Shortly after strutting her stuff in a bikini in front of a TV audience of millions tuned in for the Miss USA beauty pageant earlier this month, Miss California, 21 year old Carrie Prejean, was asked for her opinion on same sex marriage by a pageant judge, Perez Hilton. Smiling while speaking, as all beauty queens should, Miss California gave her answer.
“I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And you know what? I think in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised.” She said.
Her response created a tempest in a teacup which the U.S media has treated as a welcome distraction from the economic doom and gloom. Gay rights groups decried Prejean’s opinion as Christian groups hailed her as heroine for the cause of keeping marriage between a man and a woman.
Nearly two weeks later with the subject still in the news, it seems that while she didn’t win the crown of Miss USA, Miss California certainly stole the show. Her comments have put her right in the middle of the debate over same sex marriage that rages across the United States.
A religious and political group called the National Organization for Marriage plan to use her comments in a new TV ad. The group recently ran a controversial TV ad entitled ‘A Gathering Storm‘ which they claimed brought viewers “face to face with the growing religious liberty threat posed by same-sex marriage.”
WHATS THE BIG DEAL?
I’m not trying to be controversial here, but maybe someone could explain what the big deal is with this subject? Surely couples who make a lifetime commitment to one another should be afforded the same rights under the law regardless of their race, religion, or sexual orientation. In the UK we have civil unions which, as I understand it, are essentially the same as a marriage in all but name. Would this not work in the U.S, and if not then why?
Is it because the Bible says something about marriage being between a man and a woman? If so then why is it that groups like the National Organization for Marriage don’t object to non-Christians getting married?
Is it because of some moral objection? In which case why aren’t Christian and moral groups equally as impassioned and vocal about moral issues such as world poverty, social justice, and women being portrayed as sex objects as they parade around in bikinis at meaningless beauty pageants?
Taking the heat and the hate out of this question, can anyone explain to me why same sex marriage is such a problem?
—
Miss California gets heroine’s welcome at San Diego church
Miss California to star in TV ad from conservative group
Miss Teen USA 2007 : South Carolina answers a question
Miss Rehab USA
Some people are gay, get over it
[Video] National Organization for Marriage : Gathering Storm
[Video] Miss California speaks about marriage at pageant
[Video] Miss USA bikini contest
Wrote the following comment on Apr 30, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Hmmm- The silicone from that dreadful boob job must have leaked into her brain, as that answer is poorly constructed and spoken…
It is easy to take the ability to be able to express your love, by committing to each other, for granted when you are in a hetero relationship. I know my brother and his partner would like to get married but Australia is even further behind than the USA & UK on this issue.
Wrote the following comment on Apr 30, 2009 at 6:34 pm
I like this post because it’s thought provoking. I have dicussed this topic ad nauseum with a co-worker and I actually now have an opinion whereas before I didn’t really care.
Marriage itself is based on religious beliefs. Right? A lot of people get married in a church and/or by a member of the clergy. Which is all well and good for the people that believe in that, but what about the people that don’t? Should the government have a say in whether 2 people can legally unite? What happened to separation of church and state? We can choose to get married in a court house, or by a friend that got ordained online, what difference does it make whether it’s a man and a man, a woman and a man, or an Asian and a Swede?
This whole topic used to seem so confusing, but now that I’ve become educated on different people’s perspectives, it seems quite simple. Religion should be taken out of the whole equation. When we do that, then it would be a legal union between two people, regardless of their gender. Why do we make things so freaking complicated in this country?
Wrote the following comment on Apr 30, 2009 at 6:46 pm
Sorry, but I’ve been thinking about my comment and it made me think about religious gays. What if a woman wants to marry another woman in the church? Are there churches that would marry them? What if the women are Catholic? Can you be a Catholic and not agree with their stance on marriage and homosexuality? And why does the church oppose something that is natural? I mean if it wasn’t natural, there wouldn’t be homosexuality. Right?
(Simon, we don’t have to include this addendum in the bet. ;))
Wrote the following comment on Apr 30, 2009 at 7:12 pm
Apparently you have to agree with the judges to win a contest in America! Perez Hilton said that her answer cost her the crown. Not that I care about what he or she think, but I wonder if that would’ve happened if he hadn’t been one of the judges. Ironically, as you stated, she is getting more press because of this…and LOTS of support from those who don’t support gay marriage.
Wrote the following comment on Apr 30, 2009 at 11:37 pm
I love gay people. They should be allowed happiness now. We don’t choose the color of our hair do we but blond people still marry blond people and nobody care!!!!
Wrote the following comment on May 1, 2009 at 12:18 am
Funny caption to that picture! “Lead us not into temptation.” LMAO!!
I wonder just how many of Miss California’s new fans actually watched the contest? Probably the same number who actually saw Janet Jackson’s 1.2 second ‘wardrobe malfunction’ before it was shown in super slow motion on the news in order to whip up the idiots.
People object to gay marriage today for the same reason that they objected to black people sitting among them in church not so long ago. Because they are idiots!
If religion ruled the world we would still be cutting off body parts and slaying people for working on the weekend and killing disobedient children!
Religion is just hatred in a frilly frock!
Lets pass a law that says religious people can’t talk or practice their religion in public places. A federal law that doesn’t recognize someones right to openly and legally love the Lord.
Of course there will be some religious idiots that will try and say that is what the government or “the liberals” (as if that’s a dirty word) are trying to do. But they’re probably the very same idiots that are “afraid” that by allowing same sex marriage their freedom will be taken away somehow.
Wrote the following comment on May 1, 2009 at 2:04 am
So The National Organization for Marriage is a group that is “coming together in love.” Did they shoot a video of that too?
