Agape Press reports:
The president of the public policy arm of the Southern Baptist Convention (Richard Land) says amending the U.S. Constitution to protect traditional marriage will take time, but that such an amendment will eventually be approved on Capitol Hill.
Would you care to place a bet on that, Mr. Land? If you didn't get it passed in the last 3 years, with total control of the White House and both houses of Congress, not to mention all of the momentum from the initial culture shock in the wake of the Massachusetts SJC ruling on gay marriage, you're never going to get it passed. In the short run, this fall's elections will undoubtedly make it less likely to pass, not more likely. And in the long run, public opinion has already started to shift dramatically in the other direction.
Even the voters in Massachusetts don't want to see gay marriage gotten rid of now that they have it, while most polls show that 2/3 of the nation now recognizes the need for serious legal protection for gay relationships, whether it's called gay marriage or merely civil unions. And the younger generations are far more supportive of the idea than older voters, for obvious reasons. They were raised in a culture far more open and accepting of gays than their parents were, they are far more likely to know and care about gays and lesbians - and they'll be in charge at some point.
You don't know it yet, but you've already lost this issue. Within a generation, probably less, gay marriage will be a reality in one form or another in the United States and I don't think there's anything you can do to stop it. And I'd be willing to put a whole lot of money on it. Let's say $20,000 that 20 years from now, either genuine gay marriage or civil unions will be supported by a majority of Americans and be a reality in at least a dozen states, while a constitutional amendment against gay marriage will not have passed both houses of Congress and been sent to the states. And if you want to respond to my wager, just don't do it from a computer in the state of Washington or you'll end up in jail.
- Log in to post comments
You'll probably see America going the way the Scandanavian countries of Europe. Gay marriage will eventually be recognized as a reality, probably with a nomer other than "marriage" - say "civil union" or as in those European countries, "registered partnership". Possibly these relationships will be the equivalent of marriage except with a few restrictions, but in time even these restrictions will be pared away. Eventually we'll reach the point where we wondered what all the fuss was about in the first place.
While I realize that past perfomance is no guarantee of future results, given Mr. Brayton's record on wagers, I'd say if Mr. Land takes this bet, it is as good as money in the bank.
This is pretty funny! I've been arguing with someone on an internet forum who keeps insisting that the US will never allow gay marriage, even though I pointed Massachusetts to him and a poll that you, Ed, recently posted on this site. He says, in true fundie fashion, "you liberals are losing the battle!", even AFTER posting that poll that shows a general swing towards acceptance.
"Registered partnership" ("Eingetragene Partnerschaft") is used in Germany. I don't know what term is used in most of the other countries, but in the Netherlands--and I believe Belgium--the local word for "marriage" is used for same-sex relationships.
In Denmark they're called civil unions (legal since 1989, first country in the world apparently) but they entail all of the same rights as marriage.
Isn't it true that in England Civil Partnerships are beging referred to in common parlance as "marriages?"
I can imagine a future process in America where people, not seeing any difference, call civil partnerships "marriages" solemnized by "weddings," until one day people wake up and drop all the silliness subsume it all into marriage law.