The Way To Solve the Gay Civil Rights Issues We Face Today

You solutions see well thought out, reasonable and fair. The problem is, however, there are those who wish to impose a "purity code" on our culture. Purity codes are designed to legally and socially exclude people in order to develop and maintain a power base. This problem is described in a biblical dialogue between the third section of Isaiah (56-66) and Nehemiah and Ezra. These books were written about 400 to 500 years before Christ during the time the elites were returning from exile in Babylon. In Nehemiah and Ezra we see purity codes being set up to establish ethnic purity standards, focusing on marriage and nationality. Isaiah argues for a new radical form of inclusion – "The time has come to gather all the nations and tongues; they shall come and behold my glory."
About 400 years later, Jesus represents Isaiah's argument – "My house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples." It is interesting that one of the groups that Jesus hung out with, the Samaritans, is the same group of outcasts generated by the purity codes of Nehemiah and Ezra.
So, we are fighting the same fight that occurred 400 years before Jesus, and the fight that Jesus fought (which probably got him killed) – The fight between those of us who fight for peace and justice for all (radical inclusiveness), and those who are fighting for purity codes (exclusiveness).
So, as great as your solutions are, and I hope we can achieve them, the purity code people will fight them with everything they have – after all they will never compromise their purity.

You make some very valid points. I was raised in the Church Of Christ, strict, conservative beliefs. As I grew older, however, I began to realize how, as "Christians", these people seemed to believe they were the only people going to heaven. They could go out and get wasted Saturday night and show up to church the next morning acting as if they were superior to others. Does the Bible not tell us to love one another? Yes. It isn't my duty to judge someone by his or her actions. I don't care if someone is gay or straight. (In fact I'd rather hang out with a gay man than a straight woman-go figure). As far as a constitutional amendment-think of it this way. We are ALL discriminated against. I'm a little overweight. I know I have been denied jobs due to this. I'm stared at, made fun of etc. Do people have hatred for overweight people? Believe it or not yes. So adding an amendment would then give cause for me to say wait a minute, add an amendment for me as well because I'm overweight and discriminated against. I deal with it on a daily basis. I can understand how you feel-although I've never walked in your shoes just as you have never walked in mine. It doesn't matter what the laws say-people will still believe they have the right to treat someone as outcasts because they don't hold the same beliefs, look the same, poor, rich-whatever. Discrimination will never go away no matter what we do.

You wrote what needed to be said and I'm glad you said it.

Jonathan:
Your positions are well thought out and the
presentation creates a climate of sincerity.
I think for the D party to court gay people
as a special interest group is a mistake.
The Gays are becoming pests who are
helping take the D party down.

Edward: It is a sad state of affairs when the political party that stands up for the oppressed is diminished for doing so. We have become a celebrity culture that only votes for "winners." In this case, "winners" are those who meet the requirements of the purity code. It's like we are all back in high school and have to meet the requirements of the "popular" click. Only, this time it is really scary. They want to have the force of law to enforce their code.

Edward, while I do not agree with your point on this issue, it is yours to believe. I am sorry, being a gay man, I cannot see myself as a pest because I want equal protection under the same law that you have. Just my thought.
Kathryn, thank you for saying that.
Gary and Beth, I agree this is not going to be easy. The problem is that we are targeting the smaller battles, not the big one, and that is what needs to be focused on. Hopefully the gay community will get on the ball, and we can get equal protection from discrimination.

Edward, I'm straight but I stand for the rights of gay people - and people everywhere, regardless of orientation/color/creed/ability/disability - I stand for the rights of people everywhere because people are human and should be guaranteed equal rights. Being Gay is genetic. Science has pretty much proved that. Gay people should be guaranteed the same rights as straight folks.

Kathryn, with the help of people like you, we can stop discrimination. It is sad to see those who actually are advocating that anyone should be discriminated against. It would be a diffferent story if the situation was reversed.

Jonathan: You write that marriage is "a religious institution," and that the rights of Christians would be "trampled upon" if gay marriage were recognized. The first part of your statement is only partly true. My wife and I were married in a civil ceremony in City Hall. Are we any less married because our marriage did not include a religious ceremony? Of course not. So a marriage *can* be religious, but it certainly doesn't need to be. Now let's "trample upon" the beliefs of Christians by allowing gay marriage. How, pray tell, are their beliefs being trampled upon? If the gay marriage takes place in a church, in a religious ceremony, then that church has elected to honor that marriage. If the ceremony is non-religious (e.g., in City Hall), no Christian beliefs are involved at all. You are too kind to your enemies. Those who oppose gay marriage oppose all that you stand for. It isn't just your marriage they oppose, it's you and everyone like you. They are superior and you and your kind are inferior. Gay marriage is your right, and I urge you to stand up for it.

