Americans have a proud history of sharing the benefits of citizenship, though learning to share hasn’t always been easy. My ancestors were told “No Irish need apply” when they sought jobs, people once kept slaves, and some of you may remember when women were not allowed to vote. The steps forward may have been difficult, but our nation is stronger and our society richer for having taken them. Here in Gloucester, could we seriously imagine our city would be a better place to live if boats carrying Sicilians into the harbor had been turned away because the people on board looked different, spoke a different language, and had different traditions from people already living here?
Some people say they are uncomfortable with marriage equality because of their religious beliefs and traditions. Discomfort is not a reason to take away state marriage rights. Whose religion and traditions should be our government’s? Remember, the proposed constitutional amendment being debated in the legislature is only about marriages sanctioned by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, not by a church or a temple. If we eliminate the state marriage rights of some people based on the religious beliefs of others, then we have started down a very dangerous road.
A recent editorial claimed that voters are being denied their rights if this proposed amendment isn’t put on the state ballot. That argument is based on a false premise. We live in a representative democracy; not every government decision is put to a vote at the polls. Our representatives routinely do what we elect them to do: consider issues and make decisions. A small group, 2% of registered voters, may start the constitutional amendment process by petition, but that is only a first step. They must then persuade one quarter of our legislators that it should be put on the state ballot. Advocates for all sorts of causes regularly fail to meet these modest requirements, which exist to ensure that changes in the foundation of our state government are made carefully and have broad support.
Enough civics. My moral values came from the Catholic Church. I continue to be disappointed by leaders of a church that taught me not to condemn those different from myself. They talk about state marriage law as if it threatens something sacred to them, but where is the threat? No church in Massachusetts is being forced to perform marriages, and weddings are performed every day by officials of the Commonwealth as well as by clergy of various faiths. Do Catholic marriages threaten Unitarian marriages? Do Episcopal marriages threaten Jewish marriages? Do civil marriages threaten religious marriages? No.
Two more people trying to make a committed life together doesn’t threaten my marriage or anyone else’s. Plenty of other things certainly do: poverty, infidelity, unemployment, drug abuse, and domestic violence to name a few. Perhaps it?s time to direct our attention and energy to those very real threats to marriages and families.
When society provides a benefit, it expects responsibility in return. That exchange is the basis of strong, healthy communities. Marriage is no exception. Over 8,000 same-sex couples have now accepted the responsibilities that come with marriage. Should we amend our constitution to exclude other couples who want to make that same commitment? Senator Tarr has said no. When the final votes are counted this year, I hope Representative Verga is standing proudly with him.
This essay was published in the Gloucester Daily Times on Tuesday May 22nd. Thanks to my colleagues in Progressive Democrats of Massachusetts for many thoughtful conversations and editorial comments as I worked on early drafts. My hope is that it will encourage others to speak up and write to their representatives and to their local papers.
Thank you!
Hi Peter,
<
p>
Anything less than marriage equality is to say another human being is “less than” or “different from”.
<
p>
Thank you, Peter for your posting.
<
p>
I am proud of our Gloucester connection.
<
p>
Ed O’Reilly
Candidate for U.S. Senate and an unequivacol supporter of marriage equality.
There are those who never tire of portraying same sex marriage as a threat to children, or procreation or some such nonsense. When will people stop being fooled by this red herring? The government which issues marriage licenses, and regulates marriage benefits has absolutely nothing to say on the subject of procreation within those marriages. If those who are theorizing about how bad same-sex procreation is would be willing to subject themselves and all other heterosexual marriages to some sort of procreation standard or test, then perhaps they could make an argument for same sex couples doing the same. But they wouldn’t be happy in a world where the government gets to issue procreation licences, and they cannot require gay people to be the only people to prove that they can procreate appropriately. This is just another attempt by religious bigots to twist the facts and deflect attention from the real issue: equal rights. Civil unions are not equal to marriage, or they wouldn’t be separate. And there is no substitute for actual full equality, no matter what it’s called.
Well said Pauliji. I’m glad I read to the end of the thread before wasting my time responding to Mr. Egg. He seems to hang the bulk of his arguments against gay marriage on his peculiar and hypothetical genetic engineering plan, which is not relevant, and in the words of Wolfgang Pauli, “isn’t even wrong.”
…is one of my favorite in physics.
<
p>
It’s also the title of a blog by Peter Woit, “Not even wrong.”
<
p>
From Wiki:
<
p>
Female Shark Reproduced Without Male DNA, Scientists Say
<
p>
No male DNA? No sperm.
Funny; I saw this the other day and thought exactly the same thing!
Please elaborate, what is the thought here? That sharks can do parthenogenis, so that means same-sex conception is ethical or safe or something?
