The politics of the anti–gay marriage amendment: A primer
Tuesday, July 05, 2011 at 2:21 pm
- 35 Comments
Activists on both sides of Minnesota’s anti–gay marriage amendment battle have made claims about the politics of the ballot initiative that don’t square with recent research on the issue. For example, conventional wisdom and assertions by DFLers that marriage amendments bolster Republican chances at the ballot box are not borne out by the data. On the other side, Claims that 31 states have passed marriage amendments by anti-gay marriage activists are also overblown. Here’s a primer on the political issues surrounding the proposed constitutional amendment.
Legalizing same-sex marriage
Same-sex marriage is already illegal in Minnesota. In 1971, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that Minnesota marriage laws, though not explicitly barring same-sex marriage, could be interpreted as limiting marriage to one man and one woman. In 1997, the DFL-controlled Minnesota Legislature passed the Defense of Marriage Act which said “lawful marriage may be contracted only between persons of the opposite sex” and explicitly bans “marriage between persons of the same sex.” Republican Gov. Arne Carlson signed it into law.
There have been efforts to legalize same-sex marriage in Minnesota, but they haven’t gone anywhere. Three same-sex couple sued the state in 2010, but a district court judge dismissed the case. The couples filed an appeal in May and that case is still pending. Several DFLers have offered legislation to repeal the state Defense of Marriage act and allow same-sex couples to marry, but those efforts were stymied, even when Democrats has control of the Legislature, and are dead-on-arrival in a Republican-controlled House and Senate.
The anti–gay marriage ballot question would not change current Minnesota law. If the majority of voters vote “no” and it is defeated in 2012, same-sex marriage will remain illegal as the Minnesota Supreme Court decision in Baker v. Nelson still stands. Further, it’s extremely unlikely a GOP-controlled Legislature would pass a bill allowing same-sex couples to wed.
If the voters approve the amendment, the Minnesota Constitution in addition to the Minnesota courts and Minnesota statutes will all ban same-sex marriage.
Majority rules: Unmarked ballots count as “no” votes
Minnesota’s ballot initiative law says that if a voter casts a ballot but does not vote for the specific ballot question, it counts as a “no” vote. The amendment must receive a majority of all votes cast in order for it to pass. In other words, even if the amendment garners more “yes” votes than “no” votes it still may fail if a large number voters skip the question on the ballot but still vote for president, U.S. Senate or local representatives. As Minnesota Public Radio notes, since 1898 when that law took effect, 62 amendments have failed even though they received more “yes” votes than “no” votes.
But, in recent history, voters have still approved nine out of every 10 amendments that have been on the ballot.
Other states, including Hawaii, Tennessee and Utah, have similar rules for constitutional amendments.
Language makes a difference
Proponents of the anti–gay marriage amendment have claimed that such amendments have passed in every state that has had it on the ballot. For instance, Minnesota Majority recently claimed, “In every state in which the question of marriage has been put to a vote of the people, voters have moved to protect marriage as the union of one man and one woman.”
But that’s only half true.
Anti–gay marriage amendments have passed in most states that have offered them on the ballot. One exception is Arizona, where voters narrowly rejected the amendment 51 percent to 49 percent in 2006.
That ballot question read:
“To preserve and protect marriage in this state, only a union of one man and of one woman shall be valid or recognized as marriage by this state or its political subdivisions and no legal status for unmarried persons shall be created or recognized by this state or its political subdivisions that is similar to marriage.”
The language has the effect of outlawing civil unions or domestic partnerships for same-sex couples and heterosexual couples, something Arizona seniors — many of whom live in domestic partnership arrangements — found problematic.
Arizona approved a different marriage amendment in 2008 that did not include ban on a “legal status for unmarried persons.”
A ban on civil unions and domestic partnerships in addition to gay marriage has been the standard offering of religious conservatives in the Minnesota Legislature since U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, then a state senator, first offered it in 2004. In every legislative session, the amendment has stated:
“Only the union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota. Any other relationship shall not be recognized as a marriage or its legal equivalent.”
But, the current amendment that will go to the Minnesota voters omits that last line, and in theory, would not prohibit civil unions or domestic partnerships.