Wrote the following comment on May 1, 2009 at 2:38 am
To actually answer your question, I have no idea why it’s such a problem. I guess because there are people that feel strongly against gays taking over the world.
Wrote the following comment on May 1, 2009 at 11:42 am
I have no problem with marriage between a man and a man or a woman and a man, but unlike Becky I draw the line at an Asian and a Swede.
In fact, now that I think of it, Yin has a good point too. Why are we allowing blondes to marry? This could lead to the demise of constructive thought for heavens sake! We should band together right now, led by Yin, to BAN BLONDE MARRIAGE!!!
Wrote the following comment on May 1, 2009 at 2:34 pm
HAHAHAHAHA Max!
Wrote the following comment on May 1, 2009 at 6:00 pm
When I read this I had to find this clip that a friend shared with me recently. It’s a kid explaining why gay marriage is not good.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVAIQwVvcvk
He used to be gay but he heard on the news it is wrong, so he decided to stop being gay, and now he “very interested in girls.”
Wrote the following comment on May 1, 2009 at 7:26 pm
That’s awesome!!! But hey, don’t call him a homo!
I am so please that YouTube and the internet weren’t around when I was 12.
Wrote the following comment on May 1, 2009 at 8:01 pm
Wow. Those videos are hilarious. I watched them at work and productivity was down for a couple of minutes while people stood around my desk watching. That poor, angry little homo.
Oops, of course, now I’ll be sorry for calling him a homo…
Wrote the following comment on May 1, 2009 at 11:23 pm
“In the UK we have civil unions which, as I understand it, are essentially the same as a marriage in all but name. Would this not work in the U.S, and if not then why?”
President Obama and many U.S. citizen support civil unions here. However, to understand why some people oppose distinguishing between “marriages” and “civil unions”, you must understand that many people see GBLT issues as the next wave of the racial civil rights movement from the 50s and 60s. They argue that distinguishing between marriages and civil unions is comparable to the “separate but equal” doctrine that segregated minorities from whites while maintaining that they were treated equitably. So to label one relationship a civil union and another a marriage is the same in their eyes as writing “colored” on one drinking fountain and “white” on another – obviously unacceptable in this modern society.
As to your other questions, I’ll just say that many Christians do oppose gay marriage on moral grounds, and I agree with you that to be consistent Christians should acknowledge “world poverty, social justice, and women being portrayed as sex objects” etc as moral issues and fight them with the same vigor.
Wrote the following comment on May 2, 2009 at 2:41 am
@Matt: It took me a while to work out what the acronym GBLT was. I figured it wasn’t a Granary Bacon Lettuce & Tomato sandwich though!
So, now that I understand the GBLT stance on why civil unions aren’t good enough I can say that they have a pretty good point. So I must re-state my question, can anyone explain to me why same sex marriage is such a problem?
Wrote the following comment on May 2, 2009 at 3:46 am
Christians have a lot more to say than the Bible on the issue of homosexuality. Neither God or Jesus ever spoke about homosexuality. It’s a good job that religion is around to fill in the blanks.
You make some good points Simon, but nobody will ever answer your question because that would involve having to admit that there is no such answer.
Wrote the following comment on May 2, 2009 at 1:40 pm
same sex marriage, disgusting, against nature, against humanity!
Wrote the following comment on May 2, 2009 at 8:05 pm
I’m not 100% sure on this, but I imagine that the issue with marriage v. civil unions is in the origins of marriage. Never to my knowledge has marriage been the union between 2 of the same gender. Changing the definition of something that has existed this way for thousands of years is of course going to present conflict. SO, I would be more shocked if there wasn’t a big deal made about it.
As far as civil unions go, I think the US is moving towards giving the rights in civil unions that it does in marriage. I don’t think we’ll call it marriage anytime soon though- but who knows…Its a state by state process right now so I guess only time will tell.
Wrote the following comment on May 2, 2009 at 8:12 pm
oh and as far as the beauty pageant goes… i think they are ridiculous. If its a physical beauty pageant, then don’t make the contestants answer the token question at the end to prove that beauty is on the inside. If it is about the insides of the woman then don’t make her parade around in a bikini, and evening gown- interview her! If its about a woman who’s drop dead gorgeous on the outside and on the inside(not saying I support any of these ideas..)- the ideal perfect woman- then do a better job balancing the two aspects of the show.
Just thought I’d throw that out there… maybe it will transform someone’s life somehow… or just allow me to vent? i feel better already. :)
Wrote the following comment on May 2, 2009 at 8:13 pm
@Rachel: Right, so we’ve had this all wrong then? It’s not the Christians who are objecting, it’s the linguists. Christian linguists perhaps?
Wrote the following comment on May 2, 2009 at 9:15 pm
Tsarskaja, thanks for the eloquent and rational argument :-/
Wrote the following comment on May 3, 2009 at 12:50 am
So that will now be a whopping 3 million dollars that could have been spent to feed the hungry, provide shelter for the homeless, invest in disease research, etc. Instead, NOM spends it to make sure that certain tax-paying citizens do not obtain equal rights. Pathetic.
Wrote the following comment on May 4, 2009 at 4:09 am
As far as Christians giving undo attention to the issue of homosexuality, I am sure there are many who get bogged down in the culture wars, and thereby allow the Gospel to become entrenched in a political agenda. That said, I don’t think it is accurate to say that Xians don’t give the same attention to other issues such a poverty, the objectification of women, and other issues of abuse and oppression. I think if you look at all those who have identify themselves with Christ, you will see that globally Xians are attending to these other issues in very self sacrificing ways, and that their collective attention to these issues exceeds the attention being given to homosexuality.
