I think someone should contribute $30,000,000 to foment a schism in the Church of the Latter Day Saints based on their internal conflicts on this issue.
-- rec -- On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 11:00 AM, Orlando Leibovitz < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Owen, > > In my opinion the word marriage should not be removed. I believe that civil > marriage should be available to all consenting adults. Various religions can > then do as they please. If, in fact, this is a civil rights (constitutional) > issue then religions that violate civil liberties should, at the least, not > have 501c3 status. I try to understand but am not sympathetic to religious > angst about this as I would not be if you substituted black, jew, Christian, > etc for the word gay. > > James, I am grateful to the Quakers for many of the positions they have > taken. > > Orlando > > > James Steiner wrote: > > Consider also the relligions that have.supported and do sanctify > same-sex marriages, without regard for, indeed in spite of, the legal > status of such unions, e.g. the Meetings of Friends (Quakers). > > > > > On 11/9/08, Owen Densmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Nov 9, 2008, at 12:09 AM, Orlando Leibovitz wrote: > ... > > > In my opinion this is not a marriage issue, it is a civil rights > issue. > > > And there you have the problem in a nutshell. "Gay marriage" > confounds the two. > > One the one hand, the word "marriage" creates considerable angst on > gay issues within the various religions. The recent Anglican/Episcopal > split was largely over gay marriage and gay bishops. This is a > complex issue where religions have to confront difficult problems > within themselves. And definitely a church/state boundary. > > On the other hand, gay civil rights are clear: they are being violated > and the strictly civil rights have to be granted immediately. "Civil > union", however, may be a distasteful term to the gay community. > > Most of silicon valley had to deal with this within their corporate > laws. They all grant gay civil rights by now. They simply had to > change the concept of "partner" and insurance, spousal rights and so > on were easily solved. I don't believe religions are concerned about > this solution. As far as I know, the government does not object, and > even allows for joint tax filing. > > I wonder if the word "marriage" were taken out of the equation, would > it at least help obtain civil rights for gay couples? > > -- Owen > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > -- > > Orlando Leibovitz > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > www.orlandoleibovitz.com > > Studio Telephone: 505-820-6183 > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
