|
|
Post by Rachael on May 15, 2008 17:58:41 GMT -5
And it's one of those days where I love to be a Californian. Our REPUBLICAN (mostly) Supreme Court has just overturned the "no gay marriage" law as unconstitutional. Making all those marriages that happened in San Francisco four years ago legal. Woot! I cried. It's just an amazing thing. Of course, the Defense of Marriage people are trying to amend the state constitution in order to bypass this ruling, but I doubt they'll succeed. Majority opinion seems to have shifted since 2001. And the Governator says he'll fight the constitutional amendment. He's personally in favor of gay marriage (or, rather, unopposed, as it's none of his damned business who you want to marry). California Republicans are of a mostly tolerable breed. Of course, I can feel my marriage crumbling as we speak, but Dave and I think it's a small price to pay, really.  |
|
|
|
Post by Queen E on May 15, 2008 18:20:13 GMT -5
I'm thrilled about this!
Now, I know that not every gay person wants to get married, but then again, neither does every straight person. Offering a choice is a wonderful thing. Yay, Cali!
|
|
|
|
Post by Anne, Old S'cubie Cat on May 15, 2008 21:28:39 GMT -5
I'm thrilled about this! Now, I know that not every gay person wants to get married, but then again, neither does every straight person. Offering a choice is a wonderful thing. Yay, Cali! Yay, indeed. I'm exceedingly pleased (and, for once, proud of the Governator). KPCC was all abuzz this morning. Fortunately, Larry Mantle is a good moderator. Somebody please explain to me how extending rights I already enjoy to someone else takes away mine? Is there only a limited amount of "rights" to go around, perchance? [/sarcastic voice] Also why, if marriage is for the purpose of procreation (another argument against same-sex marriage), aren't mandatory fertility tests applied to both parties, and police monitoring to ensure that the happy couple produces their required quota of offspring, and the removal of menopausal wives so the husband can continue procreating with a newer, fertile model? Don't mind me, I'm feeling crone-ish, touchy, and not in a mood to tolerate fools gladly today.  But I'm happy that more adults who want to marry, can. |
|
|
|
Post by Onjel on May 15, 2008 21:55:15 GMT -5
You know, I never got what the fuss was all about. Why should anyone care who someone wants to marry? I mean, it's never been a focus of my attention and I don't care one whit if people of the same gender want to marry each other, just like I don't care if people of different genders want to marry each other. So, why should it be illegal? Guess it's not in CA, anymore. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on May 15, 2008 22:06:45 GMT -5
You know, I never got what the fuss was all about. Why should anyone care who someone wants to marry? I mean, it's never been a focus of my attention and I don't care one whit if people of the same gender want to marry each other, just like I don't care if people of different genders want to marry each other. So, why should it be illegal? Guess it's not in CA, anymore. ;D What I've been able to gather from my one remaining evangelical relative is that: 1) They believe it's a moral (or, rather, immoral) choice to be gay. 2) Even if it's not, the behavior is immoral, and one should behave as if one wasn't gay. 3) Marriage is a sacrament provided by God, and it's meant to be one man/one woman, so again with the sin if you violate that. 4) It's your job, as a believer, to help save as many people from sin, and protect your society from the effects of sin. 5) Gay sex is icky. It's hard to argue with any of that, if you aren't of the same stripe, belief-wise. I mean, for me: 1) It's not a choice, it's biological and, yes, social conditioning, and gay people simply ARE gay. 2) Even if I'm wrong, even if it is a choice, that's not the issue. The issue is whether, even if it is a choice, it's acceptable to discriminate against someone for making that choice. I'm thinking not. 3) I don't actually believe in God, so there's no common ground at all here. I think marriage is a social construct that provides stability and helps ensure increased survival of offspring. 4) Also not believing in sin, persay, and not believing that homosexual behavior would fall into my own personal definition of sin or evil (the deliberate harming of another person for one's own gain is as close as I can get to a definition). REALLY irritated that any kind of love between consenting adults can be viewed as sinful by people who claim their god is a god of love. 5) Ask Dan Savage what he thinks of straight sex. ;D Hell, when I'm not participating, *I'm* apt to think all sex is a bit icky. |
|
|
|
Post by Queen E on May 16, 2008 5:38:17 GMT -5
Heh. Dan Savage. I've got the big Savage Love love myself.