As far as Xians being idiots is concerned, I don’t think there is a higher percentage of idiocy among the rank of Xians than there are any other kind of groups in the world. Of course, the hitch with Xians is that their idiocy and sins are exacerbated by their religious claims. It is as C.S. Lewis once said, “of all the bad men, the religious bad man is the worse.”
Finally, regarding the Xian critique of homosexuality, it really comes down to whether there is a God and whether that God has a design for creation, and whether the current state of humanity aligns with or no longer aligns with that design. The basic Xian testimony is that nothing in creation is as it should be, not one of us expresses the love and righteousness that God intended when he inaugurated this whole affair. Every single one of us are blighted by sin such that we can no longer look to our emotions, our desires, our orientations, to tell us what is natural, since natural is no longer natural. The basic Xian message is that we are all, in different ways, in need of redemption. Within this framework, the conviction is that homosexuality does not match God’s original design. And the intellectually frustrating part about this is that Xians can’t really prove this matter from nature itself since, as I said, nature itself “is in bondage to decay.” In other words, the whole of the created order, as spectacular as it still is, is disordered, and thereby cannot function as a touchstone of truth. This is why Xianity is a faith based upon revelation, and as Barth said, is a truth suspended in midair. There is no natural, rationale point of contact, for like Jesus going through the temple flipping over the tables of the money changers, so it is that Xian revelation upsets, and turns over our instincts and expectations.
I know what I said above won’t satisfy most critics of Xianity, and really there is nothing I can say to defend myself. I will say, however, that I do agree that Xians can be a lot less judgmental and a lot more humble when they attempt to bear witness to the Gospel. And yet, I do feel the need to qualify, as those Xians that most people are critical of are the ones in the spotlight, and it is likely that those who are in the spotlight are ones who likely struggle with egoism, and so are not the best examples of Christian virtue. The best examples of Xian faith and virtue are not easy to find, because they are not drawing attention to themselves.
Finally, finally (this time I really mean it), please excuse my verbosity.
Wrote the following comment on May 4, 2009 at 7:49 am
Fox news asked her to ‘On The Record‘ about her views of civil unions this is what she said.
“I think that there should be rights for people, you know, especially in California. I think that people that are homosexual should have some rights, you know, hospital rights, and things like that.”
Some rights? And what’s so special about gay people in California?
Hilton called this girl a “dumb bitch” on his blog after this all blew up. That was uncalled for an inflammatory, but as she opens her mouth on this issue more and more I can’t help but feel that Hilton was right.
When the groups who are opposed to gay marriage are happy to have a 21 year old Californian air-head speak up for them, then that surely give everyone a fair idea of where they are coming from doesn’t it.
If she wants to fight against gay marriage then that’s fine, but I think if she wants to pursue such a divisive agenda then, “no offense”, but she should quit her role as Miss California or be fired!
Wrote the following comment on May 5, 2009 at 5:16 am
Those who oppose homosexuality (and by extension gay marriage) on Biblical grounds usually do so on the basis of the creation story in Genesis 2. Anthony eloquently alluded to in his 3rd paragraph as the “design for creation” – where God created male and female together to fully reflect his “imagine”, or nature, and instituted the first human family.
There are other verses (like Romans 1:27) that refer to homosexual behavior as sin, but I think the Biblical concept of marriage displayed in Genesis is more relevant to this discussion.
However, I would like to point out that thinking gay marriage is morally wrong is different than holding that it should be banned. Certainly many things that are “immoral” are not illegal. However, it could be argued that things society considers immoral are more likely to be made illegal (marijuana comes to mind). I suspect we in the U.S. will soon come to a point where as more and more people consider gay marriage not to be immoral that the laws will change to reflect this shift in thinking, making marriage available to same-sex partners.
Wrote the following comment on May 5, 2009 at 6:02 am
“In the UK we have civil unions which, as I understand it, are essentially the same as a marriage in all but name. Would this not work in the U.S, and if not then why?”
There is almost no opposition to civil unions. The issue with marriage, I believe, is the probability that churches which choose not to perform these marriage ceremonies will be attacked by the gay marriage zealots. The anti-Christian sentiment is well represented above. There is already much evidence that the churches which, for reasons of faith, oppose gay marriage will be attacked and their tax exemptions challenged. Already the intolerance toward those who do not agree is well demonstrated with attacks on the Latter Day Saints churches.
Wrote the following comment on May 6, 2009 at 1:01 am
Mike, I think the reason why there is, as you say, “anti Christian sentiment” is because Christians NEVER seem to give a reason as to why gay marriage is bad. They just spout stuff like “It will take away my freedom” (as in the NOM commercial).
To any thinking person, and even a few beauty queens, explanations like this are simply no explanation at all. They are a nonsense.
I asked the question here and nobody has really answered it. This has to be for one of three reasons surely.
1. There is no answer.
2. The answer makes them sound intolerant and hateful.
3. They simply don’t give a rats ass!
If the objection has some reason based in churches being “forced” to marry people it doesn’t want to marry, then the Christians need to put out some good spokespeople who have a strong command of the English language, people who can categorically make that point in a clear way.
Instead the kind of people who we see objecting and speaking out against gay marriage are the banner waving haters and dumb blonde beauty queens.
I didn’t have an opinion on this subject before all of this, but now I think I would have to say that as long as marriage isn’t an exclusively Christian ceremony then I have absolutely no problem with same sex couples getting wed. Certainly, they deserve their love to be equally recognised legally, regardless of our personal feelings about what it is they do in the bedroom.
