Home > gay lobby, Judicial Activism, Marriage, Same Sex Marriage > Homosexual Couple Files Complaint Against Dallas Morning News

Homosexual Couple Files Complaint Against Dallas Morning News

March 8th, 2011

OK, is this not a full frontal attack on our right to freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and even our freedom of religion, even freedom of thought, no less? Have the advocates of same-sex so-called ‘marriage’ not always vowed that would never happen? But are they not now demanding that everyone else (especially newspapers) call their relationship a ‘marriage’ just because they say that’s what it is, whether or not any of the rest of us happen to think it is so?

Reed-Walkup and Walkup, and that is not a law firm, tried to pay the Dallas Morning News to run a wedding announcement. Officials with the paper, citing the legal status — or rather illegal status — of same-sex marriages in Texas, said, no, no thanks but the announcement can run under the heading “Commitments.”

Reed-Walkup and Walkup said, no, no, we’re married and you’re discriminating, and they then filed a discrimination complaint against Dallas’ only daily…

And this is even before same-sex ‘marriage’ is even legal in Texas. They are demanding that the Dallas Morning News categorize them as ‘married’ based on a ‘wedding’ conducted by someone from outside the state “by way of teleconference”.

But oh no, you same-sex so-called ‘marriage’ advocates would never trample over the Constitution and everyone else’s rights just to get what you want – oh no, never!

Print Friendly
Be Sociable, Share!
  1. March 9th, 2011 at 10:22 | #1

    Very curious about one thing. If the owner of the paper followed Vatican policy, here’s how he would regard each of the following marriages:

    1. Two Catholics married by a Catholic priest? A valid marriage.
    2. Two Baptists married by a justice of the peace? A valid marriage.
    3. Two Catholics married by a justice of the peace? Not a valid marriage.

    If the paper refused to publish a marriage announcement for #3, the bride and groom could sue for religious discrimination, since the paper would have one policy for Baptists and a different policy for Catholics.

    Here’s my question: Would you view that lawsuit as a violation of the paper’s freedom of the press and freedom of religion? And if so, would you then advocate to abolish laws against religious discrimination?

    This is not a rhetorical question, and personally I don’t see easy answers myself. But I am curious about what you think.

  2. Vast Variety
    March 9th, 2011 at 10:58 | #2

    Everyone has the right to complain about anything they want to. The Ruth Institute and NOM complain about things on a daily basis. Its what happens with that complaint that maters.

  3. March 9th, 2011 at 11:49 | #3

    @Rob Tisinai You don’t seem to see the problem. In Texas it is not legal for SSM. If it is illegal in Texas, why should the paper be forced to acknowledge it? Your comparison is like apples to oranges. A better comparison would be if someone wanted the paper to publish a notice on a polygamist marriage.

  4. March 9th, 2011 at 12:03 | #4

    Glenn, you haven’t answered my question. And I’m genuinely curious.

  5. Mark
    March 9th, 2011 at 12:31 | #5

    @Glenn E. Chatfield
    “A better comparison would be if someone wanted the paper to publish a notice on a polygamist marriage.”

    LOL, knowing Texas, they would print it in a heart beat.

  6. Jamie Anne
    March 9th, 2011 at 13:01 | #6

    @Mark
    Mark I resent that; Texans have better tastes than that.

  7. Paul H
    March 9th, 2011 at 14:07 | #7

    Rob Tisinai :
    Very curious about one thing. If the owner of the paper followed Vatican policy, here’s how he would regard each of the following marriages:
    1. Two Catholics married by a Catholic priest? A valid marriage.
    2. Two Baptists married by a justice of the peace? A valid marriage.
    3. Two Catholics married by a justice of the peace? Not a valid marriage.
    If the paper refused to publish a marriage announcement for #3, the bride and groom could sue for religious discrimination, since the paper would have one policy for Baptists and a different policy for Catholics.
    Here’s my question: Would you view that lawsuit as a violation of the paper’s freedom of the press and freedom of religion? And if so, would you then advocate to abolish laws against religious discrimination?
    This is not a rhetorical question, and personally I don’t see easy answers myself. But I am curious about what you think.

    Hi Rob,

    I’m a Catholic who is reasonably well educated on the Catholic Church’s marriage laws, so I’ll take a crack at this by making a few observations:

    1. Unless the paper is specifically a Catholic paper, primarily for Catholic readers, and primarily covering issues of special interest to Catholics, then I can’t see how it would make sense to refuse to publish that marriage announcement. Most people in the local society regard the union as a marriage, and there is no obvious impediment to the marriage other than the law of the couple’s church regarding marriage. And the majority of Texans probably have no idea that that church law even exists. Presumably, nothing in their marriage would violate either the natural law or the laws of the state of Texas.

    2. If two Catholics are getting married by a justice of the peace, that is a pretty clear indication that they are not serious about their faith. And so even if the paper did refuse to print their marriage announcement, it wouldn’t clearly be because they are Catholic (i.e., discriminating against Catholics), rather it would arguably be because they have given evidence that they are in fact *not* very committed to the idea of being Catholic.

    3. If the paper did refuse to print the announcement, and the couple did sue, I would view the lawsuit as frivolous. There are so many venues in which they can announce their wedding; why do they need to resort to a lawsuit to get it announced in this one particular venue? Even if their case were valid (which I question), the idea of a lawsuit in this situation seems like complete overkill.

  8. kate
    March 9th, 2011 at 15:32 | #8

    Seriously…. where is the common sense. SSM may not have been legalized in their state yet, however it is NOT a criminal offence. They are married and wanted to share their happiness many other newlyweds do. Where is the harm in that ??

    Funny thing is the more people displaying irrational hate, the more sad and ridiculous they look to and rational, logical people.