Have you ever read "The Kid," his memoir of he and his partner's adoption of a child? It's really good!
|
|
|
|
Post by Onjel on May 16, 2008 8:03:49 GMT -5
You know, I never got what the fuss was all about. Why should anyone care who someone wants to marry? I mean, it's never been a focus of my attention and I don't care one whit if people of the same gender want to marry each other, just like I don't care if people of different genders want to marry each other. So, why should it be illegal? Guess it's not in CA, anymore. ;D What I've been able to gather from my one remaining evangelical relative is that: 1) They believe it's a moral (or, rather, immoral) choice to be gay. 2) Even if it's not, the behavior is immoral, and one should behave as if one wasn't gay. 3) Marriage is a sacrament provided by God, and it's meant to be one man/one woman, so again with the sin if you violate that. 4) It's your job, as a believer, to help save as many people from sin, and protect your society from the effects of sin. 5) Gay sex is icky. It's hard to argue with any of that, if you aren't of the same stripe, belief-wise. I mean, for me: 1) It's not a choice, it's biological and, yes, social conditioning, and gay people simply ARE gay. 2) Even if I'm wrong, even if it is a choice, that's not the issue. The issue is whether, even if it is a choice, it's acceptable to discriminate against someone for making that choice. I'm thinking not. 3) I don't actually believe in God, so there's no common ground at all here. I think marriage is a social construct that provides stability and helps ensure increased survival of offspring. 4) Also not believing in sin, persay, and not believing that homosexual behavior would fall into my own personal definition of sin or evil (the deliberate harming of another person for one's own gain is as close as I can get to a definition). REALLY irritated that any kind of love between consenting adults can be viewed as sinful by people who claim their god is a god of love. 5) Ask Dan Savage what he thinks of straight sex. ;D Hell, when I'm not participating, *I'm* apt to think all sex is a bit icky. I understand all that. I was kinda being rhetorical. ;D I have heard the arguments on both sides of the issue, with the religious/evangelical position being the least significant to me, even though it is important to others (no denigration of religious positions is implied here). The financial/economic arguments, which are of more interest to me, don't hold water in my book either. I guess I'm either really open-minded or it's just that when it comes to such intimate issues I can't see how any of it is my business or the government's. I'd go so far as to say none of this should even be an issue as it seems to me it's something between two people and no one else. Not even their families, actually. Too bad it's been made an issue. I'm just a libertarian at heart, it appears. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on May 16, 2008 8:04:20 GMT -5
You know, I never got what the fuss was all about. Why should anyone care who someone wants to marry? I mean, it's never been a focus of my attention and I don't care one whit if people of the same gender want to marry each other, just like I don't care if people of different genders want to marry each other. So, why should it be illegal? Guess it's not in CA, anymore. ;D What I've been able to gather from my one remaining evangelical relative is that: 1) They believe it's a moral (or, rather, immoral) choice to be gay. 2) Even if it's not, the behavior is immoral, and one should behave as if one wasn't gay. 3) Marriage is a sacrament provided by God, and it's meant to be one man/one woman, so again with the sin if you violate that. 4) It's your job, as a believer, to help save as many people from sin, and protect your society from the effects of sin. 5) Gay sex is icky. It's hard to argue with any of that, if you aren't of the same stripe, belief-wise. I mean, for me: 1) It's not a choice, it's biological and, yes, social conditioning, and gay people simply ARE gay. 2) Even if I'm wrong, even if it is a choice, that's not the issue. The issue is whether, even if it is a choice, it's acceptable to discriminate against someone for making that choice. I'm thinking not. 3) I don't actually believe in God, so there's no common ground at all here. I think marriage is a social construct that provides stability and helps ensure increased survival of offspring. <snip> On this one, really - there's a difference between "marriage in the church" and civil union. If the tenet of a particular church is that homosexual behavior is sinful and therefore should not have the sacred sanction of marriage within their church, then I can see where such a church, and its members, should not be compelled to allow such a marriage, in their church. But to me, this is a "unto Caesar" kind of question. Being OK with people having a marriage recognized by the state is very different from being OK with people having a marriage recognized by your church. Unless a special dispensation has been granted, The Catholic Church doesn't even recognize a divorce as legit, or any marriages that follow that divorce, as legit. Does this mean that a good Catholic should campaign for divorces to be outlawed? That second marriages should be outlawed? So - my basic feeling here is that people aren't understanding