Wrote the following comment on May 6, 2009 at 3:08 pm
Mike, I think the reason why there is, as you say, “anti Christian sentiment” is because Christians NEVER seem to give a reason as to why gay marriage is bad. They just spout stuff like “It will take away my freedom” (as in the NOM commercial).
I haven’t seen the arguments you have, apparently. The reason I see is that marriage has been a foundation of civilization for thousands of years and was established for the raising of children.
You could argue that the argument doesn’t apply to childless couples and that would be a fair point for those who plan to never have children. You could also make the point that some gay couples now are allowed to adopt, or as with some lesbian couples, have children by some form of impregnation of one partner. Fair again. Some couples have children from previous heterosexual unions. Fair again.
As far as the threat to churches and members of such churches by gay marriage zealots, you could consider the state of Massachusetts which has forced Catholic Charities to stop participating in adoption since it declined to assist gay couples in adopting.
I have no problem with what they do in the bedroom. I am more concerned with what they do in public, such as threatening people who donated money to Prop 8 in California.
By the way, the “beauty queen” did not volunteer her opinion of gay marriage. She was asked a question which, as far as I know, was against the rules of the contest which banned controversial or political questions. The trashing of her has not helped the gay marriage side of the argument. And it keeps getting uglier.
Wrote the following comment on May 6, 2009 at 5:28 pm
@Mike, You haven’t seen those kind of arguments? That surprised me, they seem to be everywhere and especially in this recent episode. But allow me to put this NOM ‘Gathering storm’ TV commercial to you then.
Of course there are zealot groups, like this one, who aren’t willing to be constructive and conciliatory in any discussions, but the louder they scream the more the issue will be discussed and thought about by regular people who aren’t driven by strong emotional or religious convictions.
I didn’t really have an opinion until I was confronted with this, I mean why would I, I’m a straight male so the issue doesn’t really effect me. But after seeing the objections put forward to gay marriage in this last turn of the argument, I would say that I can find no reason to object to gay marriage. No reason to discriminate against gay couples who want to have their union recognised in law the same as any straight loving couple.
As for Miss California giving her opinion about the issue when asked, I have no problem with her doing that. Hilton acted unfairly throwing her a curve ball like that, and she was unwise to take a lunge at it. But I’m not really concerned with that issue.
Wrote the following comment on May 6, 2009 at 5:59 pm
The ad seems to be directed at the issue I raised concerning the Catholic Charities. There is legislation pending, hopefully unsuccessfully, that would force physicians to participate in abortion or contraception activity at the cost of their licenses. Once again, this is not the bedroom.
I used to tell patients who wanted me to do vasectomies that I didn’t do them because of my religion. Actually, it was because a GP friend of mine was sued by a fellow whose wife got pregnant after the man had a vasectomy. The man had neglected all the postop advice about waiting until a sperm count a month later had been done to verify a complete vasectomy. The little devils can grow together again. After that experience, I wanted nothing to do with vasectomies. Now, I would have no choice.
Wrote the following comment on May 6, 2009 at 6:45 pm
I don’t think that ad is specifically directed ay the Catholic Charity issue you mentioned Mike. It is very clearly much broader than that. If it were then it failed to make its point.
I’m not entirely sure why you bring abortion into this discussion as it has no place here and I don’t want the discussion to veer off the topic at hand. So I’ll respectfully request that we stay on point.
While you, Rachel, and others have suggested what people are actually objecting to, I suspect that the actual objections don’t really come from the specific sub-arguments people like to suggest are the underlying real issues.
I suspect that the larger voice of objection sound similar to Tsarskaja who wrote in an earlier comment that same sex marriage is “disgusting, against nature, against humanity!”
Wrote the following comment on May 6, 2009 at 6:57 pm
I have only a mild objection to same sex marriage and none at all to civil unions so it is not a judgment about the subject of homosexuality. Some of my best friends…etc. You are correct that the ad seems to focus on other issues of the culture wars and the only issue that pertains IMHO is the issue of retaliation against religious organizations, Catholic Charities or churches that decline to perform marriage ceremonies. For example, I don’t how it would affect a doctor. The abortion and sterilizations issues do affect doctors and the ad mentioned a doctor, hence my comment.
Wrote the following comment on May 6, 2009 at 10:41 pm
Imagine instead a TV ad that said this…
For most of this countries history it was illegal for loving couples of mixed races to marry. 16 states that had fought on religious and moral grounds to keep interracial couples from marrying only lost their battle in 1967.
Imagine America today where love between couples of different skin color is seen as lesser than love between people of the same skin color. I think even the religious people who have commented here would agree that was wrong. But the truth is that back in the 60’s when this was a hot topic the religious people here would very probably have been strongly arguing for the ban on interracial marriage to remain in place.
* (The visual style of this comment was altered by the webmaster with the addition of the grey quote box around text that was originally italic)
Wrote the following comment on May 7, 2009 at 2:46 am
“The reason I see is that marriage has been a foundation of civilization for thousands of years and was established for the raising of children.”
And it has since evolved. Marriage is now about love. I doubt that many Americans who get married these days are doing so primarily because they want to have children. They want to be married, the union itself is the thing, not the possibility of sex and offspring to keep the farm going.
So the Bible says marriage should be between a man and a woman, so f**king what!? The Bible says a whole load of things that society flat out ignore now. Sex before marriage, slavery, etc.
The only reason why groups like the NOM dress this up as being some moral thing is because without that bullshit cover they would simply be revealed as the hateful narrow minded bigoted assholes that they are.
Wrote the following comment on May 7, 2009 at 3:24 pm
Will churches be forced to marry gay couples?