“31 states have protected marriage”
Eighteen states have passed amendments with language that bars not only gay marriage, but either civil unions, domestic partnerships or both: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin.
Eleven states have passed the language similar to that being proposed in Minnesota which, in theory, addresses marriage but not civil unions or domestic partnerships: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Tennessee.
Proponents of the amendment have often made the claim that 31 states have passed marriage amendments. For instance, Minnesota Majority says, “31 states have amended their constitutions to protect the definition of marriage.”
And an ad last fall by NOM and the Minnesota Family Council stated that 31 states have “voted to protect marriage,” a claim repeated in an April press conference by GOP state Sen. Warren Limmer, R-Maple Grove, the lead author of the anti–gay marriage amendment.
In an email to supporters by NOM’s president Brian Brown, “In 2012, we hope, pray and expect that the people of Minnesota, after a dignified and civil debate, will join 31 other states in voting to protect marriage as the union of one man and one woman.”
But that’s not quite accurate.
In Hawaii, the voters voted to allow the legislature to ban same-sex marriage. The amendment read, “The legislature shall have the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples.”
Even including Hawaii in the states where voters have passed some form of anti-gay marriage amendment, only 30 have passed such amendments. Arizona voted on the measure twice, but only once did the amendment pass. Nevada voters had to approve a constitutional amendment in two consecutive elections, 2000 and 2002, which may account for a double vote by amendment proponents.
Only 29 states have passed an amendment similar to what is being proposed in Minnesota, not the 31 touted by amendment supporters.
Bolstering turnout?
One of the more minor complaints the DFL had when the GOP was pushing the marriage amendment was that it would be used to increase voter turnout among social conservatives. Bush White House strategist Karl Rove is often credited with the strategy of putting gay marriage bans before voters in 2004 and 2006, and conventional wisdom has said the amendments increased turnout and helped Republicans, especially Bush in 2004.
But research shows a different story.
Jeffrey Makin of the Initiative and Referendum Institute of the University of Southern California summarized the research on voter turnout and anti-gay marriage amendments:
However, research based on actual election returns, rather than opinion surveys, again casts doubt on the idea that marriage amendments influenced votes for candidates in 2004. Assessing Bush’s vote totals in 2000 and 2004, Abramowitz notes that Bush had consistent gains across almost all states, and in particular, gains were not larger in states with a marriage amendment. Bush gained an average of 2.5 percentage points in states with a marriage amendment and an average of 2.7 percentage points in states without a marriage amendment. A study by Professors Stephen Ansolabehere and Charles Stewart corroborates Abramowitz’s findings. Comparing Bush’s vote totals in 2004 and 2000, they found that Bush lost vote share in states with a marriage amendment (from 49.7 percent in 2000 to 49.6 percent in 2004). In contrast, Bush gained an average of one percentage point in battleground states without a marriage amendment. Thus, because Bush had consistent gains across almost all states, and because Bush lost vote share in states with a marriage amendment, the amendments do not appear to have been an important influence on voting decisions for president in 2004.
While the numbers mainly focused on presidential elections in 2000 and 2004, little data exists on how such amendments might impact local races. Anecdotal evidence, however, shows that anti–gay marriage amendment are actually becoming a liability for Republicans.
In Wisconsin in 2006, Democrats and Republicans credited the marriage amendment for a huge turnout among college students who overwhelmingly opposed the amendment. Though the amendment passed, local Republicans lost a large number of seats particularly in communities that had college campuses.
“The timing ended up backfiring,” Republican Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel in 2006. “I think the opposite worked out this time.”
Follow Andy Birkey on Twitter35 Comments
Comment posted July 5, 2011 @ 2:35 pm
“Only 29″ doesn’t change the fact that marriage is secure in 31 states — soon to be 32. You all are going about this acceptance thing the wrong way. You’re just alienating yourselves further with gay pride parades, pro-homosexuality cirriculum, and trying to redefine marriage.
Comment posted July 5, 2011 @ 2:36 pm
It occurs to me having read this that a poll of Minnesotans asking whether they are even aware of the amendment, let alone its wording, would be of interest.
Nice piece Andy. It appears some of my own assumptions may not have validity on how this may affect voter turnout.
