America-Will-Move-Forward-From-Lgbt-Prejudice

[GeorgeW]

One thing I would like to add though in an opposite sort of way - I do notice that the more the "general society" moves in one direction, the "fringe society" seems to move in the other.

 

Yes, I think you are right.

 

I recall racial violence when the civil-rights movement was beginning to change attitudes and the world. I have no statistics as to whether there was an actual increase in racial violence or not, but I would not be surprised it there were.

 

I think the rise in fundamentalism around the world in the last few decades is a reaction to change.

 

George

[NORM]

As former House Speaker Tip O'Neil once said; "all politics is local."

 

For those who live in progressive, urban communities, I'm sure there is some evidence of progress. But, I have to agree with Myron if I analyze it from where I live in the Midwest. I was shocked when our state voted OVERWHELMINGLY to support the anti-gay, Defense of Marriage Act.

 

There were bubbles of a Progressive movement in the 20s, 60s and briefly in the early 90s. But, I think that we are going generally backwards in American society. It's what I observe in my neck of the woods. Perhaps you live in a more progressive area? My favorite newspaper is the New York Times and my favorite magazine is The Atlantic. Sometimes I feel as though I am reading about happenings on another planet.

 

My daughter would come home from school and tell me of some of the racist, homophobic comments she heard on a daily basis on her ride home on the bus.

 

After high school, she spent two years in Chicago attending Columbia Arts school, lived across the street from Wrigley Field and worked at FitClub gym. There, she found the attitude open toward the LGBT community.

 

Then, she transferred to a college in Louisville, KY. WOW!!! What a difference.

 

So, while there may be "pockets" of progressive thought on the subject, we are a long way off from general acceptance - articles in progressive publications to the contrary notwithstanding. It's a nice thought, but I think it is harmful to believe the battle is over.

 

Don't believe me? Go post pro-gay comments on T-Web, the Washington Post forum, or the Columbus Dispatch and see what happens.

 

NORM

[NORM]

Here's how the "youth" in progressive Seattle react to a gay rights speech:

 

 

NORM

[murmsk]

Don't believe me? Go post pro-gay comments on T-Web, the Washington Post forum, or the Columbus Dispatch and see what happens.

Probably roughly the same thing as if you posted a pro-civil rights comment in 1964 ?

 

The battle is just beginning!

 

steve

[PaulS]

Perhaps there's hope yet that America (and other countries) will follow Denmark today:

 

DENMARK'S parliament has approved a law allowing same-sex couples to get married in formal church weddings instead of the short blessing ceremonies the state's Lutheran Church currently offers.

MPs voted 85-24 today to change Denmark's marriage laws.

The law takes effect June 15 and will put Denmark on par with countries such as Iceland and Sweden that allow full wedding ceremonies for gay and lesbian couples.

In 1989, Denmark became the first country to allow the registration of gay partnerships.

Since 1997 gay couples in Denmark can be wed in special blessing ceremonies at the end of regular church service.

[GeorgeW]

DENMARK'S parliament has approved a law allowing same-sex couples to get married in formal church weddings instead of the short blessing ceremonies the state's Lutheran Church currently offers.

 

Paul, I don't think the U.S. could prescribe what churches can or must do because of our Constitutional provision about separation of church and state. Currently, there is no legal prohibition against a church anywhere in the U.S. performing any kind of same-sex ceremony. The issue is the legal status once it occurs. Some states have approved it, most have not (yet).

 

What the national government can do is revoke the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which allows a non-approving state to not recognize a legal same-sex marriage in another state. There is some chance this will be heard soon by the Supreme Court. Hopefully, they will rule it unconstitutional. I read an article recently by a court watcher who thinks this is a possible middle-ground position between declaring, or denying, same-sex marriage a constitutional right. Then, any marriage occurring in any permitting state would be recognized everywhere.

 

George

[glintofpewter]

We need to separate these siamese twins, marriage license and marriage consecration. Govt shouldn't be blessing and church shouldn't be licensing.