Your name is the first thing to pop into my head when non-sexual reproduction is mentioned.
<
p>
Take that as you will, but it probably means I spend waaay too much time reading posts on BMG.
That occurs in some species when there aren’t any males around, usually lizards and I guess sharks too. It’s not same-sex conception, it is more like cloning, natural cloning. Thanks for linking to it.
They didn’t call for censorship, or a nonsense response from ignorant people. Same-sex conception hasn’t been done in humans yet, so being able to do it in is certainly “hypothetical”, but it isn’t a “hypothetical plan” – the plan certainly exists. The plan is unethical and wasteful and divisive and hurtful. The plan should be scrapped. Only natural man-woman conception should be allowed, we should all be created equal.
Great letter Peter, however. But Tony Verga may be a very lost cause.
Thanks.
Peter, I applaud you for one of the most sensitive and least politically loaded letters on the subject I have read. While we are poles apart in the message we get from our values, we share a common thread of reasonable tolerance and acceptance of those different from us. I think the way we would manifest that tolerance is VERY different. While the outcome of my path would have the same essential effect, it would not BE the same as the path you champion in your excellent argument.
<
p>
I was raised a Reformed Presbyterian and an American. As such, I have Calvinist Christian values. Those values point to the Scriptures, and to the Westminster Confession for guidance (I hasten to add the 1789 version adopted by the American church did do away with reference to His Holiness as the Antichrist!). Fundamental values of marriage, like fundamental values of ANY of our sacraments, are unchanged by human discomfort; I think on that point we agree. Where we differ is whether a fundamental value of marriage requires two people of different sexes to constitute a marriage.
<
p>
Before going further, I want to state some unequivocal facts:
1. Sex for gratification tears the heart out of the love context in which sex is appropriate. Love is pretty well defined in 1Cor:13. If you wish to add spousal love to the equation, try Genesis. And for the record, these ?handicaps? haven?t stopped me from fathering five children, and being the proud grandparent to six grandchildren and two great-grandchildren.
2. The commands from Genesis (?be fruitful and multiply?) (?For this cause a man shall leave his mother and be joined to his wife, and the twain shall become one flesh?), and from Christ (Matthew) are not suggestions. And they hardly leave the door open for same-sex couples to unite in a church sacrament.
<
p>
Citizenship is a wonderful thing. I heartily endorse those from outside the United States becoming citizens through the lawfully appointed process, by following Christ?s command to ?render unto Caesar.? I heartily endorse obedience to the ?Civil Magistrate,? as defined by our Confession, and the scriptures. While that process may have changed over the years since Italian immigrants stepped ashore in Gloucester, it is a process that is not defined by you and I, it is a process defined by the ?civil magistrate,? in the form of the United States Government.
<
p>
And the command to ?obey the civil magistrate? stops short of allowing the government to redefine marriage outside the sacramental definition. All marriages should be equal. But all unions should not be marriages.
<
p>
?Some people say they are uncomfortable with marriage equality because of their religious beliefs and traditions.? Christians are uncomfortable with same-sex marriage because of our reliance on the scriptures that define marriage. You are Christian. How then, can you, or ANY Christian, turn your back on part of the scripture, while you endorse other parts of the scripture? The Word of God is not something a Christian can pick and choose. Either it is ALL real, or it is, in heathen terms, ALL false.
<
p>
?Discomfort is not a reason to take away state marriage rights.? The Westminster Confession of Faith cites decent scripture that disallows the state to intervene in your sacrament of marriage. Either you are Catholic, or you are heathen. YOU do not get to vote on whether the Word of God is correct, or whether He is lying to you ? either accept it, or become a heathen. The Word of God does not give you a choice other than that.
<
p>
?A recent editorial claimed that voters are being denied their rights if this proposed amendment isn’t put on the state ballot. That argument is based on a false premise.? Well, then why does the church continue to champion marriage between a man and a woman? Because some liberal priest decides he will violate the sanctity of the Word of God, does that, then, negate the Word of God?
<
p>
Hardly.
<
p>
?Enough civics. My moral values came from the Catholic Church.? Well, that?s nice. You then need to adhere to them, and stop trying to change what you are commanded, and then justify it based on some perceived ?right? of the civil magistrate.
<
p>
?Two more people trying to make a committed life together doesn’t threaten my marriage or anyone else’s.? True, as long as they do not try to usurp the SACRAMENT of the church.
