This Ain't Montgomery and YOU Ain't Rosa Parks!

Published on June 4, 2005 By Gideon MacLeish In Politics

While I'm firmly against the idea of banning gay marriage, I am sick and tired of those who make the current puch to gay marriages out to be some sort of civil rights crusade. Put simply, it isn't.

While there are some who disagree with me, I have yet to see compelling evidence that homosexuality is a part of a person's genetic makeup. If it were, would there be a large number of people who left the homosexual lifestyle? Think about it. Sure, you can insist that they're living contrary to their nature, but that's a weak argument at best.

Pushing homosexual rights as a civil rights issue is the Achilles Heel of the gay rights movement. Most people simply do not believe it to be a civil rights issue, and many, myself included, see the analogy as a slap in the face of great men such as Medgar Evers, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, and the many, many others, who fought, and often died, to ensure equality for minorities. I have yet to see a "straights only" lunch counter, or homosexuals being sent to the back of the bus. You aren't kicked out of public swimming pools, no governor is standing at the schoolhouse door to bar your entrance (before you play the "Ryan White" card, let me remind you that, while the school's actions were appalling, Ryan White was not gay), and there are no "Jim Crow" laws to bar you from voting. No poll taxes, and no "separate but equal" education (marriage and education are VASTLY different issues, by the way).

You see, I view homosexuality as a lifestyle CHOICE. And I support, and will continue to support, your right to make that CHOICE. I also believe that your CHOICE should extend to your right to make a public commitment to the partner of your CHOICE without shame or rebuke. As I have said before, I really don't see marriage as the proper domain of the government.

If you wish to change minds and rally people to your cause, you MUST respect the ideals and values upon which their beliefs are based. And that includes the perception they have about your lifestyle. If you focused on your rights to make a choice instead of your hardheaded insistence that we accept your crusade as a new civil rights movement, you would find a few more people in your corner.

Comments (Page 3)

Dr Guy

on Jun 06, 2005

Laws are nothing more than lists of acceptable and unacceptable behavior in a society. If you take government out of marriage, you take all the protections that go with it. Want to raise your kids as you see fit? If the institution of marriage loses its legal recognition, what is to stop the law from deciding that since marriage is only a religious relic, why should parents' rights be recognized? Why should an estate be transfered to the surviving spouse without an inheritance tax levied?

Marriage is a religious item. Civil unions are not. What the government does is acknowledge civil unions. But hte institution of marriage is a religious chjoice (not all choose it either). The instituion is not going to die by taking government out of it, for there is still the need and desire for some form of government recognition of a union of 2 people.

But having the government in the institution of marriage means that they can then dictate to the churches who can and cannot be married. And I am very much against that.

Gideon MacLeish

on Jun 06, 2005

But having the government in the institution of marriage means that they can then dictate to the churches who can and cannot be married. And I am very much against that.

Bingo. If the present government bans gay marriages, a future government might approve them. And it might very well demand that churches perform gay marriages to retain their tax exempt status (after all, discrimination is discrimination, and a tax exempt church can't bar blacks from membership...which is why the "civil rights" comparison is one we need to avoid). While tax exemption isn't a constitutional right (and, frankly, I don't believe churches should accept the government yoke of tax exemption...but that's another blog), such a move WOULD shut the doors of many churches across the country.

latour999

on Jun 06, 2005

The government jumped in and made something that a purely religious thing and made it a legal issue.

So if marriage is purely a religious issue, what about churches that support gay marriage, such as the United Church of Canada? Does that make gay marriage legal (or should be)?

Gideon MacLeish

on Jun 06, 2005

latour,

In my personal opinion, they should have the right to make that decision for themselves. I do have a right to not attend their churches, after all

Dr Guy

on Jun 06, 2005

So if marriage is purely a religious issue, what about churches that support gay marriage, such as the United Church of Canada? Does that make gay marriage legal (or should be)?

No, since the churches cannot legislate. But it does make it a valid marriage in the eyes of that Church.