Wrote the following comment on May 7, 2009 at 5:43 pm
Funny how the obscenity is thought by some to be a valid argument. I think there is a definite possibility that activists like Andrew Sullivan, who proclaims his devout Catholicism while advertising for sex, would file suit to force the Catholic Church to preside at his wedding.
Wrote the following comment on May 8, 2009 at 12:32 am
I don’t think any church should be made to marry anybody at all. I was always under the impression that the church had the freedom not to marry a couple if they didn’t want to.
Wrote the following comment on May 8, 2009 at 12:43 am
The threat would be to the tax exempt status of churches and there has already been rhetoric to that effect. A Protestant minister in Canada has been threatened with prison for preaching that is considered anti-gay. Canada, of course, does not have the freedom of speech first amendment that the US has.
Wrote the following comment on May 8, 2009 at 1:11 am
LOL, oh yes, because freedom of speech is a reality in America ;-)
You mentioned this tax exemption thing before. It’s unclear to me what that is, but as it isn’t even an actual threat, just “some rhetoric.” So churches will indeed be able to refuse to marry people as they have always been able to do.
So… again, I am confused as to what the problem really is – as if it isn’t obvious. It’s very clearly just fear and hatred. Simple as that.
As Perry said, people made the same arguments over interacial marriage and I doubt anyone I know looks back on that particular ban as a great chapter in history.
Wrote the following comment on May 8, 2009 at 5:48 am
Non sequitur I’m afraid. Interracial marriage is still traditional marriage. In fact, blacks are far less accepting of gay marriage than whites.
Wrote the following comment on May 8, 2009 at 1:09 pm
You miss the point Mike. The point was that unless you are a total racist, then you won’t have a problem with interracial marriage. However, not so long ago you might have had the kind of objection to interracial marriage that a vocal few have today about same sex marriage.
Seeing as how some of your best friends are gay, I wonder how they feel about there love not being good enough to be recognized by the government in the same way as straight peoples love?
You’re bit of an enigma Mike. You say you have no problem with same sex marriage, and you have close friends who are gay. But you keep bringing up objections and even pulled in abortion. Tell us, are you just someone who likes to have a good argument (nothing wrong with that, I like to play devils advocate too sometimes), or are you one of those people who likes to say things like “I have no problem with same sex marriage” when in fact you would never vote for an ammendment to allow gay people to marry? You see, for someone who has no problem with gay marriage, you sure do have a lot to say about it.
Wrote the following comment on May 8, 2009 at 4:30 pm
You miss the point Mike. The point was that unless you are a total racist, then you won’t have a problem with interracial marriage. However, not so long ago you might have had the kind of objection to interracial marriage that a vocal few have today about same sex marriage.
This is an analogy being pulled out more frequently by the gay marriage advocates and it is bogus. One of the issues that used to be raised about interracial marriage was the problem of the children and their divide psychologically about which race they were. We can see this very effect in Barack Obama who rejected his white girlfriend. He knew that his political career would never work with a white wife, not because of white racism but because of black racism ! Read a bit about the Reverend Wright’s sermons for more detail.
My issue, once again since it seems to be difficult for you to understand, is with the effect on religious people and churches (not that I am particularly religious myself) of the marriage question. Once again, civil unions are not a problem and, while they were controversial ten or twenty years ago, they are widely accepted now. There has already been enough evidence of intolerance of opposing views by the radical gay advocates to predict what will happen.
the kind of objection to interracial marriage that a vocal few have today about same sex marriage.
Here you make an elementary mistake. It is not “a vocal few” who object to gay marriage; it is a large majority, even in a left-leaning state like California. The issue has been decided by a number of courts, bypassing the legislature, for this reason. Vermont, a very left-leaning state, just had a law passed by the legislature recognizing gay marriage and I predict you will see no objection by the residents of the state. If the legislature is confident enough of the public opinion to pass such a law, I am content. What has happened instead is a move to bypass the public and this results in such events as a 59% majority in California (whilst giving a similar majority to Obama) returning the definition of marriage to one man and one woman.
Finally, I have been responding to you and others and have said I DO have a problem because of the issue of tolerance of those who do not agree by its advocates. I said I was content with civil unions which do not raise the religious issue.
Wrote the following comment on May 8, 2009 at 4:45 pm
I think the biggest problem some people have with the church not performing gay marriages is the hate behind it. Sure, it’s anyone’s prerogative to believe that homosexuality is wrong, but being told that you can’t do something for seemingly no good reason is going to piss a lot people off. I don’t think that just because someone in the community may come to your gay wedding and stand up and oppose it on the grounds that they think it’s wrong is reason enough not to do it. If everyone kowtowed to such objections, nothing would change in this country. Women wouldn’t be voting and blacks wouldn’t have rights.
(And receptionists would have to mow their boss’s lawn. Oh, wait, they do.)
Wrote the following comment on May 8, 2009 at 5:31 pm
So Mike, given that you have a few gay best friends, how do they feel about all this? I know my friends and I are not too happy about it. As Simon has written, we would like to know why our love is lesser than, say, yours? Why can’t we get married when we make a loving life long commitment? How will the marriage of a loving and devoted gay couple effect you?
Traditional marriage is defined as a man and a woman. Where is that definition exactly?
You don’t mind me becoming civilly unionized, but you do mind me calling that a marriage? Not in your back yard huh Mike?
I’m sad that I live in a country where my sexuality (which is no more a “preference” than the color of your eyes) is something of a barrier to my liberty.
