Gay Marriage 2.0

[Lukas]

Disclaimer: The issue of gay marriage is a partisan one, and therefore there will be strong opinions for either side. I ask that if you choose to participate in this dialogue, that you remain on topic and refrain from any personal attacks. Politics and religion are deeply rooted in this discussion, but please keep your arguments respectful.

I will also be adding to this post and the thread in general as things develop.

Proposition 8:

Proposition 8 is a California State ballot proposition that would amend the state Constitution to restrict the definition of marriage to a union between a man and a woman. It would overturn a recent California Supreme Court decision that had recognized same-sex marriage in California as a fundamental right. The official ballot title language for Proposition 8 is "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry." The entirety of the text to be added to the constitution is: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

The decision by the Supreme Court refers to the overturning of Proposition 22:

On May 15, 2008 the California Supreme Court, by a vote of 4–3, ruled that the statute enacted by Proposition 22 and other statutes that limit marriage to a relationship between a man and a woman violated the equal protection clause of the California Constitution. It also held that individuals of the same sex have the right to marry under the California Constitution.

On June 4, 2008, the California Supreme Court denied a petition to stay its In re Marriage Cases order pending the upcoming vote on Proposition 8. As of June 17, 2008, marriages between individuals of the same sex were considered valid and recognized in the state of California. A UCLA study estimated that 18,000 same-sex couples married between then and early November, 2008.

Proposition 8 passed with 52.3% of California voters supporting the ban.
http://vote.sos.ca.gov/Returns/props/59.htm

Majority Rule and Minority Rights:

The United States Constitution is designed to align itself with the will of the people with respect to minority rights. This means that a majority cannot vote to strip rights away from a suspect class. Courts and legal bodies exist to inhibit any such infringements. That is the "system".

The United States is not a direct democracy in which decisions are laid bare before the tyranny of the majority. With regards to Prop 8, a small majority of CA voters annulled the right of homosexuals to get married, removed any legal/civil rights given to them through marriage, and disallowed the state to recognise said marriages. The will of the people can and should be overturned because it violates the clause pertaining to due process and the guarantee of equal protection provided by the constitution under the Fourteenth Amendment.

To state that the final word on the matter lies with the people is naive and demonstrates a lack of knowledge into how democracy in the US functions. It is not how the "system" functions.

The Constitution - Revisions and Amendments:

There are two ways in which a constitution can be altered - through an amendment or a revision.

The California Constitution permits "amendments" to the Constitution by mere majority vote in a statewide referendum (although to get a state-constitution-amending initiative on the ballot requires more signatures than to get a regular-state-law-creating initiative on the ballot). However, some provisions can't be changed by amendment. What the California Supreme Court has characterized as far-reaching change to the fundamental constitutional plan requires a "revision" to the state constitution, which can only be accomplished if 2/3 of the state legislature first proposes the measure and it is then approved by the voters.

Proposition 8 was passed as an amendment and thus was not subject to a 2/3 approval by the State Legislature. However, given the nature of the change to proposed, Prop 8 is a revision because it essentially circumvents equal protection.

Proposition 8, if it truly has been enacted, woulds constitute a revision of the California Constitution because it alters underlying principles on which the California Constitution is based and makes far-reaching changes to the nature of our basic governmental plan by severly comprimising the core constitutional principle of equal protection of the laws, depriving a vulnerable minority of fundamental rights, inscribing discrimination based on a suspect classification into the constitution and destroying the courts' quintessential power and role of protecting minorities and enforcing the guarantee of equal protection under the law.

Proposition 8 is invalid under the California Constitution. Proposition 8, unlike any other constitutional initiative of which Petioners are aware, eliminated a fundemental right - the right to marry - and it does so only with respect to a subset of Californians - lesbian and gay people. If given effect, Proposition 8 would work a dramatic, substantiative change to our Constitution's "underlying principles" of individual equality, on a scale and scope never previously condoned by this Court. And, because it would prohibit California courts from exercising their core, traditional, constitutional role of protecting the established equality rights of a minority defined by a suspect classification, Proposition 8 would effect a "far reaching change in the nature of our basic governmental plan".