ParaTed2k

on Jun 06, 2005

Well, to continue the surprise, I'm surprised that you, an active member of a church that was persecuted in no small part because of its beliefs on marriage, are applauding the prosecution. While I am not a Mormon, I remain of the contention that the actions taken specifically against the Mormons are a historical travesty of monumental proportions

There is no hypocrisy or double speak here. The Mormons in the 1800s practiced polygamy, true. They practiced it as a religious tenet, and interestingly enough they did it at a time when it was legal in the U.S. to have more than one wife. The first laws concerning polygamy were passed by Congress in 1862, and even then it was only banned in territories of the U.S. Link.

My argument is, and has always been that many gay marriage activists hide behind "equal rights for all" yet are not willing to be inclusive of anyone but their own lifestyle in the "for all" part of the rhtetoric. My call is for gay marriage proponents to say what they mean; they want the government to recognize and for the rest of us to accept their lifestyle as equal.

"Civil Unions" are the comprimise that those who can't justify using the word "marriage" for same sex couples. Weakening the institution of marriage by calling traditional families "Civil Unions" only serves to further break down the importance of the family unit in a society. The Spousal and Parental protections that come with marriage are specifically because the government is involved. We'll use the example of polygamy, since you brought it up.

As you know, there is a sect called "Fundamentalist Mormons". They live in small towns out in the middle of nowhere, throughout the high desert of Utah and other western states. Their men marry as many women as their Elders allow. However, in most cases the only marriage that comes with a state issued lisence is the first one. All subsequent marriages are soluminized by their church only. Since they have few dealings with people outside their faith, and live amongst themselves for the most part, there aren't many challenges to their beliefs or practices. However, under the eyes of the law, the subsequent "wives" have no legal rights. If we are to allow the institution of marriage to lose it's legal status, how long before those who respect no religious tenets will begin to stop recognizing spousal and parental rights at all?

We already see the breaking down of spousal and parental rights, even with the govenment involved in marriage. If there is no law requiring it, and no recourse under the law for married people to demand their rights, then there are no spousal or parental rights at all.

Since a religion can't demand the government allow parents to raise their children, no marriage recognised only by religions can protect the rights of families.

Marriage is a contract between two people and the government (and whichever form of diety the couple include), it is hypocrisy to demand that the government enter into a contract with no say on the terms of that contract. Would you enter into a contract with the government if they demanded the same from you?

Gideon MacLeish

on Jun 06, 2005

Marriage is a contract between two people and the government

I'd consider Christ's statement that no man can serve both God and Mammon to be a pretty good indicator that our marriages should NOT be between us and the state.

The reason that the other wives in polygamist households (by the way, some polygamists don't have ANY of their marriages sanctioned by the state) are not given legal standing is precisely because such marriage is expressly illegal as far as the state is concerned; wills can and do cover legal transfer of property among polygamist households.

The point I was making, para, is that you are a representative of a church that was expressly persecuted because of its views on marriage. Whether the church espouses it now or not is not the issue; the simple fact is that historically many Mormons died and were imprisoned for practicing the faith that was taught from their pulpits. And that is always wrong.

I agree with you about the gay rights groups not fighting for the rights of others. Frankly, they should see those rights of others as being as important as their own. Unfortunately, in typical liberal fashion, they do not. But that does not change MY response that the government should have no authority dictating lifestyle choices of consenting adults, even when those values conflict with my own. There are legal precedents to recognize legal rights of family members beyond the marriage contract; such precedents are far preferable to proposed legislation.

When I married my wife, I did not marry the government. Had I known then what I know now, there is no way I would have accepted a state issued marriage license.

ParaTed2k

on Jun 06, 2005

The point I was making, para, is that you are a representative of a church that was expressly persecuted because of its views on marriage. Whether the church espouses it now or not is not the issue; the simple fact is that historically many Mormons died and were imprisoned for practicing the faith that was taught from their pulpits. And that is always wrong.