Jeff Wilfahrt, Rosemount, MN
Comment posted July 5, 2011 @ 2:49 pm
Does being a NOM / GOP shill pay well, HG? You sure seem to put a lot of effort into it.
Marriage is not being redefined, as it was never defined in the way you and your bigoted peers suggest by anyone other than yourself and your bigoted peers. As has been proven many times, the definition of marriage has changed and evolved over the centuries, and it will continue to do so. Go back to your cave.
Comment posted July 5, 2011 @ 3:19 pm
The following are some of the dangers that arise as a result of Christian morality:
Unbalanced Views
Belief is generally regarded as at least as important as meritorious conduct — in most Protestant sects faith is all important and all forms of meritorious conduct (“good deeds”) are irrelevant to salvation. It does not matter what we do if our salvation depends on what we believe. This tends to lead Christians to spend their lives in contemplation rather than action. Moreover, action that is taken sometimes appears to be cosmetic, as though done to gain divine merit points. Much Christian aid to the third world has been criticised as superficial and short term, and has arguably been responsible for more harm than good in the long term — for example destroying local economies, breeding dependency, and causing overpopulation. A distorted moral outlook always leads to distorted moral actions. Here is Bertrand Russell on the subject:
The medieval conception of virtue, as one sees in their pictures, was of something wishy-washy, feeble, and sentimental. The most virtuous man was the man who retired from the world; the only men of action who were regarded as saints were those who wasted the lives and substance of their subjects in fighting the Turks, like St. Louis. The church would never regard a man as a saint because he reformed the finances, or the criminal law, or the judiciary. Such mere contributions to human welfare would be regarded as of no importance. I do not believe there is a single saint in the whole calendar whose saintship is due to work of public utility*.
Making medical advances, advancing social reform, and developing life-saving technology was, and still is for mainstream Christianity, far less impressive than performing conjuring style miracles such as levitating or surviving being cut in half.
Personal Responsibility
In traditional Christianity moral precepts are linked to a system of supernatural rewards and punishments. This sometimes leads Christians to believe that they can avoid the consequences of their actions. Many believers imagine that they can wipe clean some sort of divine slate by confession, penitence or prayer. The danger is that people will commit serious wrongs without compunction if they imagine that God will forgive them on request. Abusive priests are known to have confessed to each other, apparently imagining that God would forgive them as easily as their fellow sadists and rapists. There is more than a suspicion that organisations like the IRA, the Italian Mafia, and South American drug cartels retain priests to give absolution to murderers and other criminals. Churchmen and other ardent believers cheer on their fellow Christians who murder doctors for carrying out legal abortions. If a priest or minister has forgiven them on behalf of God then the murderer’s conscience will be clear. Other Christians, believing what they have frequently heard preached, are under the impression that they can sin with impunity, imagining that God hates the sin, but not the sinner.
Fatalism
Traditional Christianity has encouraged a fatalistic attitude, now more popular in the East than the West. The reasoning behind it seems to be something like this: God is all-knowing, he is aware of everything that will happen until the end of time. There is therefore no point in my trying to do anything since my future, like the future of everything else in the Universe, is already determined and already known to God. There is therefore no point in my trying to avoid the plague or a traffic accident. If God has ordained that I am to die today, then there is nothing I can do to stay alive, and if he has ordained that I live, then I cannot die, however recklessly I behave. There is therefore no point in struggling to avoid or overcome disease, no point in avoiding overtaking on blind bends, and no point trying to improve my lot, or the lot of my fellow creatures. There is no point trying to eradicate poverty because Jesus said that the poor would always be with us. This fatalism may account for the fact that Christians have played so little part in reform movements whether social, scientific, political, economic, medical, philosophical, penal, legal or constitutional, and on the contrary have generally opposed reform movements on the grounds that trying to improve life for people subverted the divine natural order, “playing God” and “flying in the face of the Almighty”.
Sex
The Churches seem to many to be preoccupied by sex and suffering, and continue to confuse sex with morality. Concepts of morality where sex is so important lead to conclusions at odds with mainstream opinion (Churches are now increasingly embarrassed by their traditional position that masturbation was a greater wrong than murder, and coitus interruptus more serious than rape).
