims that he has no desire to kill people. The Hoax admires the warriors of his Church, those who slaughtered all sort of non believers.
Posted by: Piltdown Man | June 9, 2009 12:54 PM
Despicable.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 9, 2009 1:05 PM
Pilty, the only thing despicable here are your posts. Your paranoia, homophobia, and pure bigotry shine through. All in the name of morally bankrupt religion.