And if there was a lawmaker trying to pass a homosexuality equivilent of Missouri's "Mormon Extermination Act" I would be standing with any gay activists opposing it.

The spiritual side of marriage cannot be legislated, true, but as I've said before, if you take the government out of the marriage contract you can say goodbye to any semblence of family protections. You want to see the Child Protection Services run amok, picture a CPS that is not required to recognize parental rights whatsoever. Picture a government run school system that has no reason to let pesky parents get involved in educating children because there is no recognition of parental rights anyway.

What do you think the government side of marriage is now? It is the government agreeing to respect your rights as a parent and a spouse, it is also the government holding your to the responsibilities of being such.

Why can a wife demand support from her husband? Why can a husband expect support from a wife? Why can children expect support from their parents? It is because the government is part of the contract. That is why it takes a court order to dissolve the contract. The husband and wife can decide their marriage is over and live as if it were, but to completely break the contract you need all parties involved to agree. That is called divorce. In the divorce decree, the each party negotiates the terms that they will agree to in order to dissolve the contract. The man, the woman, and the state.

I say again, just in case I wasn't clear. If marriage is left to each person and their religion, the government has NO REASON to recognize any rights or hold any of them responsible to each other or their children. Try convincing your boss that they should cover your kids or spouse in the insurance plan.

At work:
"Why should we cover them to",
"because we're married",
"who says you're married", "my church",
"well, go tell your church to cover them then, they have no authority here".

At public school:
"New school policy states that parents are no longer allowed access to kids acedemic records. Those are private between teachers, school officials and kids".

Parent: "My kids didn't bring home a report card, can I come get one?"
School: "no"
"why not"
Read the new policy.
"But I'm their father"
"so, what does that mean to me?"
"what do you mean, I am responsible for my kids"
"says who? our policy states that the school is responsible for them"
"what authority do you have to keep me from seeing my kid's report card"
"the government law #such and such. What authority do you have to see the card?"
"They are my kids"
"No they aren't, they are individuals with individual rights to privacy and you have no right to infringe on that"

To the pedophile:
Your kid: "but daddy, I love him"
You: "Your only 10 years old and he's 40"
Pedophile: "You heard him, he loves me and I love him, who are you to deny our love for each other"
You: "I'm his father"
Your Kid: "Yeah, you're my dad, but what does that have to do with my love for him"
Pedophile: "C'mon, do you really want to stay with a dad who doesn't see we're in love"
Kid: "Nah, let's goin (turning to dad), if you really loved me, you'd understand".
You call cops: "A man has just taken off with my son"
Cop: "Sir, did your son go with him willingly, or was he forcibly taken".....

I think you get the rest.

Without the government involved in the marriage contract, the government has no authority to recognize parental or spousal rights. The church has no authority to demand the government recognize your parental or spousal rights. In other words, there are no parental, spousal and rights of children.

Rights are derived by edict from the power of the people. We The People have demanded the government recognize spousal, parental and rights of children, there is no reason for them to do so. And there is no family unit.

ParaTed2k

on Jun 06, 2005

When I married my wife, I did not marry the government. Had I known then what I know now, there is no way I would have accepted a state issued marriage license.

Then you would not be able to demand the government recognise your role as husband or father. CPS would have every right to take your kids and raise them according to whatever authority the government grant them.

I've heard it said (I think it was Ayn Rand, but I can't confirm that), that "The parents of the future will not only allow the government to raise their kids, they will demand the government do so." If you remove the government from the marriage contract, you are removing any legal definition of the words "husband" "wife" "father" or "mother" or "minor child."

What recourse would you have if a government not required to recognize those terms, decided you don't need to be bothered with raising those kids living at your house? Better arm yourself well, because that would be your only defense.

dabe

on Jun 06, 2005

And Dabe... How far are you willing to go to allow someone’s rights? Is it only until it offends you? Need I mention a certain flag and your disgust over its use?

