I don't think there is any room for compromise on gay
marriage in the US.
Civil unions granted by the state to all, and leaving the
sanctity of the marriage sacrament to the churches, is a perfectly
reasonable and valid solution.
Which is why civil unions granted by the state, and leaving
the sanctity of the marriage sacrament to the churches won't satisfy
any bigot. There will immediately be gay friendly churches and
religions that want to sanctify gay marriages, and once gay marriage
is made purely a religious question, it becomes clearly
unconstitutional for the state to legislate about it.
There is no room for compromise. Compromise would mean
churches not wanting to impose their views on people not part of
their denomination. And it is the flaw in Chris argument - his
argument relies on the idea that there is nothing wrong with churches
wanting to impose their understanding of the sacrament of marriage on
the entire community, including non-believers and gay friendly
churches. If marriage is purely a sacrament that makes no legal
difference, then it is a religious question, and it is a religious
question, it is unconstitutional for the state to make laws on purely
religious issues (in the US, and generally similar in other
jurisdictions, though less clear cut in some).
There is no room for compromise. The religious right will
fight to the end to prevent gay marriage until they are defeated, and
they are well aware that civil unions are indistinguishable from
marriage to all intents and purposes, and that to make religious
issues like marriage a purely religious question is to empower
pluralism. Ultimately the Christian right reject the separation of
church and state for reasons that are quite valid from their point of
view.
So, you are going to have to fight them. The good news is,
the pro gay marriage side clearly skews hugely with demographics, so
it is probably one of those things that, if the pressure is kept up,
will inevitably fall over the line one of these decades.
To further pick on Chris' argument, he said
>We don't have to share that understanding to acknowledge that
>heterosexuals have the same right to believe that they have a
>special relationship with the Divine as Jews, Hopis or Wiccans.
I think
a) the idea that hetersexuals, as a class, have any common
understanding of the sacrament of marriage is laughable, and anything
at all to say about it, is laughable. I know both gay and straight
people who reject the concept of the sacrament of marriage as merely
a weird historical delusion, for example.
I don't think I even share a close understanding of the
'sacrament' of marriage with my wife, though we obviously agree on
certain salient details.
b) in particular, the idea that heterosexuals, as a group, oppose gay
marriage is both dubious and offensive to many. I married to a woman,
and a fine thing it is too -- but I am fully in favour of gay
marriage, and could even arguably have experienced discrimination
because of its absence (there have been problems getting insurance
etc because my lesbian housemates don't count as a couple)
c) and even if it was a reasonable rhetorical point to treat
'heterosexuals' as a group united on how they feel about gay
marriage, it will still amont to a majority disregarding the rights
of the minority, which democracy allows but is still morally wrong,
IMO.
Cheers
David
_______________________________________________
OSX-Nutters mailing list | [email protected]
http://lists.tit-wank.com/mailman/listinfo/osx-nutters
List hosted at http://cat5.org/