Gerlad, what you do not realize is the fact that marriage was started out as a religious ceremony. and it became secular once the Federal Government made it something that they governed. What I am proposing is that the government stop issuing marriage anything, and call them all Civil Ceremonies, ie, Civil Unions, and let churches issue marriage certificates. In the bible, it does state that Marriage is a holy union between a man and a woman. In our zeal as a nation, we took that, and made it into law. So, in essence, in order to respect the beliefs of religious folk out there, marriage should be done away with at a legal level, and be returned to its roots, that of a religious ceremony. The United States should not have gone into territory that it had no business being involved in. Due to the is fact, it does give Chrisitians the right to complain, due to the fact that we are impeding on their ground. It would be like the United States goverment using the Cross as it's offical symbol, then the gay community demanding that we color it in rainbow colors to signify that we are equal. It does not mesh.

Unfortunately, those who most need to hear this discussion are those who would never in a million years log on to Gather......

Areas of religious and and state authority should
be kept separate. Until we return to upholding that
principle, we will continue to flounder in this gay
marriage and many other controversies, many of
which have yet to be invented. Gay advocates
should be taking their case to the church authorities,
not the civil. It is a simple matter to form a legal
partnership which would provide many of the
benefits of sanctioned marriage: inheritance
procedures and partnership dissolution to name
two. Clearly, the real concerns go beyond
things for which there are simple, practical
solutions. Most of us don't really know what
the real trouble is. Sometimes it seems that the
point gays want to get across is that homosexual
behavior should be considered socially acceptable.
Everytime I comment on sexual issues I get myself
in trouble. I don't consider myself either superior or
oppressive. What's oppressive is that everytime the
religious right and the new political right see a slump
in the polls, they trot out some off the wall moral
issue, like gay marriage, and up go the approval
ratings. That's when the gays, the feminists, and the
animal rights activists, in my estimation, begin to
look like they are more bother than good.

Edward, in reality however, it is not the groups who are more bother, it is those who are in power who use them to gain ground. There is always controversy. The gay community wants to be treated as equal citizens in the country with all the same rights. And why shouldnt we? We obey the laws, pay taxes, and do everything that everyone esle does. in my opinion, if we are not given the same rights, we should quit paying taxes. Hey, no taxation without representation. We are ignored and treated as sub-human, wouldnt you want to fight back too?

Jonathan: Yes, the Bible states that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. On March 1, Jamie Ruskin, a professor of law at American University, testified at a hearing on the proposed Constitutional Amendment to prohibit gay marriage. At the end of his testimony, Republican Senator Nancy Jacobs said: "Mr. Raskin, my Bible says marriage is only between a man and a woman. What do you have to say about that?" Raskin replied: "Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible." The room erupted into applause. Had I been there, I would have applauded as well. P.S.: There are millions of people in the United States who do not believe in the Bible. What about their rights?

Gerald, I agree with you on that. The problem is, we cannot step all over people in the pursuit of equality, and then chastize them for following their beliefs. I guess, all in all, just leave it up to the voters, and hope that they turn out in mass numbers on election day.

Jonathan: The belief that all Christians ought to follow is the belief in the equality of every individual before the law. Gays are not "stepping all over people" in the pursuit of equality; certain people are "stepping all over" gays and denying that equality.

Jonathan, I got married at the Martha Mary Chapel by a lay minister. It was not exactly religious, certainly jnot religious enough for the Catholic Church who could not marry us because I had been enrolled in the Unitarian Church as a child and was not Catholic. My marriage was "a prop" in the eyes of the Catholic Church, like a Civil Ceremony. To me, it was a marriage. Marriage is marriage, whether by a religious minister or JP.

I agree with the concept Kathryn. Ok, to put this all bluntly, I think we should all have marriage rights, however, it is obvious that some Chrisitians will be up in arms unless we call it something else. A piece of paper does not tell me that I love my fiance more then than now. We just want the piece of mind that we have the same rights under the law, without all of the legal papers we had to sign and notarize when we got engaged. It is sad, but if they want to argue over semantics, then so be it.

Jonathan, I'm going to reword my comment then address your comment to me. I meant to say that marriage is a legal concept, not a religious one.

Do you want to comment on this now, too, Jonathan dear?

Yes, Jonathan, I would probably be
doing the same things you are doing.

