Was I Wrong To Support Gay Marriage? (Nope! But we can still do better...)

Was I Wrong To Support Gay Marriage?

This article does not speak for me. But apparently a family member thinks it should, and left this article for me -- ostensibly to save my soul. I was not impressed with the contents of the article, which is summed up as:

How many backers of theoretical gay marriage will regret the reality of gay marriage? As a matter of policy, it doesn’t matter much anymore. And I have no moral qualms about same-sex marriage itself. I don’t believe it destabilizes the institution or ruins the lives of children. Then again, it doesn’t exist in a vacuum, either. If same-sex marriage isn’t just a pathway to happiness, freedom, and equality for gay citizens, but a way to pummel religious Americans into submission, it will be a disaster.

If it is indeed "a way to pummel religious Americans into submission," then the ones to blame first and foremost are those who used their religion to pummel homosexuals into submission to their faith. To be more specific, by FORCING their religion onto homosexuals -- and other Christians -- by using the force of law to deny others the freedom of their own faith/conscience. Our First Amendment forbids government to make any law respecting religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. And yet, again and again and again, religion is invoked to deny equal rights and freedom of conscience to others. And when it's Christians doing so, I often wonder if they realize that they are the people that the Founding Fathers warned us about and tried to protect us from with the First Amendment. Their demand for freedom of religion was borne of Christian persecution -- not Jews or Hindus or Muslims or Pagans or even homosexuals. It was Christian persecution.

"If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Roman Church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. The Puritans found it wrong in the Bishops of the Church of England, but fell into the same practice themselves in New England [in America]."

Benjamin Franklin, in an essay on "Toleration"

I am happy to see more Christians speaking out for gay marriage, for equal rights, for love, and against those who would violate the 1st amendment rights of others. Which, of course, has only made us a target for their wrath. Have we Christians who support gay marriage been "duped" as some are now contending? Is the Supreme Court's decision a threat to our right to free speech and religion?

Maybe; but no more a threat than the precedent set by refusing to allow gay marriage for religious reasons. I do believe this issue is being exploited by many for all the wrong reasons, including those determined to deny EVERYONE's freedoms -- freedom of religion/conscience, freedom of association, freedom of speech, etc. But also our right to due process and equal application of the law. And now our right to our labor/service to others. I also believe that the argument has been deliberately framed in these terms, as both sides are now just arguing for the right to impose their will on others under color of law as they attempt to rewrite the Constitution. Even U.S. Senators.

For example:

Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) says the 1st Amendment’s religious liberty protections don’t apply to individuals. On MSNBC last week, Wisconsin’s junior Senator claimed that the Constitution’s protection of the free exercise of religion extends only to religious institutions, and that individual’s do not have a right to the free exercise of their own religion.... "I think there are clear limits that have been set in other contexts and we ought to abide by those in this new context across America.”

And:

“It’s time for the church to rise up. It’s time for the state of South Carolina to rise up.... This nation was founded on Judeo-Christian principles and they are under assault by men in black robes who are not elected by you. We’ve got to make a stand. … Let’s deal with the national sins that we face today.”

As this debate moves forward -- it ain't over yet! -- I hope and pray people think long and hard about the real problems and the real solutions. If people do not have the right to say "no" to you, they do not have the right to say "yes" either. It is no longer a right, but a privilege... or a mandate imposed under color of law, and those with the power to "give" can just as easily "take it away" again. We can do better. We can use the law to preserve and protect our freedoms. The government absolutely must ensure due process and equal application of the law -- including marriage laws -- to all. However, rather than force the private sector and individuals to give up their freedom of conscience, we can also use the law to encourage and promote the same fairness and equality in the private sector and individuals. For example:

1. Let people refuse to serve gay weddings... even gay people... but in the interests of a free and fair market, they must provide full disclosure... aka name 'em and shame 'em! Post your refusal to do so loud and proud. Make it very clear to any and all past and potential customers that you will not serve gay folks or whoever. And then the public can decide if they want you to serve them.

2. Create business opportunities for those who will serve the public fairly and honestly without discrimination.

3. Use incorporation laws to require those fictional legal entities to live up to the same standards as the government, serving all without exception or reservation.

4. Use the tax laws to discourage such discrimination through higher tax rates for those who do, and reward those who freely and volunatarily refuse to discriminate with lower tax rates or a tax credit.

I hope others can and will think up other ways -- even better ways -- to address this issue. And, of course, share them here and everywhere.

And please be careful what you wish for... we just might get it.

Serious Question to anyone: Do Religious people believe in the constitution?

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
Serious Question to anyone: Do Religious people believe in the constitution?

No one can speak for everyone... but yes, religious people do believe in the Constitution. This post -- and others -- of mine show that.

Why do you ask?