Wrote the following comment on May 8, 2009 at 6:11 pm
I think the biggest problem some people have with the church not performing gay marriages is the hate behind it. Sure, it’s anyone’s prerogative to believe that homosexuality is wrong, but being told that you can’t do something for seemingly no good reason is going to piss a lot people off.
So “pissing people off” is equal to hate ? I think the hate is mostly on the other side. Homosexuals want to force everyone to accept that their lifestyle is the same and just as worthy as any believing Christian whose Bible says differently. I don’t care, personally, but I see the effort to punish those who disagree as one more example of the left’s totalitarian temptation. I actually know quite a few gays who DON’T think gay marriage is a good idea, or good enough to stir up this tempest.
Wrote the following comment on May 8, 2009 at 6:19 pm
As Simon has written, we would like to know why our love is lesser than, say, yours? Why can’t we get married when we make a loving life long commitment? How will the marriage of a loving and devoted gay couple effect you?
It isn’t. My concern is with the issue of forcing churches that disagree to perform these weddings. If we could come up with a formula that avoided the type of coercion already evident, for example, in the Catholic Charities adoption case, I’d be OK with it. There was also a great deal of hate evident in the aftermath of the California Prop 8 election and it wasn’t on the side that objects to gay marriage.
Maybe we could come up with a law that allows gay marriage but exempts churches that decline to perform them from retribution. My son, who is a lawyer, has performed gay marriages for friends. He thinks I am too concerned about the reprisal risk against churches but there are too many examples already of bloody mindedness by radical gay activists who see this as a power struggle with mainstream society and not a matter of your loving relationship.
The definition of marriage is in the Bible and in many other ancient documents. Surely, an educated person like you is familiar with that history. You may not like the Bible but it wasn’t written yesterday and Christian society has done pretty well, all told.
Wrote the following comment on May 9, 2009 at 2:13 am
some one told me before i got married that regardless of your orientation after a while or in the end they all become ‘same sex’ marriages
;0)
Wrote the following comment on May 10, 2009 at 3:54 am
You know Mike, clearly you simply don’t like the idea of same sex marriage and like Prejean, you’re entitled to your opinion. I don’t think any churches have been forced to marry anyone and I doubt they would be, but you need to have something to make your position seem less like ignorant fear and hatred so you just keep banging that drum if you wish. I’m done with the discussion though, there seems little point in continuing really.
Hey Simon, thank you for allowing us to engage one another at such length. I’ve bookmarked your blog and have enjoyed reading back on some of your archives using the ‘random post’ button. I enjoy your writing. Well done on a great blog!
Wrote the following comment on May 10, 2009 at 5:13 am
you need to have something to make your position seem less like ignorant fear and hatred so you just keep banging that drum if you wish. I’m done with the discussion though, there seems little point in continuing really.
I agree. You are picking fights when there is little disagreement. You provide an example of the lack of willingness to honor other opinions. I have provided at least one example of the intolerance and you now provide another. Farewell.
Wrote the following comment on May 11, 2009 at 2:06 am
Thanks Perry. I enjoy blogging and maybe one day I’ll figure out a way to make it a profitable venture, but for now it’s simply a labor of love.
Thanks for your input to this lively discussion, you’re welcome back anytime. You too Mike.
Wrote the following comment on May 15, 2009 at 7:05 pm
WEll I didnt read all the comments made after my last comment… but in response to your question simon to me, I think that the linguistic side of things is what has prohibited this issue moving forward in the courts. Regardless of what you or I think on this issue, it will remain something that is blocked in the courts because of the language issue. Language is crucial to the legal world- not just the linguistic world simon.
I would also like to note that its not just Christians who object- its jews muslims and christians… though maybe the focus on Christians is because they’re the most vocal?… either way, to fully understand the issue I think its important to see the number of different groups who oppose it. See, it constitutes a huge segment of our population. So there’s my thoughts on the matter- I definitely tried to pull any heat from my comment so please read it as such.
Wrote the following comment on May 16, 2009 at 2:00 am
Well said Rachel! Gay marriage is wrong and we as Christians shouldn’t be afraid to speak up and tell it like it is. It’s very very clear in the word to see the truth. Anyone who denies this is lost!!!
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (Contemporary English Version)
Don’t you know that evil people won’t have a share in the blessings of God’s kingdom? Don’t fool yourselves! No one who is immoral or worships idols or is unfaithful in marriage or is a pervert or behaves like a homosexual will share in God’s kingdom. Neither will any thief or greedy person or drunkard or anyone who curses and cheats others.
The gays are going to hell and we should not stand by and allow them to think that what they do is fine. It’s against God, and against nature, against humanity! It’s a disgusting perversion and when they are burning in hell the gays will regret their perverted disgusting ways!
I am with Rachel on this. Christians need to stand together and let the gays know that they cannot and should not ever be allowed to believe that their acts are fine with society when the vast majority of people, not just Christians, believe that gay marriage is wrong and that gays themselves are disgusting!
They can’t marry because what they do to each other defiles the very basis of why people get married — to reproduce! Children don’t come from gays!!!
NOBODY who is a pervert or behaves like a homosexual will share in God’s kingdom!!
Wrote the following comment on May 17, 2009 at 12:45 am
Tsarskaja , interesting. What about heterosexual sexual couples who engage in anal sex? Are they going to hell? What about blow jobs? Are they ok, or are they perverted too?
Try to remember that God has called you to hate sin but love the sinner, and to be full of grace, grace being the one thing I find lacking in most of the Christians I meet.
Also, can you please define perverted for me please, I’m struggling to find a definition in the bible.