This preoccupation with sex has led many Christians to reject contraceptive practices. In certain branches of Christianity the problems of overpopulation are simply ignored. Outside these denominations, overpopulation is widely accepted to be one of the greatest dangers facing the world today. Among the dangers are the exhaustion of natural resources, guaranteed periodic famines, an increased danger of contagious diseases, plant and animal species driven to extinction, reduced quality of life for all, a degraded environment, more industrialisation and more pollution. All this is of no consequence to those who know that God wants us to go forth and multiply.
Traditionally, gonorrhoea and syphilis were regarded by Christians as God’s punishment for fornication (though it has never been explained why the punishment extended to the innocent wives and husbands of infected sinners). Dangers associated with sexually transmitted diseases are still exacerbated by Christian attitudes: examples are the Catholic Church preventing the use of condoms where they would reduce the incidence of HIV and Christian politicians and schools resisting vaccination programs against the human papillomavirus virus (which causes cervical cancer) on the grounds that sexually transmitted diseases like this provide an impediment to premarital sex*. Traditional Christian attitudes are reflected in the fact that gonorrhoea among teenagers is now seventy times greater in the overwhelmingly religious USA than it is in more secular countries like Holland and France*. Thousands, perhaps millions, of people throughout the world suffer and die unnecessarily because of Christian attitudes to sex.
Economic Development
The history of northern Europe goes back no further than that of southern Europe, nor does that of North America go further back than that of South America. The question arises as to why in each case the North should be relatively affluent.
Traditional teachings on lending money at interest (usury) stifled economic development for many centuries, until first Protestants and later Catholics decided to abandon this particular doctrine. The delay appears to partially explain why until the twentieth century at least, the largely Protestant North was relatively affluent, inventive, clean and stable, with a well-educated population, while the Catholic South was relatively poor, superstitious, squalid and politically unstable, with a large peasant population.
Is it a coincidence that these areas correspond to traditionally Protestant and Roman Catholic spheres of influence respectively? If we look elsewhere around the world the correlation is similar. One possible explanation is that Roman Catholicism is responsible directly or indirectly for authoritarianism, ignorance, overpopulation and poverty. The disparity, confirmed by objective studies, cannot be explained by geographical location, natural resources, or historical factors other than religion.
Attitudes to Truth
The religious outlook is fundamentally different from the secular humanist outlook. Secular thinkers are interested in pursuing the truth wherever it might lead: Christians are often interested in truth only when it leads to desired conclusions. Christianity has therefore always subordinated rational truth to religious dogma. The consequences of this include book burning, scientist burning, obscurantism, suppression of evidence, rewriting history, linguistic deceits, and hostility to scientific advances. Churchmen are still suppressing or manipulating other information — about the Bible, about the Dead Sea Scrolls, about ecclesiastical forgeries, and so on. As has been frequently observed, eminent scientists have rarely been typical of the religious traditions in which they grew up. Religious dogma made Christianity the enemy of science and free enquiry, and the hostility continues. Having lost medical battles over vaccination, anaesthetics and sexual health, leading churchmen are still fighting rearguard actions, for example trying to prohibit research on embryonic stem cells.
Comment posted July 5, 2011 @ 3:45 pm
I wish conservatives would at least consider using their brains once in a while. Instead they seem to operate and live their lives centered around the notion of fear. Fear of this and fear of that dictates all the nonsensical actions they take.
“voted to protect marriage,” – Can’t they see the absolute stupidity of this statement? Is marriage going to disappear? Is someone going to start attacking married couples and make them get a divorce? Is marriage going to be banned from our society?
God did give you guys a brain you know and I strongly believe he wants you to use it. Maybe using it all the time is a bit much to ask for. How about 10% of the time for starters. You’ll be amazed at the difference it can make in your lives.
Comment posted July 5, 2011 @ 4:27 pm
A metaphor from this past fourth of July holiday. The water level of the lake was pretty high. A rising tide lifts all boats. It wasn’t just our boat that was higher, but our neighbors, the people 5 houses down, as well as the people across the lake.
“We all do better, when we all do better.” If the gays are doing better, if the lesbians are doing better, if the transgenders are doing better, then the straights are doing better too.
Comment posted July 5, 2011 @ 4:58 pm
Nice Andrew. I never put it together like that though Its my philosophy.