the basic concept of separation of church and state, when they argue that a particular type civil union shouldn't be allowed by the state. IMO - People can believe what they want to believe, when it comes to religion, morals, etc - as long as they aren't advocating harm to others. And they can exclude whomever they want to exclude from their church, and they can condemn anything from eating pizza to eating babies as immoral and refuse to officially recognize such things as "legit" within their church. But just as such folks expect, and should expect, the freedom to do that, they have to realize that this expectation - this separation of church and state - means that the state is not an instrument of their church, enforcing their particular beliefs. As long as you are respecting others, it's fine, IMO, to see it as "your duty" to try to help people live a proper life and "see the light," "get saved," etc. You should expect the state to "stay out of it," and NOT outlaw your right to preach on the street corner. But you also have to realize that, by the same token, unless it is a commonly recognized "crime*," Caesar shouldn't be helping you do your duty. *This is where all the grey areas come in, of course . . . |
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on May 16, 2008 10:06:14 GMT -5
What I've been able to gather from my one remaining evangelical relative is that: 1) They believe it's a moral (or, rather, immoral) choice to be gay. 2) Even if it's not, the behavior is immoral, and one should behave as if one wasn't gay. 3) Marriage is a sacrament provided by God, and it's meant to be one man/one woman, so again with the sin if you violate that. 4) It's your job, as a believer, to help save as many people from sin, and protect your society from the effects of sin. 5) Gay sex is icky. It's hard to argue with any of that, if you aren't of the same stripe, belief-wise. I mean, for me: 1) It's not a choice, it's biological and, yes, social conditioning, and gay people simply ARE gay. 2) Even if I'm wrong, even if it is a choice, that's not the issue. The issue is whether, even if it is a choice, it's acceptable to discriminate against someone for making that choice. I'm thinking not. 3) I don't actually believe in God, so there's no common ground at all here. I think marriage is a social construct that provides stability and helps ensure increased survival of offspring. <snip> On this one, really - there's a difference between "marriage in the church" and civil union. If the tenet of a particular church is that homosexual behavior is sinful and therefore should not have the sacred sanction of marriage within their church, then I can see where such a church, and its members, should not be compelled to allow such a marriage, in their church. But to me, this is a "unto Caesar" kind of question. Being OK with people having a marriage recognized by the state is very different from being OK with people having a marriage recognized by your church. Unless a special dispensation has been granted, The Catholic Church doesn't even recognize a divorce as legit, or any marriages that follow that divorce, as legit. Does this mean that a good Catholic should campaign for divorces to be outlawed? That second marriages should be outlawed? So - my basic feeling here is that people aren't understanding the basic concept of separation of church and state, when they argue that a particular type civil union shouldn't be allowed by the state. IMO - People can believe what they want to believe, when it comes to religion, morals, etc - as long as they aren't advocating harm to others. And they can exclude whomever they want to exclude from their church, and they can condemn anything from eating pizza to eating babies as immoral and refuse to officially recognize such things as "legit" within their church. But just as such folks expect, and should expect, the freedom to do that, they have to realize that this expectation - this separation of church and state - means that the state is not an instrument of their church, enforcing their particular beliefs. As long as you are respecting others, it's fine, IMO, to see it as "your duty" to try to help people live a proper life and "see the light," "get saved," etc. You should expect the state to "stay out of it," and NOT outlaw your right to preach on the street corner. But you also have to realize that, by the same token, unless it is a commonly recognized "crime*," Caesar shouldn't be helping you do your duty. *This is where all the grey areas come in, of course . . . Indeed. I always thought we should solve this problem by having the government get out of the marriage business. Governments can do civil unions for EVERYONE, and if you can find a church to marry you, you can get married, assuming you're both consenting adults. |
|
|
|
Post by Onjel on May 16, 2008 11:22:29 GMT -5