Wrote the following comment on May 17, 2009 at 2:16 am
People are probably done reading these comments because I think we’ve beaten this horse to death, but I think we should all see this movie, then gauge how much we can pass judgment.
https://www.forthebibletellsmeso.org/indexb.htm
Wrote the following comment on May 18, 2009 at 1:40 am
Wow! Just when it looked like this thread had petered out I get an email with Rachel’s comment kicking up the dust again :-)
So Rachel, maybe you don’t want to recognize that gay people are capable of the same kind of love that straight people have for one another, but you’re wrong when you claim that this issue will remain blocked in the courts because of the traditions of the word. Courts are there for this very reason, to argue over things of this nature, to recognize the progression of society and the constraints and confines of law in that changing environment.
New Hampshire is about to become the 6th State to legalize gay marriage, with similar legislation on its way to the governors of New Jersey and New York who have pledged to sign them once they reach their desks. So while you are opposed to gay marriage a growing number of people are finding the idea of recognizing the rights of gay people less and less offensive. So resist it as much as you feel you should, but I am afraid that you’re fighting a losing battle. If you want to fight for tradition then I would also like to see you, as a woman, give up your rights to such things as voting, and accept your place as the marital property of the man whom you are to adhere to as the head of your house. In other words, if you want to talk about returning things to their traditional roots then at least be consistent!
Wrote the following comment on May 18, 2009 at 11:44 am
You can’t sneak in your comments under the radar that easily Rachel, people subscribe to comments via email and rss just like you do. :-)
I have nothing more to add to this conversation other than to re-assert something that you and I have talked about before; language evolves. So while I agree that the word marriage is rooted in the tradition of the union of 1 man and 1 woman, I believe that the word itself could easily evolve to mean the union of a loving couple.
Personally I hope that every marriage is a gay one. After all, who wants to be in an unhappy marriage, right?
Language evolves. ;-)
Wrote the following comment on May 18, 2009 at 6:25 pm
I wasn’t going to comment but I will now mainly just to say I agree with Rachel. I doubt that there will be a change to this countries definition of marriage anytime soon. I suspect, though she hasn’t said so, that Rachel is opposed to gay marriage. As a committed Christian I would stand with her on this issue not because being gay is sinful, but because the act of homosexuality is a sin unto God, a sin that is called an “abomination” in the scriptures.
I can’t say that I like the way Tsarskaja writes as his/her words seem to lack the love of Jesus which each and every Christian must try to emulate in our daily lives. However, just as Miss California did, we must not be afraid to speak about what we believe to be true.
Also, Tsarskaja quoted 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 from the Bible and I don’t think people realized that. I’m not sure what translation that was from but the New American Standard Bible reads as follows:
9. Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10. nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.
I am against same sex marriage not because I hate, but because it is my belief that God does not want to bless a union which is called “an abomination” in his word, the Bible. This isn’t hatred, this is –for me at least– obedience.
Wrote the following comment on May 18, 2009 at 11:48 pm
The homosexuals have become emboldened by recent decisions in Iowa and other states, so they have begun to put pressure on civil society to be acceptant of their deviate and unnatural lifestyle. It is now time to put a stop to this nonsense. Since when has a society or government been forced to relent and modify it laws as well as the laws of nature to accomodate a group based on who they have sex with? The whole idea is ridiculous. Homosexual leaders would have you believe that they are persecuted as a group. My question is a group of what? You choose to have deviant, repulsive and perform unnatural sex acts with individuals of the same sex and you want civil rights because you do!!! People should step back and take a look at what’s going on here… What group will next seek equal protection of the law? Pedophiles? Rapists? Sado-masochists? They claim they were born that way and can’t help their behavior. When do we finally recognize that homosexuals are seeking social acceptance for behavior that is seen as abhorrent by mainstream society. They try and force this issue down your throat as I’m sure this a preferred technique in their community. Finally, to Simon and all you other homosexuals… You Know What You Are Doing Is Wrong!!! Repent while you still have breath in your body.
Wrote the following comment on May 19, 2009 at 1:00 am
Former Miss California Nicole Lamarche, now a minister, spoke out about Carrie Prejean’s comments.
“As a pastor and a former Miss California, I am often asked to interpret what the Word of God has to say on a particular subject. I am quite confident that God prefers that we human beings stick to speaking for ourselves. And yet there are occasions when God’s Word is used as a weapon, and I feel compelled to speak.
In the past few days, much has been made of the words of Miss California USA, Carrie Prejean. She stated that marriage is between a man and a woman. I write not in response to her opinion, but rather about her comments that followed: that the Bible condones her words. She said, ‘It’s not about being politically correct, it’s about being biblically correct.’ While this sentiment is shared by many who seek to condemn gay people and gay marriage, citing pieces of the Bible to further one’s own prejudice fails to meet the Bible on its own terms.”
“Most people seeking to condemn gay people point to the Book of Leviticus, where we read that men lying with men is an abomination. However, we rarely hear of other verses found in the book of Leviticus that are equally challenging. For example, Leviticus also tells us that eating shrimp and lobster is an abomination. And that a person should not wear material woven of two kinds of material—an impossible mandate for a pageant contestant!
In Paul’s letter to the community in Corinth we read, ‘For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church….’ And yet these words have not prevented Christian denominations from ordaining women, such as myself. Sadly, the Bible has been used to further prejudice throughout history. We have used it to permit ourselves to enslave people; to conquer and kill; and to denigrate the earth.
The truth is that it is difficult to know for sure the intentions of the biblical authors, but we do know something about God. Those of us who know God through Jesus of Nazareth know that he went to great lengths to express God’s love to people who were labeled as outcasts. He spent time with children, prostitutes, and lepers, all of whom were labeled as outside of the grasp of the Holy. As we continue to seek God’s vision for us as a nation grounded in a love for justice, I pray that we might move closer to the cause of grace.”