As far as that flag goes, I don't care that dr confederacy chokes on it. It's his right. All I did was point out that it's a symbol or racism, whether he acknowledges it or not, and he's a freakin' fool if he is oh so suprised that someone would call him racist for displaying it.

Bullshit on you.

And, as far as gay rights,

(Because Iconoclast has an opinion its wrong, but dabe has an opinion and its right.. AH ha ha ha ha)

The difference here, for the utterly dense dolts that don't get it, is that my opinion is not about squelching others' rights. It's about accepting others' lifestyles, ideas, and dreams for themselves. At the very least, it's about tolerance of gays.

Iconclast, on the other hand, wants everyone to abide by his opinions, even if it means some people may not get the housing they need or the jobs they want, or maybe even get their heads bashed in for being gay. You all seem to think that everyone should live only by what you think is appropriate, which is ridiculous. It's downright discriminatory. But, you all don't care, because if that's what the rightie side of the isle wants, then you're all so convinced that it must be the only way.

What a bunch of self-righteous, small-minded intolerant jerks.

Random Democrat

on Jun 07, 2005

I'd like to see proponents of "Gay Civil Rights" address Emporer of Ice Cream's reply.

It also puts an end to debates over whether or not being homosexual is a 'proper' civil rights issue or not. Because no American citizen of any sexual orientation has a right to marry. There is no Constitutional right to marry granted to anyone - marriage is a status closely regulated by government, denied to those whose blood relationship is deemed to be too close, to the mentally incapacitated, and to minors.

The government has control over who it acknowledges and recognizes as a legal measure and can deny that right to anybody it chooses if they fit the criteria.

As I previously stated, The Supreme Court has already stated that marriage is a fundamental right. As to government being able to deny rights to anybody it chooses to - I think that would violate the equal protection clause of Amendment 14.

gothcartman

on Jun 07, 2005

So you're saying that homosexuals that go back to being heterosexual are living a lie? Sorry, I disagree. I DO, however, respect your RIGHT to make an intelligent decision for yourself.

no, im saying that hetoreosexuals who claim to be former homosexuals are lying period. its for attention and money, nothing more. they either arent heterosexual or never were homosexual. I also respect YOUR right to ignore things that are this blatantly obvious.

DiseasedHumanity

on Jun 07, 2005

All quotes are taken from the opening post.

While I'm firmly against the idea of banning gay marriage, I am sick and tired of those who make the current puch to gay marriages out to be some sort of civil rights crusade. Put simply, it isn't.

Yes, it is. Gay marriage is a civil right, just like straight marriage is. It should not be denied to people because it's different. i understand that you agree with me here, but marriage itself is a civil right, so why shouldn't gay marriage be one? It's under the same category.

I have yet to see compelling evidence that homosexuality is a part of a person's genetic makeup. If it were, would there be a large number of people who left the homosexual lifestyle?

From personal experience, I have noted that almost all of the people who were formerly homosexual and are now "heterosexual" are those who are directly in the {mostly} Christian population that is advocating strongly against gay rights. With this in mind, I find it exptremely hard to believe that their propositions are altogether honest and are not there simply to help along their "cause." And if the argument for it is so weak, then why have so many people made and testified to it? It's hard to prove them{us} wrong, considering I doubt the people who have "changed" will ever own up to if they are lying or not.

Consider it. If the majority of conversions are in the population that I have mentioned before {what comes to mind is Focus on the Family, a local, very reactionary Christian group in my area and all of the proclamations it has made about gay rights or the lack thereof}- then is the possibility not there that many of these changes are because of the pressure to do "good" and not because it is how a person or a group of people actually feels about their desicion and/or choice? If so many people have changed their lifestyle- and the vast majority of them are in the Christian {not the generalize or prejudice against Christianity in any way} group and are pressured into this, then have they actually changed? or are they simply pretending so that in the eyes of whoever is leading them, they are "saved?"