Comment posted July 5, 2011 @ 5:56 pm
Andrew, Yes, when all people are equal and are given equal rights than we do better as a society.
It starts with acceptance. One must Accept even if one doesn’t support.
Pingback posted July 5, 2011 @ 6:12 pm
[...] the top five donors who helped put the anti-marriage amendment on the ballot. He also has a great primer on the [...]
Comment posted July 5, 2011 @ 6:27 pm
Can someone (not you, HG) explain to me the political circumstances that led the DFL-controlled legislature to pass the MN DOMA which was then signed into law by Governor Arne Carlson in 1997? I was living in Seattle then.
Comment posted July 5, 2011 @ 10:10 pm
> Ten states have passed the language similar to that being proposed in Minnesota …
That should read ELEVEN states – not ten states.
Yep, I come up with 29 states.
Wikipedia states that “On February 16, 2011, Hawaii’s House passed the civil unions bill that will allowing same-sex and different-sex couples to enter into a civil union. Governor Neil Abercrombie signed the bill on February 24, 2011 and civil unions will begin on January 1, 2012.” A future legislature has the option of replacing this law with marriage extended to same-sex couples; this will likely happen when the federal DOMA is no longer with the vast bulk of existing federal law recognizing only marriages and not civil unions, domestic partnerships, reciprocal benefits and such.
Comment posted July 5, 2011 @ 11:55 pm
“pro-homosexuality cirriculum [sic], and trying to redefine marriage”
1. Schools have promoted pro-heterosexuality curricula with stories like Goldilocks & the Three Bears, but it’s not been called “teaching the heterosexual lifestyle.” Stories and even “curricula” are used to demonstrate the diversity that exists in real life. Same-sex couples, single-parent households, adoptive families, blended families, and married-later-in-life couples won’t disappear just because individuals choose to distort reality in our schools.
2. Same-sex couples aren’t “redefining” marriage: Heterosexual allies, including allies who are legally recognized as married, are advocating for equal access to an institution that affirms love, commitment, mutual care, and protection for families. The desire to grow old together, to call out the best qualities in one another, and to make that declaration of commitment public doesn’t change based on the gender of the individuals who say “I do.”
Comment posted July 6, 2011 @ 8:48 am
@HG “Marriage is secure”
So, uh, 29 states banned divorce?
Comment posted July 6, 2011 @ 8:52 am
Personal Responsibility
In traditional Christianity moral precepts are linked to a system of supernatural rewards and punishments. This sometimes leads Christians to believe that they can avoid the consequences of their actions. Many believers imagine that they can wipe clean some sort of divine slate by confession, penitence or prayer. The danger is that people will commit serious wrongs without compunction if they imagine that God will forgive them on request.
I wish you had provided citations with your copypasta because this one, at least, and at least in the US, is true. I’m also cite-free but there was a study recently showing that religious Christians felt that confessing to God was sufficient repentance whereas secular people felt they had to apologize to the person they wronged. As a result, the religious people felt more self-satisfied and less guilty. No wonder Christian bidnesspeople can cross all kinds of ethical barriers to get ahead and not lose any sleep over it.
Comment posted July 6, 2011 @ 9:01 am
Isn’t Google wonderful? I can type in a string of characters from an uncited passage, and quickly locate the source.
http://www.badnewsaboutchristianity.com/hc0_moral.htm
Comment posted July 6, 2011 @ 9:30 am
Thank you Lane… :)
I should have thought about putting in the link, especially cause the title itself might have been a perfect Carl Jebus moment!
@Andrew, for centuries at least people across the globe have done heinous acts and started wars in the name of GOD and or with the idea that God will understand, or that God will forgive.
Today we know that line of thinking=insanity. When it comes down to it, the ones that scream its not normal the loudest are indeed the ones that are not normal.
Comment posted July 6, 2011 @ 9:37 am
Andrew wrote…. Christians felt that confessing to God was sufficient repentance whereas secular people felt they had to apologize to the person they wronged. As a result, the religious people felt more self-satisfied and less guilty
I would take it one step further even, I as someone who doesn’t follow any organized religion, not only teach my children that its not even enough to apologize to the person, but one must “repent” and make up for the damage that was done. So if one breaks a toy, one must not only face up to the fact that they broke the toy, and they must tell the person that they broke their toy, but they must replace the toy to the best of the ability. There is room for compromise in this situation, but the control is in the hands of the person who was wronged. Only then, is one “forgiven”. Its a process, not a confession and a hail mary said outloud ten times.