On this one, really - there's a difference between "marriage in the church" and civil union. If the tenet of a particular church is that homosexual behavior is sinful and therefore should not have the sacred sanction of marriage within their church, then I can see where such a church, and its members, should not be compelled to allow such a marriage, in their church. But to me, this is a "unto Caesar" kind of question. Being OK with people having a marriage recognized by the state is very different from being OK with people having a marriage recognized by your church. Unless a special dispensation has been granted, The Catholic Church doesn't even recognize a divorce as legit, or any marriages that follow that divorce, as legit. Does this mean that a good Catholic should campaign for divorces to be outlawed? That second marriages should be outlawed? So - my basic feeling here is that people aren't understanding the basic concept of separation of church and state, when they argue that a particular type civil union shouldn't be allowed by the state. IMO - People can believe what they want to believe, when it comes to religion, morals, etc - as long as they aren't advocating harm to others. And they can exclude whomever they want to exclude from their church, and they can condemn anything from eating pizza to eating babies as immoral and refuse to officially recognize such things as "legit" within their church. But just as such folks expect, and should expect, the freedom to do that, they have to realize that this expectation - this separation of church and state - means that the state is not an instrument of their church, enforcing their particular beliefs. As long as you are respecting others, it's fine, IMO, to see it as "your duty" to try to help people live a proper life and "see the light," "get saved," etc. You should expect the state to "stay out of it," and NOT outlaw your right to preach on the street corner. But you also have to realize that, by the same token, unless it is a commonly recognized "crime*," Caesar shouldn't be helping you do your duty. *This is where all the grey areas come in, of course . . . Indeed. I always thought we should solve this problem by having the government get out of the marriage business. Governments can do civil unions for EVERYONE, and if you can find a church to marry you, you can get married, assuming you're both consenting adults. You guys are goooooooooood. I'm in total agreement. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Anne, Old S'cubie Cat on May 16, 2008 12:46:10 GMT -5
On this one, really - there's a difference between "marriage in the church" and civil union. If the tenet of a particular church is that homosexual behavior is sinful and therefore should not have the sacred sanction of marriage within their church, then I can see where such a church, and its members, should not be compelled to allow such a marriage, in their church. But to me, this is a "unto Caesar" kind of question. Being OK with people having a marriage recognized by the state is very different from being OK with people having a marriage recognized by your church. Unless a special dispensation has been granted, The Catholic Church doesn't even recognize a divorce as legit, or any marriages that follow that divorce, as legit. Does this mean that a good Catholic should campaign for divorces to be outlawed? That second marriages should be outlawed? So - my basic feeling here is that people aren't understanding the basic concept of separation of church and state, when they argue that a particular type civil union shouldn't be allowed by the state. IMO - People can believe what they want to believe, when it comes to religion, morals, etc - as long as they aren't advocating harm to others. And they can exclude whomever they want to exclude from their church, and they can condemn anything from eating pizza to eating babies as immoral and refuse to officially recognize such things as "legit" within their church. But just as such folks expect, and should expect, the freedom to do that, they have to realize that this expectation - this separation of church and state - means that the state is not an instrument of their church, enforcing their particular beliefs. As long as you are respecting others, it's fine, IMO, to see it as "your duty" to try to help people live a proper life and "see the light," "get saved," etc. You should expect the state to "stay out of it," and NOT outlaw your right to preach on the street corner. But you also have to realize that, by the same token, unless it is a commonly recognized "crime*," Caesar shouldn't be helping you do your duty. *This is where all the grey areas come in, of course . . . Indeed. I always thought we should solve this problem by having the government get out of the marriage business. Governments can do civil unions for EVERYONE, and if you can find a church to marry you, you can get married, assuming you're both consenting adults. My thoughts exactly. Civil union would've done just fine for us, thankyouverymuch. |
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on May 19, 2008 10:05:56 GMT -5