Most people simply do not believe it to be a civil rights issue, and many, myself included, see the analogy as a slap in the face of great men such as Medgar Evers, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, and the many, many others, who fought, and often died, to ensure equality for minorities. I have yet to see a "straights only" lunch counter, or homosexuals being sent to the back of the bus. You aren't kicked out of public swimming pools, no governor is standing at the schoolhouse door to bar your entrance (before you play the "Ryan White" card, let me remind you that, while the school's actions were appalling, Ryan White was not gay), and there are no "Jim Crow" laws to bar you from voting.

How is the analogy a slap in the face? Like I said before, gay marriage is a part of marriage, which is a right of the people- therefore making it a *gasp* civil right! The men you mentioned before were certainly great men for fighting for the rights of minorities, and how is fighting for the oppressed rights of homosexuals to be considered any less? Just because there is no govenor in front of the schools banning gays from entering {please keep in mind that in many cases, being gay is not nearly as obvious as being black- skin colour is phsyical, gay is mostly mental/emotional} doesn't mean that the poeple in the school proper aren't refusing common rights that are not even disputed politically to their peers and/or students. it might not be official, but it is still extremely present and unable to be ignored. I saw a kid almost driven out of my school for being openly bi- and if that's not segregation, I believe someone needs to inform me of the new definition.

The government has become much more subtle in its ways of segregating, alienating, and excluding people who are out of the "norm" from society. They cannot do any blatent act of discrimination, but they can subtley and quietly start to take away rights and priviliges that the "normal" or "Acceptable" person takes for granted. Marriage being one of them. Growing up as a heterosexual person, I have always seen my right to marry whatever man I want as something that is there naturally. To grow up knowing that some people have that right but you personally don't because you happen to like the same sex is a kind of segregation- in its worst form.

You see, I view homosexuality as a lifestyle CHOICE. And I support, and will continue to support, your right to make that CHOICE.

Can I ask you something? Are you gay/bi? Do you have any personal experience {personal being YOU specifically} that would show to you that homosexuality is indeed a choice? I have a friend who is bisexual, and according to him it is not a choice, but something that you have to live with, just like I didn't choose to be straight, it's jsut something that I have to live with. Fortunately, it's a little easier for me, considering that being straight is an acceptable position to be in in society.

If you focused on your rights to make a choice instead of your hardheaded insistence that we accept your crusade as a new civil rights movement, you would find a few more people in your corner.

So, basically, you want the homosexual community to conform to the wishes of society and admit that they are in fact choosing this lifestyle when this is quite possibly not the case at all? That kind of defeats the purpose of opposing the government's standards, dont' you think? What point is there in making a stand about something you believe in when you only make half a stand and the other half of you is agreeing with what you're trying to change?

Cheers, Pads.

Ionolast

on Jun 07, 2005

(Because Iconoclast has an opinion its wrong, but dabe has an opinion and its right.. AH ha ha ha ha)The difference here, for the utterly dense dolts that don't get it, is that my opinion is not about squelching others' rights. It's about accepting others' lifestyles, ideas, and dreams for themselves. At the very least, it's about tolerance of gays.Iconclast, on the other hand, wants everyone to abide by his opinions, even if it means some people may not get the housing they need or the jobs they want, or maybe even get their heads bashed in for being gay.

It's still about your opinion being the right one.

But, you all don't care, because if that's what the rightie side of the isle wants, then you're all so convinced that it must be the only way.

I'M LIBERAL! HAHAHAHAHAHA!

What a bunch of self-righteous, small-minded intolerant jerks

I think this one speaks for itself.

being gay is not nearly as obvious as being black- skin colour is phsyical, gay is mostly mental/emotional}

Same thing I said (Except for the last part.) So if gay isn't physical, it's not genetic. Gays are confused. If it's mental/emotional, it's not a right. Being black is physical, so it's a right. The mental only makes gays act physically different.

Dr Guy

on Jun 07, 2005

So you support Nambla as well? By the statement above it sure indicates your acceptance of them.

And you are wrong again. It is not about tolerance of gays. It is about equating the gay movement with the civil rights one. And there is no comparison.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!