Comment posted July 6, 2011 @ 9:48 am
..yea I love the line..changing the definition of Marriage…HUH..????? Marriage is WHAT YOU and YOUR CHOSEN partner MAKE IT….No one else – YOU!!!!! You make your OWN definition. Keeping Mn from Marriage Equality won’t stop Gays/lesbians from marrying…it will just make your state look Backwards and hillbilly…and ON THE WRONG SIDE of HISTORY…thats all.
Comment posted July 6, 2011 @ 10:24 am
I FREAKING LOVE THIS SITE !!! Andy, I could just kiss you.
marie, thanks for all the info. Good read. Religion needs to be personal and not forced onto others. It took me most of my life to finally realize that I can have a deep spiritual connection to life and the universe/people without being in an organized religion with controls and hidden agendas. I get my belief system from a mix of Christian, Hindu (Chakra System) and Buddhism psychology along with reading books by several enlightened masters. I add a touch of Deepak and Carolyn Myss to the mix that has been life changing. It’s great we have the freedom of religious belief in this country. Out of it all, I realized we are simply souls with mistaken identities (egos) having these human experiences. I laugh as these humans push their wills onto others (or so try to).
11:11 (wink)
Comment posted July 6, 2011 @ 10:36 am
Re: the process of making genuine amends, marie, amen to that!
BTW, I think you were speaking to “Another Halocene Human” – not Andrew. I had to look up the word holocene …
Comment posted July 6, 2011 @ 11:32 am
@Lane, thank you for the correction.
And I just had to look up the meaning of that word too. Interesting tag name.
Comment posted July 6, 2011 @ 11:45 am
All of the anti-religious bigotry on display in the above comments is the reason we need to pass amendments like the one being discussed. As a teacher I deal with the public through their children. I observe that the most intolerant folks around are those who are the least religious. Religious people like me know that once marriage is redefined (notwithstanding the various historical revisionist fantasies outlined in great detail above: it’s primarily Catholic Christianity that cares about historical accuracy, after all, if Christ is not historically risen from the dead, our religion is for naught) it will be open season on Christians. We have seen where redefining marriage has led in Great Britain and Canada: pastors being hauled before magistrates for teaching traditional biblical teachings abut the sinfulness of homosexual acts.
Don’t forget that it was Christianity that introduced the concept of widespread tolerance and mercy which is now being twisted by the anti-Christian left to try to force a change in natural law. If they succeed, society will become infinitely less tolerant.
Comment posted July 6, 2011 @ 1:57 pm
@Geometricus
What happened to that widespread tolerance and mercy?
Also, could you please cite any anti-religious “bigotry” that has been written here? As far as I can see there is a lot of discussion and very little bigotry.
Comment posted July 6, 2011 @ 2:38 pm
@ Geometricus
You obviously live in fear. It’s sad for you.
You have some very good points but your blind programming and non-critial self empowered thinking is still showing through. Can you provide solid evidence or proof that Joe and John or Sally and Sue’s peaceful union of love is making society crumble and fall apart? Please produce actual evidence. Open season on Christians? Laughable and totally false as long as they aren’t forcing their beliefs onto others or slipping their rules of suppression into government laws.
Also can anyone prove that Jesus condemned the homosexuals? From my understanding, the ‘Jesus Character’ from that book they call the ‘Bible’ was a liberal and taught love and tolerance for fellow man. But lets get back to the rule book…, the bible has been translated, manipulated and skewed over hundreds and hundreds of years from the original Hebrew version. It’s full of nice poetry and stories that helped some people in different stages of the human race, especially at a time when the humans didn’t have basic understandings of psychology, but it’s also full of rules that people simply don’t live by anymore or can’t because it’s illegal. So, basically if there is any anti-religious bigotry, it’s because people are sick of those using one religious belief system (that is horrifically outdated) and try to use it to control and suppress others. Stop the religious control and suppression and bingo, no conflicts. Allow people their own spiritual-human process through love and tolerance.