For these reasons, Proposition 8 must be deemed to constitute a "revision" of the Constitution, as opposed to a mere "amendment". Although section 3 of article XVIII confers on the people the power to "amend" our Constitution by initiative, "revisions" properly may be accomplished only through the deliberative process established in sections 1 and 2 of article XVIII. Because none of the steps necessary to effect a "revision" have taken place here, Proposition 8 is invalid in its entirety.

http://www.nclrights.org/site/DocServer/CampaignPetition.pdf?docID=4321

Lisa Bloom, Daughter of Gloria Allred on the issue:


Precedent:

The fight for gay marriaged holds significant parallels to the overturning of antimiscegenation laws within the last century. Namely in the sense that to bar a fundamental right (marriage) from people on the grounds of discrimination is unconstitutional.

In 1948, The California Supreme Court ruled that interracial marriage bans violated the Fourtheenth Amendment via Perez v Sharp:

The court held that marriage is a fundamental right and that laws restricting that right must not be based solely on prejudice. The court held that restrictions due to discrimination violated the constitutional requirements of due process and equal protection of the laws. The opinion voided the California statute, holding that Section 69 of the California Civil Code was too vague and uncertain to be enforceable restrictions on the fundamental right of marriage and that they violated the Fourteenth Amendment by impairing the right to marry on the basis of race alone.

In 1967, the case of Loving v Virginia (a landmark case which saw the final demise of antimiscegenation in the US) a similar ruling was delivered:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy.

In June 2007, Mildred Loving issued the following statement:

Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights.

I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about.

The Misinformation:

The proponents of Proposition 8 made the following claims in relation to gay marriage and the recognition of it by the state:

1. If gay marriage is recognised, children will be taught about homosexuality in schools.
2. Religious insitutions will lose their tax exempt status for refusing to perform homosexual marriages.
3. People or religious officials may be legally prosecuted for holding anti-homosexual beliefs.

I would just like to systematically debunk these horribly misinformed opinions.

1. FALSE. Proposition 8 does not address the issue of education and California law allows for parents to forego any lessons or classes regarding health, sex or familial matters which they do not want their children learning.
2. FALSE. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of gay marriage and specified that no religion will be required to change its policies with regards to same-sex marriage nor will they be required to solemnise a marriage if it goes against his/her religious/moral beliefs.
3. FALSE. Unfortunately, anti-discrimination laws and Freedom of Speech permits people to hold their bigoted views.

Sectarian, Religious or Civil?

The truth of the matter is that gay marriage, and as an extension homosexual rights, are CIVIL issues. I repeat CIVIL. The Supreme Court ruled to recognise same-sex marriages as legal entities and bestow upon couples every single right and protection which marriages offer. This is completely separate from a religious marriage, and no church or institution was to be compelled to acknowledge it in a similar way.

There is no moral quandary to dwell over here. There is no need to consult a pastor. There is a separation of church and state for a good reason and the passing of Prop 8 saw that very line wither because people did not vote with regards to the legality of the matter. They did not vote after thinking about constitutional elements, or equal protection, or human rights. The vote was largely a sectarian one. You don't need to approve of homosexuality. You don't need to marry someone of the same sex if you do not wish. You do not need to host gay marriages in your church.

What you do need to consider however, is the rights and segregation of your fellow human being, of your neighbour, of your family. You need to ask yourself if it is correct to strip protection and rights from people who have no desire to undermine yours. Rights which are completely separate from your church. Wanting to maintain a tradition in your own congregation is one thing, enforcing an entire state to abide by your personal beliefs (or in this case, using that belief to take things away from minorities) is quite another.

Separate but Equal?

No. Always separate, never equal.

 

[Tristam Green]

Honestly, nothing would make me happier than to see a case similar to Brown v. Board of Education overturning this ridiculous proposition.

In what I read, this vote is absolutely against the Fourteenth Amendment itself (which doesn't exactly extend itself only to former slaves):

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Now that said, the Courts held to the "separate but equal" doctrine for well over 50 years post-Plessy v. Ferguson, so who knows how long they could hold for this? Hopefully, not too long.

Well-written and exceptionally presented, Lukas.

 

[Lukas]

Democratic legislators ask state Supreme Court to void Prop. 8

Reporting from Sacramento -- Forty-three Democratic legislators, including leaders of the California Senate and Assembly, filed a brief Monday urging the California Supreme Court to void Proposition 8.

Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata and incoming President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg signed the friend of the court brief, filed with the state Supreme Court.

...

"The citizens of California rely on the Legislature and the courts to safeguard against unlawful discrimination by temporary, and often short-lived, majorities," the legislators said in the document, written by attorneys at the firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher.

...

"Proposition 8 seeks to effect a monumental revision of this foundational principle and constitutional structure by allowing a bare majority of voters to eliminate a fundamental right of a constitutionally protected minority group," the brief says.

"If Proposition 8 takes effect, this court will no longer be the final arbiter of the rights of minorities," it continues.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-me-marriage11-2008nov11,0,5162523.story

 

[Hexx]

I look forward to this being done in California. Your information was well put together and presented Lukas. It is sad that even with all the great strides made by this great nation, there are still people hell bent on discriminating against a specific group of people.

 

[Courtney]

The Supreme Court ruled in favour of gay marriage and specified that no religion will be required to change its policies with regards to same-sex marriage nor will they be required to solemnise a marriage if it goes against his/her religious/moral beliefs.

Just curious, which religions have policies accepting Gay Marriage?

 

[Arctyrael]

Just curious, which religions have policies accepting Gay Marriage?

I would venture to say that is debatable as per perspective. Also, you must consider religions such as Unitarian Universalists.

 

[Courtney]

The question was just about the implication that marriage would be allowed but that only religionss that accepted gay marraige would be performing them.

Personally, I'd prefer a form of Civil Ceremony that gave gay couples the same rights as heterosexual couples, but didn't require having a religious basis (which is where a lot of the issues spring).

I'm not gay though, so just an opinion.

 

[Lukas]

The question was just about the implication that marriage would be allowed but that only religionss that accepted gay marraige would be performing them.

Personally, I'd prefer a form of Civil Ceremony that gave gay couples the same rights as heterosexual couples, but didn't require having a religious basis (which is where a lot of the issues spring).

I'm not gay though, so just an opinion.

Well the implication is that the marriages can be performed by the state without having to involve a religious body. If a same-sex couple finds a church which will marry them, then they are free to pursue that - if not then thay are still entitled to the same legal proceedings/rights of any other marriage. Marriage as recognised by the state and Marriage as recognised by the church are two different things. What opponents of Prop 8 seek is the former, not the latter.

As for civil unions, to have one way for gay people and another for straight people falls under the category of "separate but equal". The application of this tenet was a disaster during the civil rights movement because true equality is never reached. If civil unions and marriages are or were to become equal, then why can't everyone just get civil unions? Or why can't everyone just get marriage? Why couldn't people of colour drink from the white people water fountains or attend white schools? Because there is an under-current of discrimination which will always keep equality at bay - whether we acknowledge it or not.

Marriage currently bestows as many as 1,400 rights and benefits to a couple which are not provided through a civil union. A small number of these rights denied to gay couples are:

1. Joint parental rights of children
2. Joint adoption
3. Status as "next-of-kin" for hospital visits and medical decisions
4. Right to make a decision about the disposal of loved ones remains
5. Immigration and residency for partners from other countries
6. Crime victims recovery benefits
7. Domestic violence protection orders
8. Judicial protections and immunity
9. Automatic inheritance in the absence of a will
10. Public safety officers death benefits
11. Spousal veterans benefits
12. Social Security
13. Medicare
14. Joint filing of tax returns
15. Wrongful death benefits for surviving partner and children
16. Bereavement or sick leave to care for partner or children
17. Child support
18. Joint Insurance Plans
19. Tax credits including: Child tax credit, Hope and lifetime learning credits
20. Deferred Compensation for pension and IRAs
21. Estate and gift tax benefits
22. Welfare and public assistance
23. Joint housing for elderly
24. Credit protection
25. Medical care for survivors and dependents of certain veterans

You also have to consider that there are currently no viable, legal means to pursue these rights outside of getting married. They span across thousands upon thousands of state and federal laws. A marriage ties all of them together quite neatly.

 

[Hexx]

I doubt theres any standard religions that truly accept homosexuals, but the issue at hand with what youre stating Courtney is that Civil-unions have been accepted in other states, but some homosexual people feel it makes them second-class citizens. They want their unions to be called marriages as well to be on par with heterosexual unions as well.