Wrote the following comment on May 19, 2009 at 1:07 am
I am quite confident that God prefers that we human beings stick to speaking for ourselves. And yet there are occasions when God’s Word is used as a weapon, and I feel compelled to speak.
What utter humbug ! The girl was asked a question that should not have been asked in such a setting. She was then subjected to a hateful rant, continued by such worthies as the president’s chief adviser who compared her to a dog. This is such nasty stuff that you should be ashamed of yourselves. Be assured that you do the cause of gay marriage no good with this nastiness.
Wrote the following comment on May 19, 2009 at 1:13 am
What do you have to say about the rest Mike K?
The part of her response that has to deal with the Bible?
Wrote the following comment on May 19, 2009 at 5:46 am
I am no Bible scholar. I will say that the tone was offensive. I was not planning to comment further and the thread seems to be deteriorating.
Wrote the following comment on May 19, 2009 at 10:14 am
That’s an interesting translation Leslie, and demonstrates perfectly how the bibles translation can cause problems. According to the version you quoted, not being manly enough will exclude me from heaven. How manly do I have to be to avoid going to hell?
The bible has been used over the centuries to justify discrimination of all kinds, whether it be against women, homosexuals or people of colour. Remember, the bible doesn’t say slavery is wrong, only that you should treat your slaves well. The problem I think is that Christians take the bible absolutely, well parts of it anyway, they don’t stone children for being disobedient and they mostly allow people to eat shrimp. The bible has been through so many translations by people with agendas, that the message we now have is a far cry from what was original message.
Wrote the following comment on May 20, 2009 at 1:34 am
The image of God is both male and female and is reflected in a godly union between male and female where the creative power of God, His life-giving, His self-giving and His moral nature are perfectly expressed. This is only possible in a heterosexual union.
When God created a partner for Adam He created Eve – not another Adam. This means that perfect partnership requires some level of difference as well as a level of similarity so great that Adam could cry out loudly, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh”. Sexual intimacy between a man and a woman is the normal method of male/female bonding (emotionally and physically) because it corresponds to the design of our bodies and because it is the normal means by which offspring are created.
If God had intended the human race to be fulfilled through both heterosexual and homosexual marriage, He would have designed our bodies to allow reproduction through both means and made both means of sexual intercourse healthy and natural. Homosexual anal intercourse carries a high risk of disease, this is recognized in Scripture where gay men are said to receive in their bodies the due penalty for their error (Romans 1:27). Various studies indicate that homosexual behavior makes both men and women more vulnerable to disease and decreases lifespan.
Marriage is a fundamental social institution that does not exist just for the emotional satisfaction of two individuals but for the greater good of the community which stands under the blessing or curse of God. Societies that put emotional fulfillment before right actions and principles will soon give way to a multitude of addictions and deep corruptions and collapse. God will judge any society that institutes same sex marriages.
I also believe that God will judge a society that permits adoption of children or the use of sperm banks by same sex couples. His Word stands over society and when it is deliberately flaunted in the name of progress and enlightenment, then it is not light but deep darkness that results.
We cannot bend the principles of God’s Word to suit vocal minority groups. While some nations may enact laws permitting these evils, the true church of God must stand resolutely firm and never allow the sanctioning of same sex marriages by Christian clergy. No church that takes the Bible seriously can sanction a union between homosexuals or lesbians.
No matter what our society may legislate, the law of God is clear – that a marriage is not a godly marriage if it is a same sex union.
Wrote the following comment on May 22, 2009 at 12:06 am
@ John Edmiston and yet the bible endorses child marriages and slavery. I take it you have no problem with either?
The law of god is not clear, if it was, there wouldn’t be so many Christians with different interpretations of it.
Wrote the following comment on May 22, 2009 at 2:01 pm
@ Leslie – Now that translation you offerered is very confusing. “nor effeminate, nor homosexuals” I could have believed that the word effeminate was a way of saying homosexual in times gone by, but your translation says effeminate and homosexual. That’s just strange. What the heck does that mean? Only manly men go to heaven?
I did a little Googling on the word effeminate and it’s use in the ‘Good book.’ In Greek, this word is ‘malakos’ which apparently translates to ‘effeminate’ which in some biblical cultures could be defined as simply a man who shaves, while in other cultures the word might describe a man who wore good clothes. So when the greek word malakos appears in the Bible does it mean a man who shaves or wears good clothes?
Many translations have dropped the word effeminate altogether, which is no less alarming and confusing than leaving it in the translation in the first place!
Wrote the following comment on May 22, 2009 at 2:50 pm
@ John – Freedom of religion is a part of the United States constitution right? So therefore there one can assume there is also an inherant right to also enjoy a freedom from religion too. In that case, while you might hold marriage to be an integral part of your faith it is also unarguably something that has evolved into something that is an integral part of secular society tied up with all kinds of legal ramifications and consequences.
Therefore, to argue about the use or meaning of the word purely in its religious context does not fully recognise the way the word has been adopted by modern society, including those who do not ascribe to any religion.
So while you might argue about the “law of God” you must recognise that you live in a country that honors a persons right not to believe in the same God as you, or indeed any God whatsoever. So then their legal right to live outside of the confines of any religious law is inherent in that freedom of religion.
I think that defining marriage as something set forth purely by religion will only hasten the onset of same sex marriage. While I think her argument is weak and flimsy, I believe that Rachel’s approach of arguing on purely language grounds has more chance of holding off the inevitable acceptance of same sex marriage.