Bottom line, keep your outdated religious beliefs ouf of other peaceful people’s lives. Is that honestly too much to ask? Gay marriage isn’t a threat. There is nothing to fear from peaceful unions of love from two consenting adults.
Also, with that, the gays that I know wouldn’t get married in a church, but would have a union-ceremony and then if the law allowed, get a marriage license, they would get civil rights based on that peaceful union. The gays I know pay taxes just like other people but aren’t given the same civil rights that they deserve.
Comment posted July 6, 2011 @ 3:07 pm
The catholic church is one of the largest organizations that are about hiding history, even present history. I am very sorry your so miss informed.
I have no intolerance for religion, just indoctrination and in-equality.
Comment posted July 6, 2011 @ 3:14 pm
@ Mike, your personal belief system sounds complex, but intriguing. It is personal, we all have beliefs even if we believe in nothing. I make the choice to keep my beliefs mostly to myself. I have been part of organized religion and have made the choice to be. I have friends, family, and acquaintances that still practice hard core organized religions with tolerance to others and even with equality at their core of their religion, I have hope that the hatred of people from Geometricus, HG and others will not prevail.
Comment posted July 6, 2011 @ 3:50 pm
@ marie
One of my fave sites is….. http://www.religioustolerance.org
Comment posted July 6, 2011 @ 3:53 pm
Now THAT was funny! The Catholic Church is IMO the largest deceptor of truth even in so far as their insatiable hoarding of historical artifact, hidden scriptures and priceless works of art. Then there is the money laundering for the mob, the on-going pedophilic cover-up and male prostitution racket, and they seem to have missed that little ditty about IDOL worship too, you know, worshipping a MAN (Pope), in plush golden halls wearing robes of silk, and worshipping a friggen torture device. M’kay…
Comment posted July 6, 2011 @ 3:53 pm
@mike, I am very familiar with that site. I have read books, and have taken classes also on history of the catholic church, and the history of the bible’s. The revisionary is in the extremest.
Comment posted July 6, 2011 @ 3:57 pm
As for that whole “redefining” thingy…
A Kiev art museum contains a curious icon from St. Catherine’s Monastery on Mt. Sinai in Israel. It shows two robed Christian saints. Between them is a traditional Roman ‘pronubus’ (a best man), overseeing a wedding. The pronubus is Christ. The married couple are both men.
Is the icon suggesting that a gay “wedding” is being sanctified by Christ himself? The idea seems shocking. But the full answer comes from other early Christian sources about the two men featured in the icon, St. Sergius and St. Bacchus,2 two Roman soldiers who were Christian martyrs. These two officers in the Roman army incurred the anger of Emperor Maximian when they were exposed as ‘secret Christians’ by refusing to enter a pagan temple. Both were sent to Syria circa 303 CE where Bacchus is thought to have died while being flogged. Sergius survived torture but was later beheaded. Legend says that Bacchus appeared to the dying Sergius as an angel, telling him to be brave because they would soon be reunited in heaven.
While the pairing of saints, particularly in the early Christian church, was not unusual, the association of these two men was regarded as particularly intimate. Severus, the Patriarch of Antioch (512 – 518 CE) explained that, “we should not separate in speech they [Sergius and Bacchus] who were joined in life”. This is not a case of simple “adelphopoiia.” In the definitive 10th century account of their lives, St. Sergius is openly celebrated as the “sweet companion and lover” of St. Bacchus. Sergius and Bacchus’s close relationship has led many modern scholars to believe they were lovers. But the most compelling evidence for this view is that the oldest text of their martyrology, written in New Testament Greek describes them as “erastai,” or “lovers”. In other words, they were a male homosexual couple. Their orientation and relationship was not only acknowledged, but it was fully accepted and celebrated by the early Christian church, which was far more tolerant than it is today.
Contrary to myth, Christianity’s concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has constantly evolved as a concept and ritual.
Prof. John Boswell3, the late Chairman of Yale University’s history department, discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the “Office of Same-Sex Union” (10th and 11th century), and the “Order for Uniting Two Men” (11th and 12th century).