As far as religious ceremonies is concerned, you can get married thru the courts without the need for a church wedding. Nowadays, a church wedding is more symbolic than anything anyways.

 

[Arctyrael]

Wall-o-test to rival Lukas:

Biblically, Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of insatiable lusts. This was portrayed as homosexual rape and lust. Any mention of heterosexuality is irrelevant -- if in fact there is any mention of it. In line with Gods rules, lust and adultery are wrong, regardless of sexuality.

The 10 commandment do not enumerate a restriction barring homosexuality as a cardinal sin. While, murder on the other hand, is a cardinal sin. Some Christians today say murder is forgivable -- so homosexuality, not listed, should certainly be forgivable correct? This claim makes me uncomfortable because it reads between the lines too much. It does pose some questions to consider. How does "born again" play into the mix? If you're born again, do you get away with murder? Does that mean the 10 commandments aren't absolute? Does it mean, inductively, I am right and that homosexuality is forgivable?

How about society and a teenager growing up gay? Is it acceptable in a modern society to let our children agonize over these intolerant perspectives? Teenagers commit suicide over this. They understand the hate in the limited scope that they see.

So much of the gay community is portrayed as a sexual, lust filled desire, just waiting for sex at every turn. I would compare this to what I know the heterosexual community to be, but that is not my point. My point is, just as there are heterosexual couples out there that live by the bible, there are gay couples out there, as well, that live by the bible. If they feel being gay is a sin as Leviticus says, then asking God to forgive the weakness is enough. They can't change and be straight... The murderer makes a choice, and dear blessed, why would anyone choose to be gay? Their only hope is to do Gods bidding in the imperfect way he expects of all his children.

So then, if a homosexual relationship was a relationship -- albeit sinful -- based in the fundamentals of Christianity it is no more sinful than the lives of any number of heterosexual Christians. A sin is a sin no matter how great; a transgression against God. God said it only takes faith the size of a mustard seed to redeem oneself -- how insignificant must the sin be to damnation, provided along the way, you never ask for salvation? My point is, no particular sin is any worse than any other sin and they do not aggregate on quantity (What about 10 commandments? *read above again*). You are either saved or not. Humans are weak. Would God fault one of his children for an inherent weakness if that child fervently upheld himself/herself to the glory of God? That goes against everything I have ever heard from any preacher/pastor.

Now I will be a little more cynical. We all have friends that will probably get married over the next 10 years or sooner. Some of them will have frequently engaged in premarital sex and perhaps claim to be Christians. If it is a sin to be gay, isn't the premarital sex, heterosexual relationship just as sinful as any given gay relationship? Would you be happy for the sinful heterosexual couple and their marriage? Should they be allowed to get married? What about a gay couple that does everything to strive for righteousness? Are we supposed to judge their sin? As Jesus says, "he who is without sin cast the first stone." or more succinctly God's decree to not judge others.

So if we are not to judge others, which means not to interpret God's intentions applied to his children, should Christianity as a religion forbid gay marriage? After all, the religion will still know that the participants of a gay relationship will be judged by God on their day of reckoning. If being gay is a sin, then the couple will get what’s coming, and the religion will still have followed the bible by not judging. Win - Win. If homosexuality is not a sin, or at the very least forgivable, then discrimination occurring today is a large hullabaloo over nothing.

To end with, notice I never once mentioned the government. Why? The government is not a part of the debate and it never should be. It is a government for its entire people and that is a freedom you exercise every day you wake up and practice Christianity. If you lived in Iran, you would be executed if you spoke of Christianity to any Muslim. No government should sanction any form of religious marriage. Instead, unions, or secular marriage, should be viewed with an acceptable tolerance of people whose background differs from yours. It allows you to be happy for people with a varying lifestyle. It prevents you from taking away joys that should rightfully be theirs.

We only live once – you have to do it right the first time, and let other people do the same.

 

[Halifirien]

To end with, notice I never once mentioned the government. Why? The government is not a part of the debate and it never should be. ... No government should sanction any form of religious marriage. Instead, unions, or secular marriage, should be viewed with an acceptable tolerance of people whose background differs from yours.