I promise to play nice even if we disagree on major points. What a great opportunity for us to explore issues and solutions...

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
Serious Question to anyone: Do Religious people believe in the constitution?

When it suits their needs, everyone believes in the constitution at some point.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
Serious Question to anyone: Do Religious people believe in the constitution?

When it suits their needs, everyone believes in the constitution at some point.

Hey! Here I am!!!

Let's talk and discuss... not talk over and talk about. Please?

a reply to: Boadicea

Because this ruling upheld the 14th Amendment.

people against it are willing to go against the constitution, yet cite the constitution for their Religious freedom

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: Boadicea

Because this ruling upheld the 14th Amendment.

people against it are willing to go against the constitution, yet cite the constitution for their Religious freedom

Thank you for expanding, but I confess I'm still not quite sure exactly what you are referring to, so maybe I need to explain myself a little better. I wholeheartedly agree that those who would deny the same marriage rights under the law to gays, or to deny them any marriage rights, are indeed violating all of our rights under the Constitution.

The pertinent clauses of the 14th Amendment would be #1 and #5:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Therefore, under the 14th Amendment, any and all marriage laws must apply equally to both heterosexuals and homosexuals, at every level of government. However, the 14th Amendment does not apply to the individual or the private sector; only the government.

Consequently, neither the 14th Amendment nor the Supreme Court's decision in any way supercedes or overrides the 1st Amendment right to freedom of religion and the practice thereof by the individual, or the 9th Amendment which guarantees that:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Forcing others to involuntarily serve or labor for others is also a gross violation of our Constitutional rights. There are other ways to address the issue of discrimination among private individuals/businesses without violating anyone's freedom of religion/conscience.

a reply to: Boadicea

And people are still free to believe and worship who and what they want. but the GLBTQ+ should be a federally protected class to protect us from unlawful discrimination.

Religion can't make laws or control other people because it is a Belief system, i think many agree that you can't force a church to marry you, but all this fear mongering and hyperbolic talk about us taking away the First Amendment and we are "Coming for the churches" next. is just that fear mongering hyperbolic talk

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: Boadicea

And people are still free to believe and worship who and what they want. but the GLBTQ+ should be a federally protected class to protect us from unlawful discrimination.

I fully agree that ALL people should be federally protected to protect us from unlawful discrimination... but under the law, our organic law, ONLY GOVERNMENT can discriminate unlawfully. The Constitution limits and enumerates the powers delegated to the government, NOT we the people. Therefore, under the law, people cannot unlawfully discriminate. Only under color of law.

Religion can't make laws or control other people because it is a Belief system.

No. Religion can't make laws or control other people because they have no power under the law -- the Constitution -- to make any laws. Period. And those with the power to make laws have no power under the law -- the Constitution -- to make any law respecting religion.

i think many agree that you can't force a church to marry you, but all this fear mongering and hyperbolic talk about us taking away the First Amendment and we are "Coming for the churches" next. is just that fear mongering hyperbolic talk

I both agree -- yes, it is fearmongering -- and disagree -- it has already happened.

City threatens to arrest ministers who refuse to perform same-sex weddings

Millionaire gay couple is suing to force a church to hold their wedding

Woman sues church over gay marriage

Judge Rules Christian facility cannot ban same-sex civil union ceremony on its own premises

If bakers can be forced to bake a cake -- or be punished for refusing -- then is there any limit to who can be forced to do anything? Yes, there will be those who use such cases to fearmonger... and too often in order to force their own will on others.

And that's why there should be no "protected" classes. Instead of fighting a perpetual war over who gets to force their will on others, we should find ways to protect everyone's rights.

a reply to: Boadicea

A Baker is a Public Service that was in a State with Anti-Discrimination Laws, yes the Broke the Law

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
Serious Question to anyone: Do Religious people believe in the constitution?

I don't remember the Constitution ever mentioning marriage or gays. However, if you want to get technical gays were always allowed to marry a member of the opposite sex so no rights that others had were being denied.

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: Boadicea

A Baker is a Public Service that was in a State with Anti-Discrimination Laws, yes the Broke the Law

Yes, Oregon and other states have presumed to pass -- and enforce -- such legislation under color of law, with absolutely no basis in the Constitution nor our organic law. (If you can show me otherwise, please do.) In fact, such legislation is in direct violation of the letter and spirit of our Constitution and organic law, as I have shown... pretty much the same way Christians (notably, but not exclusively) used color of law to deny due process and equal application of marriage laws to gays.

In other words, Pot meet Kettle.

I have given a few examples of how we can encourage and reward voluntary non-discrimination polices among individuals and private industry without violating anyone's Constitutional and natural rights; why do you believe forcing your will on others is a better means to achieve non-discrimination? Perhaps I should ask if you do believe it will achieve widespread non-discrimination? Or do you just want to be able to impose your will on others and punish those who refuse to comply?