These church rites had all the symbols of a heterosexual marriage: the whole community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar was conducted with their right hands joined, holy vows were exchanged, a priest officiatied in the taking of the Eucharist and a wedding feast for the guests was celebrated afterwards. These elements all appear in contemporary illustrations of the holy union of the Byzantine Warrior-Emperor, Basil the First (867-886 CE) and his companion John.
Such same gender Christian sanctified unions also took place in Ireland in the late 12th and early 13th centuries, as the chronicler Gerald of Wales (‘Geraldus Cambrensis’) recorded.
Same-sex unions in pre-modern Europe list in great detail some same gender ceremonies found in ancient church liturgical documents. One Greek 13th century rite, “Order for Solemn Same-Sex Union”, invoked St. Serge and St. Bacchus, and called on God to “vouchsafe unto these, Thy servants [N and N], the grace to love one another and to abide without hate and not be the cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God, and all Thy saints”. The ceremony concludes: “And they shall kiss the Holy Gospel and each other, and it shall be concluded”.
Another 14th century Serbian Slavonic “Office of the Same Sex Union”, uniting two men or two women, had the couple lay their right hands on the Gospel while having a crucifix placed in their left hands. After kissing the Gospel, the couple were then required to kiss each other, after which the priest, having raised up the Eucharist, would give them both communion.
Records of Christian same sex unions have been discovered in such diverse archives as those in the Vatican, in St. Petersburg, in Paris, in Istanbul and in the Sinai, covering a thousand-years from the 8th to the 18th century.
The Dominican missionary and Prior, Jacques Goar (1601-1653), includes such ceremonies in a printed collection of Greek Orthodox prayer books, “Euchologion Sive Rituale Graecorum Complectens Ritus Et Ordines Divinae Liturgiae” (Paris, 1667).
While homosexuality was technically illegal from late Roman times, homophobic writings didn’t appear in Western Europe until the late 14th century. Even then, church-consecrated same sex unions continued to take place.
At St. John Lateran in Rome (traditionally the Pope’s parish church) in 1578, as many as thirteen same-gender couples were joined during a high Mass and with the cooperation of the Vatican clergy, “taking communion together, using the same nuptial Scripture, after which they slept and ate together” according to a contemporary report. Another woman to woman union is recorded in Dalmatia in the 18th century.
Prof. Boswell’s academic study is so well researched and documented that it poses fundamental questions for both modern church leaders and heterosexual Christians about their own modern attitudes towards homosexuality.
For the Church to ignore the evidence in its own archives would be cowardly and deceptive. The evidence convincingly shows that what the modern church claims has always been its unchanging attitude towards homosexuality is, in fact, nothing of the sort.
It proves that for the last two millennia, in parish churches and cathedrals throughout Christendom, from Ireland to Istanbul and even in the heart of Rome itself, homosexual relationships were accepted as valid expressions of a [Christian] god-given love and commitment to another person, a love that could be celebrated, honored and blessed, through the Eucharist in the name of, and in the presence of, Jesus Christ.
“… in the evening the youth came to him [Jesus], wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God. And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan.” —The Secret Gospel of Mark, The Other Bible, Willis Barnstone, Editor, Harper & Row, San Francisco, 1984, pp. 339-342.
Comment posted July 8, 2011 @ 6:38 am
Prohibiting gay marriage will eventually be declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court. Whether it is in this generation or the next, it is inevitable. Why make gay men and women wait?
Comment posted July 10, 2011 @ 4:14 pm
All the arguments against gay marriage don’t make any sense. Though some religious people refuse to use any critical thinking skills and therefore are immune to reason or logic.
If you don’t believe in gay marriage, don’t get gay married and shut up about it. I thought the GOP was the party of “personal responsibility” and “small government.”
Comment posted July 10, 2011 @ 4:50 pm
The republicans say that they want the people to decide, but their own propaganda will get most of the publicity and promotion.
I would LOVE to see TPT2 take the Public Information Services video coverage from the hearings and floor debates, and turn them into a special series. Add in the state constitution, current MN law, fact checking, biography of pundits, and the campaign money trail – especially out-of-state money.
Almanac: At The Altar.
Amending Liberty.
Comment posted July 11, 2011 @ 10:30 am
All this anti–gay marriage is just a very good way to make MONEY for all the crazy’s.
In the old days churchs would feed the poor, help the sick, but now. It is all about the money.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