On this one, really - there's a difference between "marriage in the church" and civil union. If the tenet of a particular church is that homosexual behavior is sinful and therefore should not have the sacred sanction of marriage within their church, then I can see where such a church, and its members, should not be compelled to allow such a marriage, in their church. But to me, this is a "unto Caesar" kind of question. Being OK with people having a marriage recognized by the state is very different from being OK with people having a marriage recognized by your church. Unless a special dispensation has been granted, The Catholic Church doesn't even recognize a divorce as legit, or any marriages that follow that divorce, as legit. Does this mean that a good Catholic should campaign for divorces to be outlawed? That second marriages should be outlawed? So - my basic feeling here is that people aren't understanding the basic concept of separation of church and state, when they argue that a particular type civil union shouldn't be allowed by the state. IMO - People can believe what they want to believe, when it comes to religion, morals, etc - as long as they aren't advocating harm to others. And they can exclude whomever they want to exclude from their church, and they can condemn anything from eating pizza to eating babies as immoral and refuse to officially recognize such things as "legit" within their church. But just as such folks expect, and should expect, the freedom to do that, they have to realize that this expectation - this separation of church and state - means that the state is not an instrument of their church, enforcing their particular beliefs. As long as you are respecting others, it's fine, IMO, to see it as "your duty" to try to help people live a proper life and "see the light," "get saved," etc. You should expect the state to "stay out of it," and NOT outlaw your right to preach on the street corner. But you also have to realize that, by the same token, unless it is a commonly recognized "crime*," Caesar shouldn't be helping you do your duty. *This is where all the grey areas come in, of course . . . Indeed. I always thought we should solve this problem by having the government get out of the marriage business. Governments can do civil unions for EVERYONE, and if you can find a church to marry you, you can get married, assuming you're both consenting adults. *Nods* Very promising about CA, that. |
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on May 28, 2008 15:34:22 GMT -5
Would love to get S'cubie thoughts on this aspect of "church and state" and individual rights:"Doctors Deny Lesbian Artificial Insemination: 'You Can't Opt Out of the Law Because of Your Religious Beliefs,' Says Lambda"Should doctors who would be violating their religious beliefs in performing a procedure, be made to perform that procedure? Should their license be revoked if they "discriminate?" In this case, it's not "I won't perform this procedure, period." It's "I won't perform this procedure on certain types of people." It makes for an interesting exercise in thinking about individual rights.
For me--I can certainly easily say that a doctor whose religion forbids abortion should not be made to do them. --I can easily say that a doctor who simply won't treat . . . e.g., Eskimos . . . simply because he has a prejudice against them, should not be allowed to practice. But this is trickier - issues that come to mind: --The procedure itself is not forbidden by the religion; and the doctor isn't saying "I won't do the procedure for anyone." A particular group is being singled out. --The procedure is not "life or death" or even "healthy or not healthy." It's wholly elective. --The procedure could be done elsewhere. Do you want a doctor doing a procedure on you, "against his or her will?" You might resoundingly say "YES!" for a life or death procedure . . . but an elective one? What's the point? -- The doctor isn't keeping the person from getting what she wants elsewhere, or even advocating that; still - is it OK to single out a particular group and refuse to knowingly serve them? We already know the answer, for lunch counters serving food. Is this the same thing? Personally, I feel sort of torn. I think personal freedoms are important - for both the lesbian in this story, but also for the doctor. "Serving a black person at my lunch counter is against my religious beliefs," though - that would never fly, nor should it. What I feel unclear on though, is if this is really the "same thing as discrimination at the lunch counter." It feels very "Yes and No." YES, IT'S THE SAME THING: It's refusing to serve a particular group in the same way you would anyone else; It's identifying that particular group according to an inborn characteristic.* NO, IT'S NOT THE SAME THING: This is refusing to participate in something that is viewed as condoning a practice that the refuser's religion clearly denounces. I might find myself disgusted with a doctor who was willing to sterilize men, but not women, say, because he believes, per his religion, that a fertile woman has an obligation to remain fertile, and to have as many babies as possible. But would I insist that such a doctor change his ways? Anyhow, just thinking I could get some interesting S'cubie perspectives . . . *I get that a woman might choose lesbianism, for whatever reason, even if she isn't "naturally" so - just as a person who is naturally homosexual may choose to live as a heterosexual. But for the most part, I think most people's sexual orientation is inborn, and most people go with the natural, in-born orientation. We have free will, and this is behavioral, so the nature can get twisted. But I'm just trying to keep it simple here.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on May 28, 2008 18:16:24 GMT -5
*sigh*
It's complicated, yeah? I agree with all of your points, actually. My feeling on what is "right" is that a doctor should be able to point-blank refuse to perform a procedure that he/she thinks is immoral, but that he/she shouldn't be able to pick and choose who gets that procedure based on non-medical criteria.