I noticed, and I think you're being short-sighted. You're ignoring that government is very much a part of the debate. Churches do not issue marriage licenses; state governments do. You may not like it that government is involved, but you can't pretend it's not. Nobody is trying to force churches to recognize marriages between gay couples; the focus is entirely on civil government.

I'm an atheist. If I get married, do you think I care if the preacher on the block thinks my union is valid? His opinion counts for nothing. As the man with the funny head once said, "I don't care if you like me, loathe me, or masturbate screaming my name." All I'd care about is making sure I have inheritance rights and joint taxes and all that other stuff so that when I walk into a hospital or a courtroom and say I'm married, people understand what it means.

That's not to say there's not a place for outreach. You're welcome to try and convince as many of them as you want that the Bible has a live-and-let-live policy they should follow. I'm just not interested in trying to convince them their god doesn't have a problem with it when it's far easier to say we live in a plural society and they should keep their religion to themselves.

 

[Lukas]

Well the bible is a relative gold-mine of quotes which people can select to suit their needs and purposes. I'm not saying that it is misused by everyone, but more often than not anyone who quotes the bible in a civil or political argument, is sorely misguided. It's riddled with contradictions and I believe is only meant to serve as a dated parable, not as evidence of any description.

The main passage used by those against homosexuality is Leviticus 20:13 (If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them). However it is interesting to note that Leviticus also declares other things amoral or "abominations"...

• Eating shellfish - "They (shellfish) shall be an abomination to you; you shall not eat their flesh, but you shall regard their carcasses as an abomination" (Leviticus 11:11),
• Wearing clothing of two different fabrics - "do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear material woven of two kinds of material" (Leviticus 19:19),
• Facial grooming - "Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard" (Leviticus 19:27)
• Cursing your parents - "For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother. His blood shall be upon him." (Leviticus 20:9)

But of course, the only one we're expetced to focus on is 20:13. All the rest is not meant to be interpreted literally, you silly people.

On an interesting note, a disproportionate number of African-American voters (70%) in CA voted for Prop 8. Pundits have speculated that it had something to do with a strong religious sentiment amongst black communities, which is amusing considering that the bible was once used to support slavery:

"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property." (Leviticus 25:44-45)

Again, I suppose this is a passage which isn't meant to be taken seriously. You see there's a pattern here - you pick whatever supports your bigotry and delcare all other passages as merely demonstrative or figurative.

The main issue I have with religious constituents in regards to gay marriage (and in fact most social issues) is that they attempt to make legislation narrow and exclusive. It's not enough to disagree with the choices people make and allow them to quietly move on with their lives, no. If the choice is unacceptable then it must be stripped from them.

 

[Halifirien]

It's not enough to disagree with the choices people make and allow them to quietly move on with their lives, no. If the choice is unacceptable then it must be stripped from them.

That's because they're notoriously bad at resisting temptation, and would prefer the government enforce the rules for them instead of relying on their own self-control.

 

[Arctyrael]

I noticed, and I think you're being short-sighted. You're ignoring that government is very much a part of the debate. Churches do not issue marriage licenses; state governments do. You may not like it that government is involved, but you can't pretend it's not. Nobody is trying to force churches to recognize marriages between gay couples; the focus is entirely on civil government.

I don't feel it is short-sighted. It is perhaps a bit idealistic though. I will compare it to the addage, "you can't have your cake and eat it." Either you have to do what I have done in my post, which is attempt to convince the religious masses that the bible is not clear on gay marriage, and therefore that it should be left to god, or you must completely remove the problem from the debate entirely.

Yes, marriage is very involved by both government and religion. My perspective is vehemently against this involvement. Our government is not a theocracy; it should not base any decisions on religious involvement.

I only propose something along the lines of a secular marriage. You argue that marriage already is secular, but if that were completely true, then we would not be arguing this at all right now. It is only secular in practice, not by definition. If we had secular marriages as defined by law, sanctioned optionally by the involved parties, then there would be no leg to stand on by any discriminatory religious entities.

 

[Tristam Green]

Yes, marriage is very involved by both government and religion. My perspective is vehemently against this involvement. Our government is not a theocracy; it should not base any decisions on religious involvement.

This is true, however could launch separate arguments (yes, even within this thread!) concerning the proposals for removing "One Nation under God" and "In God we Trust" from national traditions(?).