<
p>
?When society provides a benefit, it expects responsibility in return.? Society has no right to expectation. We are constantly reminded of that as we watch our borders become less than sacrosanct, our citizens denigrate those who attempt to preserve this union, and the endorsement of behavior that harms us. Our REPUBLIC is not a society, it is a REPUBLIC. It cannot provide a benefit, but it CAN provide a shield under which legitimate unions between people who desire a union OUTSIDE a sacrament can take place. If you are a close follower of these dairies, you have seen mine. So have Laurel and David.
<
p>
Do not violate the Sacraments, my friend. And do not champion such, else you are in danger of your immortal soul.
<
p>
Best,
Chuck
….a post more loaded with hypocritical claptrap. Every and I mean EVERY Christian in America picks and chooses the parts of the scripture that suit them and their lives. For some reason people focus an incoceivable amount of attention on an interpretation against homosexuals while steam rolling over almost all other biblical proscriptions and qualifying all that “love they neighbor” stuff to suit their personal desires.
<
p>
You are the farthest thing from the picture of tolerance. You may call yourself a Christian but your views have nothing to do with Christ.
<
p>
I’ll address your last point first. Those with not much depth to their Christian faith tend to see Christ as some benign wimp who tolerates everything, and forgives even the unrepentant. Can this be the same Christ who drove the money-changers from the temple with a whip? Can this be the same Christ who intentionally got in the face of the Pharisees, and called them a brood of vipers?
<
p>
You need to know that Christ provides a role model for us. While none of us succeed in filling that model, we try. We may fall short, but we try. We eat and fellowship with sinners, and we reach out to them continuously, and not just with attempts to convert them. And you reward that by calling us hypocrits? I struggle to understand your reasoning.
<
p>
Hypocricy is defined, among other ways, as either extreme insincerity or bad faith. While you may not agree with my post, there is hardly anything about it that can be called hypocritical.
<
p>
ALL of the scripture suits me. I repeat, ALL. What I am doing is not picking and choosing, and what I am doing has nothing, repeat NOTHING to do with a lack of love. If I cite scripture dealing with the subject of marriage, and it opposes your view, that is a problem for you, not me. If I cite scripture dealing with the Last Supper when discussing marriage, then you could make a case for hypocricy. You may note that I have not done so.
<
p>
After his conversion on the road to Demascus, was the Apostle Paul a hypocrit? Hardly. Yet it is he who called homosexuality a perversion, an abomination and the worst of sins.
<
p>
Was Christ a hypocrit? Hardly. Yet it is He who commands marriage between a man and a woman.
<
p>
Was Moses a hypocrit? Hardly. Yet it is he who wrote the INSPIRED (God-Breathed) Book of Genesis, in which marriage is defined as between a man and a woman.
<
p>
Loving one’s neighbor has nothing to do with endorsing perversion. While we tolerate and love sinners, and go among sinners with the Christian message, and with Christian love, we stop short of tolerating violation of our sacraments. I have written here before, and will again, that marriage is a sacrament of the church. That it is performed as a civil union is tolerated by the church, though many churches, mine included, will not recognize it as a marriage, as it was not performed by an ordained member of the clergy. We suffer evils as long as they are sufferable, and I commend to you that portion of the Declaration of Independence dealing with that subject.
<
p>
Attempts by the liberal left to violate the sacraments of the church will be met with legal action by America’s Christians. While we are bound to obey the civil magistrate, we are also bound to prevent the civil magistrate from profaning our sacraments.
<
p>
If you wish to endorse homosexual union, then do so. If you wish to endorse homosexual marriage, then you have a fight on your hands you cannot win.
Welcome to my world
I commend to you the standards for this board, and request that you either adhere to them, or take your standards elsewhere.
<
p>
Thank you
Chuck
this is not language Jesus used. if being fair to all people regardless of sexual orientation is “violating the sacraments of the church”, i can only conclude that your organization is based on some conveniently abusive and judgmental misreading of the scriptures. love, compassion, the peace that passeth all understanding? bah! screw that!
<
p>
happy cherry picking on this beautiful biblical day!
I can call you a “looney.” I will never tolerate intolerance, societal, scriptural, empirical…whatever your excuse!
we are VERY tolerant. Try reading some of my past dairies and you will realize that. There is nothing intolerant about my posts on this diary, but there IS a line in the sand regarding our sacraments. I have drawn the same line previously, and I do not recall being called a looney because of it.
<
p>
And, no, you CANNOT call me a looney. You do not have my permission to insult me. Perhaps you need to Gobe an a$$hole someplace else. Maybe the Gobe . . . take bottled water.
<
p>
You DO, however, have my permission to be tolerant. . . when you get a life, I hope you enjoy it.
<
p>
Best,
Chuck
Ruling Elder
Presbyterian Church in America
And I do not need your permission to call you a “looney.”
<
p>
Again, you lost any and every right to play the victim when you referred to LGBT as perverted.