However...*sigh*... I would hate to get into the territory of having the law dictate under what circumstances a doctor, who is a highly-trained medical professional, must or must not perform a particular procedure. This case seems fairly cut-and-dried, but what about other, less clear cases? What if the patient was a 50-year-old woman, with no real medical issues, but who is nearly menopausal and, by some standards, "too old" to be a new mother?
Or the case of a woman I actually know, whose insemination was cancelled because she'd developed five mature follicles, and the doctor said he "was not going to be responsible for quintuplets".
Both of those can be seen as, at least partly, moral choices, and I'd like to leave the decisions in the hands of the doctors.
Practically speaking, the lesbian in question should just find a different doctor, since this one clearly doesn't want to do the procedure, and wouldn't you want your doctor behind you 100%? But if it was me, I'd be outraged.
And yet I think, in this case, though I personally think the doctor is a bigot, since the procedure is elective and there are large numbers of doctors without such convictions who will be willing to carry it out - the doctor should have the right to refuse.
|
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on May 29, 2008 16:18:38 GMT -5
*sigh* It's complicated, yeah? I agree with all of your points, actually. My feeling on what is "right" is that a doctor should be able to point-blank refuse to perform a procedure that he/she thinks is immoral, but that he/she shouldn't be able to pick and choose who gets that procedure based on non-medical criteria. However...*sigh*... I would hate to get into the territory of having the law dictate under what circumstances a doctor, who is a highly-trained medical professional, must or must not perform a particular procedure. This case seems fairly cut-and-dried, but what about other, less clear cases? What if the patient was a 50-year-old woman, with no real medical issues, but who is nearly menopausal and, by some standards, "too old" to be a new mother? Or the case of a woman I actually know, whose insemination was cancelled because she'd developed five mature follicles, and the doctor said he "was not going to be responsible for quintuplets". Both of those can be seen as, at least partly, moral choices, and I'd like to leave the decisions in the hands of the doctors. Practically speaking, the lesbian in question should just find a different doctor, since this one clearly doesn't want to do the procedure, and wouldn't you want your doctor behind you 100%? But if it was me, I'd be outraged. And yet I think, in this case, though I personally think the doctor is a bigot, since the procedure is elective and there are large numbers of doctors without such convictions who will be willing to carry it out - the doctor should have the right to refuse. Yes, I think we are on the same page with this one. I can sympathize fully with the lesbian and I would be outraged if I were her, surely. I can also sympathize with the doctor, in the sense that if this genuinely triggers in him a sense that he is doing something that condones a behavior he believes to be immoral, then - why shouldn't he be allowed to refuse? I'm trying to more clearly see the dividing line between this and the "who you serve at the lunch counter" example, and I suppose it is around the fact that the doctor is NOT saying: "I won't do this because I think you are a lesser type of human than me, and I'm too good to associate with you," which was the basic idea behind the lunch counter discrimination. A person might legitimately suspect the doctor of holding that kind of feeling (as you say, you think he's a bigot), underneath it all, but who knows? It's not cut-and-dry. Ultimately, I think I have to go with your thought on this - that when it comes to these very tricky areas, if you must err, err on the side of freedom of choice and less government regulation, and allow the doctor to refuse. Thanks for your thinky thoughts. |
|
But I'm happy that more adults who want to marry, can.