Kathryn, trust me, I agree with what you are saying. I think a lot of the intent is being lost in semantics. Marriage was started as a religious institution, and then became a legal one. The fight from the religious types is do to the word marriage. That is why i was saying that we should just take away the title of marriage, and give everyone Civil Unions instead. IF the law stands as is, then gay people should be allowed to marry. Trust me, I am gay, and engaged to the most wonderful man, and it pains me that I am not able to go down and get married because of a "belief" but that is the struggle we face. He is a purple heart Veteran at 24 years old, he fought and bled for this country, and he is not even allowed to have the same rights as others. So yes Kathryn, I agree with you, I, unlike many of the zealots though, am trying to find a middle ground to tone down the fight.

To everyone:

I think it's important to consider a few things. First, the battle over gay marriage is not about marriage for most gay people. It's about securing simple equal rights and protections: hospital visitation for spouses, inheritance, tax filing benefits, just to name a few. Taking these issues up with the church would be counterproductive for two reasons. First, some churches already allow same-sex couples to marry in their church - however these marriages bring no legal guarantees, protections, or benefits in 49 states. Second, those churches fundamentally opposed to same-sex marriage are unlikely to change their policies and, (shrug) are entitled to their own positions.

The state is the venue for civil battles. Some common sense Republicans such as Rudy Guiliani are able to discount the political liabilities of same-sex couple related issues and do what's right - not what's popular. This is demonstrative of real political courage. This is the type of political courage that John F. Kennedy wrote about when he penned his book, Profiles in Courage.

The Democratic Party is indented to be the party that welcomes anyone who shares our fundamental ideals. Including the gay community is not a new fad born from the "judicial activists" in Massachusetts in 2004. In fact, Mario Cuomo, former NY Governor gave his nominating speech at the 1984 Democratic National Convention (his famous speech called "A Tale of Two Cities") and described the Democratic Party as one that includes everyone, of every race, every religion, and every orientation.

President Bill Clinton, a democrat, spoke at the Human Rights Campaign's first national dinner. In 2000, then H.R.C. Executive Director Elizabeth Birch addressed the nation at the Democratic Convention nominating Al Gore in Chicago. As she one said to Ralph Reed and the Christian Coalition: "Whether you like it or not, we are part of your family and you are part of our community."

Suggesting that gay marriage is what has driven the Democrats into the ground is ludicrous at least. As the Democrats began to slip in public efficacy, some began to abandon "controversial issues" like same-sex marriage. Remember though, the GOP swept to a rousing victory by embracing the marginalized radical wing of its party resulting in a voter mobilization intended for the record books.

The Democratic Party is never going to win the right-wing base that launched George W. Bush and the GOP majority into Washington. Therefore, it is important for the Democratic Party not to become "Republican-lite," but to pander to its own base: Latinos, gays and lesbians, blacks, the middle class, and labor.

Abandoning constituencies such as gay and lesbian citizens has driven the Democrats' own base away - and contributed to a larger margin of victory for the Republican Party. In effect, the GOP has been extraordinarily successful scaring the Democratic Party away from a plausible victory.

Jon Stewart recently joked that the Democratic Party doesn't count. He mused that they have 40% of the vote and 5% of the power. He jibed that it's seriously time to get off the mat. As a party, our current tactics have only failed us in our pursuit for a safer, stronger, compassionate, and vibrant America.

I believe it's time for the Democratic Party to get off the mat and get back in the game. We must embrace the ideals that sustained our party's majority status in the U.S. house for four consecutive decades. We cannot let the GOP scare us into shedding our ideals and becoming indistinguishable from them. This means we must remember who our base is, and what is important to us. Equality for all cannot have conditions and it cannot provide for religious considerations. Equality means that if you get to marry who you love, so do I. Massachusetts, Vermont, and Connecticut all offer legal protections for gay and lesbian couples under marriage or civil unions. Although "civil union" status is unacceptable while our heterosexual counterparts enjoy "marriage" under the law, it is an advancement toward justice.

For true equality to exist, the state must disavow itself of any responsibilities associated with the term marriage and offer only civil unions to all. Currently, when married by the state a couple receives a Civil Marriage - which can (but doesn't have to be) accompanied by nuptials administered by the Church.

The legal difference between a civil union and a civil marriage on a state level is indistinguishable. But until we have a policy of inclusion in all fifty states or a federal policy allowing for the transference of civil unions between states - gay and lesbian couples continue to face an uphill battle. If the Democratic Party turns its backs on this population in its hour of need, that battle will reach an insurmountable wall. If the Democratic Party stands on its own two feet and stops allowing the GOP to fear its members into hiding, the cause of equal justice can prevail and America's march toward progress can proceed.