[Raven]

While I think that churches in general should just move on and start opening their doors to LGBT community members, realisiticallyl I know that isn't going to happen. If an individual church (or I guess a branch) wants to decide no, they won't allow same-sex marriages performed in their building(s), then I suppose that's their right to do so. However, marriage does not just exist inside the church institution, and therefore the church groups should not be able to prevent the government from legally sanctioning same-sex marriage. Besides, if God is everywhere all the time (and I believe He is) then if a couple is married in a church, a park, or a Wal-Mart McDonald's, He is still there and part of it. My bf and I believe in God, but since we are "unequally yoked" as a Catholic and a Protestant, we'll likely avoid getting married in a church and opt for something else anyway. God will still be there.

[PaulS]

I don't think it should be a church's choice whether whether to marry gays or not. Why do we let religion get away with that, when we'd all scream blue murder if a church refused to marry a black and a white person, or two blacks (or two whites for that matter), or refused to marry an autistic couple, etc. Why is discriminating against gay people allowed? A church/religion can hide behind any 'religous belief' in that case, to discriminate.

 

As Dutch mentions, licensing is an issue for govt. So if churches want to be allowed to marry people legally, they should have to comply with the laws of the state or be refused the opportunity. IMO.

 

I would accept that somebody should perhaps be a member of that church before getting married there, otherwise I don't quite see the significance for the couple and it might otherwise leave room open for antagonism (a gay couple getting married in the most fundy church to make a political point).

[Neon Genesis]

I can't speak for liberal European countries that still have an official state church but in the U.S. we have the separation of church and state which not only protects the government from being controlled by the church but it also applies the other way around in that churches should have their freedoms protected from the control of the government. As long as churches are private organizations in the U.S., they can make up their own rules of who they allow in their buildings and to participate in their rituals as long as the secular government is still allowed to grant same-sex couples the same legal rights as everyone else. I also think there's a danger in that if we try to force churches to marry same-sex couples, it would risk causing a backlash and fundamentalist Christians would see it as proof that they're being persecuted by the "radical gay agenda." You can't force someone who wants to keep living in the medieval era into modernity. But I think if churches want the freedom to not marry same-sex couples in their churches, they should be required to give up their tax exempt status as a non-profit charity.

Edited June 8, 2012 by Neon Genesis

[PaulS]

I am aware of the separation between church & state, but can't say I'm convinced it's entirely right. I mean, in a democracy, the State is representative of the people, and basically the people have decided that racism is wrong. So subsequently there is no place in such a society for a church that practices racism. That's where I think the 'rights' thing maybe oversteps the mark.

 

I agree that forcing a church that doesn't want to marry gays, to marry gays, is only going to cause antagonism. Certainly withholding a church's tax-free status if it doesn't want to particpate in the greater society, is a fair and reasonable thing to do. Undoubtedly, some churches would feel a degree of pride and revel in the 'persecution' of not having a tax exempt status. But I am certain that time is against them in any event.

 

To the statement "You can't force someone who wants to keep living in the medieval era into modernity" - well, your Civil War did put an end to slavery. Of course I'm not suggesting war and/or violence, but I think there is a place for government (representative of the people) to force change as much as they can.

[Neon Genesis]

Didn't "Liberty" University ban interracial dating until the late 90s?

[PaulS]

Didn't "Liberty" University ban interracial dating until the late 90s?

 

Yep. From what I can tell, it implemented this policy in the 50's when the parents of an asian student there, threatened a law suit because their son had become engaged to a white girl.

 

It got dropped in the 90's when it became accidentally nationally exposed after a campaigning George Bush spoke there. McCain went to town on Bush for accepting the support of this university. The dating policy got brought up and the school crumbled under national pressure.

 

Interestingly, in 1983 the US Supreme Court upheld the IRS's punitive revocation, after a 13yr battle, of the university's tax exemption because of its discrimatory dating policy. So it seems as early as 1970 the IRS revoked the university's tax exempt status (I'm not sure of the detail so I stand to be corrected) because of its discrimination.

 

I wonder where else the IRS may be doing this? Anyone know of examples for homophobic discrimination?

 

 

 

 

 

Notwithstanding the First Amendment’s freedom of religion guarantee, in 1983 the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the IRS’s punitive revocation -- following a 13-year battle -- of the university’s tax exemption because of its “discriminatory” dating policy.