 

[Lukas]

This is true, however could launch separate arguments (yes, even within this thread!) concerning the proposals for removing "One Nation under God" and "In God we Trust" from national traditions(?).

That's a very valid point. Religion is indeed enshrined within American culture which is understandable considering that the majority of Americans follow one faith or another. However you have to consider that the First Amendment guarantees the right to freedom of religion. So while it is a popular view that the US is a "christian nation", (and it may be that certain structures of the country were formed under a religious sentiment) there is no tangible legal or constitutional basis to ratify this claim.


On a genral note (not in response to Tristam's post):

What I want to continue pressing in this thread, is the matter of civil rights. Regardless of one's religious affiliations or moral qualms towards homosexuality, this is a civil rights issue. It is my belief, and indeed the belief underlined by the constitution, that matters of civil rights cannot and should not be the subject of a popularity contest. Your rights are inalienable, as are mine.

San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera articulated this perfectly:

"This measure sought to do something that no constitutional amendment has ever done in our history: to strip a fundamental right from a protected class of citizens," Herrera said.

"Let us be clear. Equal protection of the laws is what separates constitutional democracy from mob-rule tyranny," he said. "It is a principle reaching back eight centuries to the Magna Carta. And it is what guided the founding of our state and our nation."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/cityinsider/detail?&entry_id=32579

 

[Halifirien]

I only propose something along the lines of a secular marriage. You argue that marriage already is secular, but if that were completely true, then we would not be arguing this at all right now. It is only secular in practice, not by definition. If we had secular marriages as defined by law, sanctioned optionally by the involved parties, then there would be no leg to stand on by any discriminatory religious entities.

Your proposal is unnecessary. We have secular marriage now. Religion and church approval is not required to be married. An atheist couple married down at town hall without a ceremony is just as married as the Catholic couple with the thirty-minute parade.

The problem is that many churchgoers haven't gotten the memo about how they no longer control the process. I've been involved in a few weddings over the years, and the pastors I've worked with haven't been under any illusions about where the legal power comes from. Their role, no matter what the religious feelings involved may be, is entirely ceremonial and non-binding.

(And for the record, you can have your cake and eat it. You have it, and then you eat it. The sentence you want is "You can't eat your cake and have it, too," -- which is one way they identified the Unabomber. It's a linguistic pet peeve, along the lines of people who say "The proof is in the pudding.")

 

[Tristam Green]

It's a linguistic pet peeve, along the lines of people who say "The proof is in the pudding.")

Black Mages know this is the truth, though.

Apologies, I *had* to throw that in there.

 

[Lukas]

As a source of inspiration, I found a page on soulforce.org with quotes from prominent civil rights activists commenting on the fight for same-sex equality (including Coretta Scott King whom I have infinite admiration for).

Coretta Scott King

I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people and I should stick to the issue of racial justice... But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King, Jr., said, 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere' ... I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King, Jr.'s dream to make room at the table of brotherhood and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people

Coretta Scott King

Gays and lesbians stood up for civil rights in Montgomery, Selma, in Albany, Georgia, and St. Augustine, Florida, and many other campaigns of the Civil Rights Movement. Many of these courageous men and women were fighting for my freedom at a time when they could find few voices for their own, and I salute their contributions.

Jason Lewis

Some say they are uncomfortable with the thought of gays and lesbians marrying. But our rights as Americans do not depend on the approval of others. Our rights depend on us being Americans.

Sometimes it takes courts to remind us of these basic principles. In 1948, when I was 8 years old, 30 states had bans on interracial marriage, courts had upheld the bans many times, and 90 percent of the public disapproved of those marriages, saying they were against the definition of marriage, against God's law. But that year, the California Supreme Court became the first court in America to strike down such a ban. Thank goodness some court finally had the courage to say that equal means equal, and others rightly followed, including the US Supreme Court 19 years later.

More quotes here:
http://www.soulforce.org/article/766

 

[Stine]

Even the Governator is looking to support gay rights.

"It is unfortunate," Arnold Schwarzenegger said. "But it is not the end because I think this will go back into the courts. ... It's the same as in the 1948 case when blacks and whites were not allowed to marry. This falls into the same category."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/11/10/gay.marriage.protests.ap/index.html