From my perspective -- and as evidenced by the long-term effects and results of doing exactly that with the Civil Rights Act and racism -- we are only setting ourselves up for a perpetual war and the continued disrespect for our rights.

Peace and harmony is impossible when force is involved.

There comes a point where gay's and Christians need to make peace.

I think that point is now. We've just gained something we've dreamed of for so long. There is no agenda to kill Christianity off, there never was.

As a gay person who was brought up in a strict Catholic household, I am grateful for the freedom that has just been granted and respectful of the position of the church because of its scriptures.

To those of us on both sides of this debate, I say this; Christianity needs to lay down it's arms, accept change and accept that they can morally object, but not legally on the issue.

To the gay community, we need to start to show love and respect to the Christians. Our win was about love, now let's show it to our diametrically opposed opponent.

originally posted by: markosity1973
There comes a point where gay's and Christians need to make peace.

I think that point is now.

Yes! Agreed! Thank you!!!

To those of us on both sides of this debate, I say this; Christianity needs to lay down it's arms, accept change and accept that they can morally object, but not legally on the issue.

Just to be clear, does that include their individual right to decline to perform/participate/provide for same-sex unions? At the same time precluding any effort to deny civil marriage rights under the law?

To the gay community, we need to start to show love and respect to the Christians. Our win was about love, now let's show it to our diametrically opposed opponent.

Just to be clear, does that likewise including the Christians' right to individually decline to perform/participate/provide for same-sex unions?

And any suggestions how we can work together to move forward in mutual peace and respect?

ETA: Let me add that as a Christian, I am all for promoting and encouraging equal rights and protections for the LGBT community, and for everyone. I just want to do so without anyone forcing anything on anyone.

a reply to: markosity1973

There comes a point where gay's and Christians need to make peace.

The problem is that it isn't enough for gays to be 'tolerated'. No one is going to like you because you are gay. People like you because of the person you are and not because of whom you find attractive.

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
but the GLBTQ+ should be a federally protected class to protect us from unlawful discrimination.

So in saying that you're violating the exact same Constitutional Amendment you just cited as support of your initial argument!!!

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

"Protected class" is unconstitutional and in direct violation of the equal protection clause. It is granting special privilege to selected groups.

originally posted by: Boadicea


Just to be clear, does that include their individual right to decline to perform/participate/provide for same-sex unions? At the same time precluding any effort to deny civil marriage rights under the law?

Yes, I personally believe that churches can deny marriage on their property. However, if a minister has a marriage business on the side and is a general marriage celebrant who performs marriage ceremonies off site then, no. Because he / she is performing common marriage ceremonies they can't discriminate.

Religion can, common law can't. It's something both sides have to get their heads around.

It would be very helpful if Christianity stopped it's belligerent preaching o homosexuality too. It would take a LOT of the tension out of relations between both sides.

originally posted by: markosity1973

However, if a minister has a marriage business on the side and is a general marriage celebrant who performs marriage ceremonies off site then, no. Because he / she is performing common marriage ceremonies they can't discriminate.

This is where we differ my friend. The right of freedom of religion/conscience is far bigger than the same-sex marriage issue. People can and will discriminate, with or without a law. The only practical and real effect is that we will have created a "right" to enforce one's will on another, to demand involuntary servitude, and to create even more issues to divide-and-conquer the people while the PTB loot and pillage our economy.

Religion can, common law can't. It's something both sides have to get their heads around.

It seems that you believe this is a reasonable compromise, and I appreciate that, but again I have to disagree. Above I listed a few ways that we could encourage and promote anti-discrimination practices among individuals and the private sector; why do you feel force is the better option? I am sincerely trying to understand your position.

It would be very helpful if Christianity stopped it's belligerent preaching o homosexuality too. It would take a LOT of the tension out of relations between both sides.

Well, yes, some of us Christians would very much like that as well, and some of us are trying to present a different perspective, with varied results. It is also very helpful when same-sex proponents recognize that. There is more than enough belligerence on all sides and more than enough blame to go around.

But as long as force is involved by any party on any other party, there will be tension... and worse. Hence my focus on other ways to promote anti-discrimination while respecting everyone's rights to freedom of religion/conscience.

My thanks to Ketsuko for posting this link in another thread...

The New Totalitarians Are Here

Totalitarians want their rule, and their belief system, to be accepted and self-sustaining - even if it takes bludgeoning every last citizen who disagrees.

In my sad experience, this article represents both sides in the same-sex marriage issue. And it will continue to be thus until both sides respect everyone's rights to freedom of conscience and religion.

There cannot be peace as long as there is force involved.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

So the States that allow Legal Discrimination and Services, Housing and Property denied to GLBTQP+ is against the Constitution?