 

The university’s recent reversal places the fundamentalist school in the company of other minority religious communities apparently compelled by judicial rulings, politics, IRS policies, or cultural hegemony to abandon religious beliefs and practices in order to conform with the dominant American culture.

[GeorgeW]

Didn't "Liberty" University ban interracial dating until the late 90s?

 

I think you are thinking of Bob Jones U in South Carolina.

 

George

[Raven]

I can see the points you're making Paul, but I respectfually disagree. Allowing the government to wander into the churches and make demands seems a bit dangerous to me. I prefer the idea that the two never meet, personally.

 

Marriage - that's ALL marriage - should be a matter of the government, not the matter of the church. Let everyone have a "civil marriage." Then, if the couple wishes to also have a church ceremony, let that be at the discretion of the church. As for the point about members-only marriages, some churches already do this, and I don't think it's a terrible idea.

 

My cousins live in Venezuela, where church-only marriages are not recognized by the government. Everyone gets a civil ceremony, which is performed by a JP, and then if they choose, they can have a church ceremony as well. This seems like a good idea to me.

 

Paul, your comment about racism doesn't really ring true though - I wish it did, but I don't think it does. There are plenty of church that still teach racism and sexism, besides homophobia. You can't regulate what a church teaches its people. I absolutely think the churches need to come out of the dark ages and embrace an open concept, but that's different from trying legislate them into performing same-sex marriages. Making them do it against their will only serves to stoke the fires. Fundy churches already cry persecution too much, imo. I hate some of the things that they teach, but they have the right to do so. As long as they aren't specifically saying to go out and commit crimes against other people (like a hate crime) I think they're in the clear.... disgusting, but in the clear.

[GeorgeW]

Marriage - that's ALL marriage - should be a matter of the government, not the matter of the church. Let everyone have a "civil marriage." Then, if the couple wishes to also have a church ceremony, let that be at the discretion of the church. As for the point about members-only marriages, some churches already do this, and I don't think it's a terrible idea.

 

I agree. Civil union should be a matter of state, marriage should be a private religious or other type ritual.

 

Frankly, I am ambivalent on the question of whether churches should be allowed by law to discriminate. Some forms of discrimination I think should be allowed. As an example, a Jewish rabbi should not be compelled, IMO, to marry a Jew and a Catholic. Other forms of discrimination, I think should be banned - like racial. Homosexual discrimination, I don't know. But, I don't think society is ready for this to be mandatory in churches at this time.

 

George

[PaulS]

Raven,

 

I'm not suggesting government wander into churches making demands, I just don't see why government (representative of the people) cannot remove special conditions that as a society we offer to churches, if those churches aren't willing to abide by society's expectations. I don't think we're there yet, but I think the concept is fair and reasonable all the same.

 

I think that if gay people choose to have a church wedding, they should be entitled to one, but only if they are part of that church community in the first place, or are accepted by that church community to marry there. Clearly, just to bowl into a church demanding to be provided a wedding ceremony would not serve any proper purpose other than antagonism.

 

I don't think any govt should legislate to 'force' gay marriage onto any church or group that doesn't want it, but I do think that they should legislate to allow gay marriage immediately. Then those who aren't bigoted against gays can step up to the mark and offer church weddings to gay people, if that is what's sought.

 

I disagree with you though that church's have a 'right' to teach racism, or any other kind of digusting behaviour, in my book. If church's want to exist in our society, they should do so in accordance with societal expectations. Whilst society let's such churches get away with teaching bigotry, discrimination, etc, such churches will continue to do so. I know it's a dramatic example, but we don't let churches commit human sacrifice even of willing members, and we don't let churches practice other practices with willing members such as polygamy. Why not, if that is their desire as a church community? Because we as a society reject it. Hopefully when we as a society reject such churches discriminating against gays, perhaps then they will reconsider their ways. Unlikely I know, but I wonder how long America might have been kept waiting for the South to come to its senses and recognise the human dignity of slaves?

 

I mentioned it before, another dramatic example, but 150 yrs on from a war that was fought over some people's belief that it was God's will for them to have slaves, the majority of society understand such a concept to be utterly ridiculous. The change in their beliefs was well and truly forced, but 150yrs on and we don't look like returning to such ridiculous beliefs. I personally think it's time to end the bigotry against gays and I think the governments of the world should be leading the way.

