Gay vs Straight Marriage - Yes or No Poll

[psychic_serpent]

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" <bboy_mn at y...> wrote:
> Recently we discussed the "gay issue" here in a religious context.
> 
> Some people who were personally against it, we also not in favor of
> restricting it. Taking a 'to each his own, and let God be the 
judge'
> attitude (grossly paraphrased).
> 
> If you would like to weigh in on the issue, CNN is taking a poll 
> based on some recent comments by Pres. Bush.
> 
> The question is-
> 
> "Should marriage be legally defined as only a union between a man 
> and a woman?"
> 
> Yes = restricted to Men and Women as couples
> 
> No = no restriction or legal definition regarding gender of the 
> couple 
<snip>
> Currently-
> 
> 51% = Yes
> 49% = No
> 10,000,000 votes cast.
 
This doesn't surprise me a bit, as the country is very divided about 
this at the moment.  What does get on my nerves is the idea that if 
a majority of the people in this country are against something, that 
should settle it.  If CNN did a poll concerning whether people of 
different races should be permitted to marry and most people were 
against it, would that mean the constitution should be changed to 
reflect that?  Of course not. The Supreme Court only just put the 
kibosh on miscegenation laws in 1970 with Virginia vs. Loving, and 
ten years after that two-thirds of the people in the country were 
still against that decision; and plenty of people believed--and 
still believe--that there were religious reasons to forbid mixed-
race marriages, too.  Just because people felt very strongly about 
it didn't mean it would have been right to perpetuate the injustice.

Equal protection under the law should mean equal protection under 
the law, regardless of whether it's popular.  The Supreme Court 
recently did the right thing concerning laws that made gays 
criminals for what they did in private (not that anyone can assume 
what two people do in private, which is something a lot of folks 
tend to forget) and there is a bit of a Religious Right backlash 
because of that right now.  Even a prominent leader in Congress who 
happens to be Presbyterian (my denomination) made some ridiculous 
statement about having to "protect" marriage because it's a 
sacrament.  In some churches it is, but in the Presbyterian church 
the only sacraments are baptism and communion--he seems to have 
forgotten his Westminster Catechism.  And why Congress should be 
passing Constitutional amendments to "protect" sacraments is beyond 
me.   

Same-gender couples have been marrying in churches and synagogues 
for YEARS.  That's where it started!  It is religious descrimination 
not to recognize those marriages legally.  A Constitutional 
amendment to prevent this would probably be very popular, but it 
would be completely unjust and a way for frightened politicians 
(what, are they all channeling Fudge now?) to have easy platforms on 
which to run, something they don't think will offend anyone and will 
catapult them back to Washington.  (Or they might be afraid that NOT 
supporting the amendment will lose them their jobs, which, while it 
might be a valid fear, shouldn't prevent a person from having 
PRINCIPLES.  Yeah, I just wrote that about politicians with a 
straight face.<g>)

For all marriage laws to merely require that the two people be 
single (not already married to other people), of legal age (or with 
a parent's permission if under 18) and not too closely related to 
each other (although some places permit marriages between first 
cousins) would seem to be the most logical way to go, with no 
mention of the two people's genders anywhere in the law.  This would 
mean no unnecessary domestic partnership legislation--which is 
usually separate but unequal, and when it is actually equal it is a 
ridiculous instance of reinventing the wheel so that "they" don't 
get something that's also called "marriage".  Interestingly enough, 
a lot of same-gender couples already call what they have 
a "marriage," regardless of the law.  Words cannot be shackled and 
enslaved.  Language is evolving constantly and so is human society.  
(Not that you'd know that, sometimes.)

Here is also a link to a very interesting bit of research by OT 
scholars, including a note from Rabbi Arthur Waskow.  It's 
called "What was the sin of Sodom?":

http://www.iwgonline.org/docs/sodom.html

Information about religious support for same-gender marriage can be 
found here:

http://www.iwgonline.org/marriage/

--Barb

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Psychic_Serpent
http://www.schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Barb