Suggesting that gay marriage is what has
driven the Democrats into the ground is
ludicrous at least.
Actually, I said gays activists are helping
bring down the D's. Example: The choice
coalition are every bit as sincere in their
beliefs as the anti-abortionists are in theirs
and, I might add, as you are in yours. Yet,
you hardly hear a word about them. That
is because they realize that every time they
say anything, the press and the religious
right are going to make a big deal about it.
Then, what happens? The neocons gain
points in the polls.

Brian, very well said. The Democratic Party seems so affraid of being the slammed in the press when they point out conservatives' hypocracy and bigotry that their relevance in issues of equality and civil/human rights has greatly diminished. It's at times quite disheartening.

Jonathan, I agree with you on some of your points:

"What I am proposing is that the government stop issuing marriage anything, and call them all Civil Ceremonies"

This is exactly what has happened in Spain. The Church has its religious ceremony and the state recognizes partnerships between couples on a strictly civic/legal basis. In essence, as you said, it all comes down to the semantics of language: marriage vs. civil union.

However, I take issue with your following point:

"The United States should not have gone into territory that it had no business being involved in. Due to the is fact, it does give Chrisitians the right to complain, due to the fact that we are impeding on their ground."

I agree that the US government (or any other government worldwide, because let's remember, this problem doesn't only exist here) should not be involved in the religious life of its citizens, marriage included. However, it is not like the government tyranically took control over the institution of marriage. It (blindly?) adopted institutions dating back thousands of years into human history. That doesn't make its policy correct, but let's be honest about its origins.

THAT said, it is also important to remember that it is CONSERVATIVES who are fighting tooth and nail against the idea of separating the religious institution of marriage from the state institution. It is they who want to maintain the union of church and state. I'm fairly confident that most LGBT people would not be bothered by calling the unions "civil partnerships" or "civil unions" AS LONG AS straight couples are part of the same, equal institution. Therefore, as far as I can see, conservative Christians have no right to complain about LGBT people demanding legal rights granted by the state. They want to control both the civic and religious conceptions of marriage. They are essentially speaking from both sides of their mouths: they complain that the government is impeding on their religious freedom but behind the scenes they make sure religion plays an (increasingly) important role in all aspects of government, from the right to privacy to the first amendment. Like Gerald, I think you are giving those who oppose your marriage too much credit.

John, I do agree with some of your points on this issue. The reason I said that they impeded into an area where they had no business is due to the fact that they created a legality out of religious tradition. That is why the religious right are complaining. In essence, they are claiming that the United States is holding their beliefs above our rights, and where do we get off inserting ourselves into biblical principles. WIth that said, it is just semantics. I do not blame the governement for adopting the marriage laws, I am simply stating that the easiest way to solve the complaint is to do away with the word marriage. Then the religious right would not be able to fight us on semantics, bigotry or hatred would be exposed for what they truly are if it continued.

"The reason I said that they impeded into an area where they had no business is due to the fact that they created a legality out of religious tradition."

I would argue that this is exactly what conservative Christians probably always wanted. They don't mind mixing religious and civil institutions as long as it is on their terms, played by their rules.

Don't get me wrong, I very much agree with your proposal to call all government sanctioned unions "civil unions" (or something along those lines), but it's those same conservative Christians carrying on about us "impeding" into their religious institution who are most upset by such a proposal. They do NOT want to "divorce" the civil institution from the religious institution. They refuse to give up any ground for the sake of building a more just society.

John, the entire point of doing this this scenario is to show them for the bigots that they are. Once you remove religious ties to the institution, then they are shown for the homophobes that they are. They will loose a lot of face with America once they show that it is blind hate that they spew rather than anytype of legitimate argument. That is why I proposed that solution. We cannot keep arguing the semantics of the word, and we cannot directly attack Christians for those beliefs, because that is the same thing as them pushing their life onto us. We have to remove all of the religious words and imagry if we are to succede in this endevor.

Agreed, if only they would let us. That is the challenge I guess.

Although it begs the question, where does such an approach leave religious LGBT folks? My guess is very much out in the cold, any other thoughts?

Well, to be honest John, that is a fight between them and their faith. The Bible does comdem homosexuality, which I do not argue with, my grandmotehr and I have had this conversation many times, and while I respect her viewpoint, I do not share it, and she has learned to accept it. That is something that they have to soul-search to figure out, where they have a place within the religious community. I know there are several gay churches out there, that will even allow same-sex committment ceremonies, and I am sure these individuals would have a place there.