 

Just my two bob's worth.

 

Cheers

Paul

[romansh]

I agree. Civil union should be a matter of state, marriage should be a private religious or other type ritual.

So if were married in municipal registery office I would not be married?

We will have to create a new verb here.

 

Does marriage belong to people or to religious, private or state organizations? But I agree, if an organization does not want to marry my sort, then fair enough. Of course this is a bit more problematic if it is a governmental group that is disenfranchising me.

Edited June 8, 2012 by romansh

[Neon Genesis]

Marriage - that's ALL marriage - should be a matter of the government, not the matter of the church. Let everyone have a "civil marriage." Then, if the couple wishes to also have a church ceremony, let that be at the discretion of the church. As for the point about members-only marriages, some churches already do this, and I don't think it's a terrible idea.

 

My cousins live in Venezuela, where church-only marriages are not recognized by the government. Everyone gets a civil ceremony, which is performed by a JP, and then if they choose, they can have a church ceremony as well. This seems like a good idea to me.

 

 

Contrary to the conspiratorial claims of the Religious Right, the U.S. government already recognizes that government marriage and religious marriage are two different things. The only people who can't see the difference are the anti-gay Christians. The only benefit I could see of changing the name would be it could appeal to middle of the road voters who might be uncomfortable with gay marriage but would be comfortable with civil unions but with the President of the U.S. and major organizations like the NAACP coming out in support of full marriage equality, the whole concept of civil unions is starting to look out-dated and antiquated. I just don't see much point to changing the name of marriage when what you're legalizing is 99% identical to marriage other than the name anyway. It's not like just changing the name will somehow magically convince homophobic Christians to be nicer to gays. Edited June 8, 2012 by Neon Genesis

[GeorgeW]

So if were married in municipal registery office I would not be married?

We will have to create a new verb here.

 

One can call it what ever they like. I would prefer 'civil union' to placate those who claim that 'marriage' is between one man and one woman (in spite of the many Biblical exceptions). I would just make a clean distinction between the legal status with regard to the state and the social/religious status with regard to the church.

 

Under my system, if one wants the legal benefits of marriage, they must undergo a civil union. Whatever else they might want to do is their private business. If the wish to only undergo a religious ceremony, that would be fine. But, there would be no legal benefits of the arrangement.

 

George

[romansh]

Under my system, if one wants the legal benefits of marriage, they must undergo a civil union.

 

How does one celebrate this civil non-marriage union? Sounds pretty non spiritual to me. I think executives have more fun signing a legal contract.

[GeorgeW]

How does one celebrate this civil non-marriage union? Sounds pretty non spiritual to me. I think executives have more fun signing a legal contract.

 

My civil union would be absolutely non-spiritual. If the couple wishes to add a spiritual ceremony of some sort, that would be fine. But, that would be separate and apart from the legal union.

 

The civil union would determine legal status with the state: tax status, legal inheritance rights, property rights, etc. A religious ceremony, if they wished, would determine their status with the church.

 

George

[Neon Genesis]

Many surveys show that younger evangelical Christians are becoming more moderate in their religious beliefs and are slowly but surely becoming more gay friendly. If the younger evangelical Christians become fully supportive of gay rights and other liberal social justice values while still holding conservative religious beliefs, do you think there will still be a need for progressive Christianity?

[murmsk]

Many surveys show that younger evangelical Christians are becoming more moderate in their religious beliefs and are slowly but surely becoming more gay friendly. If the younger evangelical Christians become fully supportive of gay rights and other liberal social justice values while still holding conservative religious beliefs, do you think there will still be a need for progressive Christianity?

 

PC is more than Gay Rights...

[PaulS]

Many surveys show that younger evangelical Christians are becoming more moderate in their religious beliefs and are slowly but surely becoming more gay friendly. If the younger evangelical Christians become fully supportive of gay rights and other liberal social justice values while still holding conservative religious beliefs, do you think there will still be a need for progressive Christianity?

 

Personally I think there will be a place for PC for as long as there are people who cannot embrace conservative religious beliefs as being the only way to God.