    There has been way too much hate for way too long, life is too short for this kind of behaviour to continue. Unfortunately there are a lot of sheep who simply bleat and follow the loudest without thinking.

    Isn’t it time for people to stop and think for themselves and to have enough confidence in and respect for themselves to respect the rights of all people.

  9. March 9th, 2011 at 16:07 | #9

    Paul, so I know you think it would be a trivial lawsuit. Thanks for that straightforward answer. I’d still like to know whether this means you favor abolishing the laws against religious discrimination (i.e., the laws that would give the trivial lawsuit legal standing).

  10. Sean
    March 9th, 2011 at 16:33 | #10

    Why shouldn’t a local couple who got married be able to announce it, if that newspaper provides that service? What difference does it make if the state itself does not yet offer the service? The newspaper isn’t announcing marriages in order to report to readers that marriage is possible but rather to announce a significant event in a reader’s life, for the benefit of that reader’s friends and neighbors.

    Same thing with announcing new babies, deaths, and engagements.

    So let me ask. When the same-sex married couple have or adopt a child, should the new addition to their family be included along with everyone else’s birth announcements?

  11. March 10th, 2011 at 05:01 | #11

    Rob Tisinai :
    Paul, so I know you think it would be a trivial lawsuit. Thanks for that straightforward answer. I’d still like to know whether this means you favor abolishing the laws against religious discrimination (i.e., the laws that would give the trivial lawsuit legal standing).

    Hi Rob,

    I don’t have a simple answer to that question, but I’ll try to give a reasonably concise answer.

    First, I do not favor anti-discriminaton laws in times/places/societies where discrimination is rare. Perhaps I’m thinking of a mythical utopia, but if there were a society in which the vast majority of people and businesses did not engage in unfair discrimination, then I would not be in favor of anti-discrimination laws for that society. The rare case of discrimination that did happen could most likely be gotten around one way or another, since there would most likely be other venues for whatever good or service the person was trying to access.

    However, in a situation where discrimination becomes more widespread (an extreme example would be racial discrimination in the southern U.S., 50 or more years ago), then in such cases I am in favor of anti-discrimination laws.

    You see, my problem with anti-discrimination laws is that it is sometimes hard to draw the line between what is unjust discrimination, and what is acceptable discrimination. So if a society can do without such laws, I think that is the best way to go. But if such laws are necessary to protect people from widespread discrimination, then I think that such laws do much more good than harm.

    You may wonder what I mean when I say that it is hard to draw the line between what is unjust discrimination, and what is acceptable discrimination. Let me give two examples of religious discrimination (since that is what you specifically asked about), to demonstrate what I mean:

    Example 1: A Catholic man goes to Mass on Ash Wednesday. After Mass, he goes to a restaurant to have a small, vegetarian meal. The restaurant owner sees the ashes on the man’s forehead, and then says, “Get out! We don’t serve Catholics here!” In my opinion, that would be a clear case of unjust discrimination.

    Example 2: A group of Christian university students decides to start an organization called “Students for Jesus.” A Muslim student petitions for membership in the organization, saying that he respects Jesus as a great prophet. The leaders of the group say thank you, but they respectfully decline to offer him membership, because it is a group specifically for Christians who believe that Jesus is the Second Person of the Trinity. In my opinion, this would be acceptable religious discrimination. (And just to show that I am being fair, I wouldn’t have any problem with a Muslim student group denying membership to a Christian either.)

    The trick is that even though these two examples are pretty clear-cut, there can be examples that are more gray, and where reasonable people will disagree on whether or not unjust religious discrimination has actually taken place.

    So in summary, I support religious discrimination laws if and when they are needed, i.e., if a substantial amount of religious discrimination would take place in the absence of such laws. However, if it is possible not to have the laws, and to experience only a very minimal amount of religious discrimination even without the laws, then I would be in favor of not having those laws.

  12. March 10th, 2011 at 05:06 | #12

    Paul H:
    So in summary, I support religious discrimination laws if and when they are needed, i.e., if a substantial amount of religious discrimination would take place in the absence of such laws. However, if it is possible not to have the laws, and to experience only a very minimal amount of religious discrimination even without the laws, then I would be in favor of not having those laws.

    In my last paragraph, I should have said “unjust religious discrimination,” since I previously identified situations, such as my “Example 2,” which could be called “religious discrimination” but which I think are acceptable. So I should have written the following for my final paragraph:

    So in summary, I support religious discrimination laws if and when they are needed, i.e., if a substantial amount of UNJUST religious discrimination would take place in the absence of such laws. However, if it is possible not to have the laws, and to experience only a very minimal amount of UNJUST religious discrimination even without the laws, then I would be in favor of not having those laws.

  13. Sean
    March 10th, 2011 at 14:34 | #13

    “You see, my problem with anti-discrimination laws is that it is sometimes hard to draw the line between what is unjust discrimination, and what is acceptable discrimination.”

    Why is this a tough line? If someone is being hurt or harmed because of membership in a group, often a group they have no choice in belonging to and that does no harm, why discriminate?

    Gay people belong to a group: people involuntarily attracted to people of the same sex. They form a small and vulnerable minority. There’s no particular need to treat them differently from straight people. Case closed.

  14. March 10th, 2011 at 14:43 | #14

    @Rob Tisinai The question is absurd. I sincerely doubt that any paper would refuse these valid wedding announcements. You want to compare non-comparable things. SSM is not legal in Texas, therefore if the paper published it, they would be fostering illegal activities.

  15. March 10th, 2011 at 14:49 | #15

    @kate “Where is the common sense?” Common sense says there’s no such thing as SSM! Common sense says you don’t publish an announcement for something which is illegal in your state. What other illegal things do you think the paper should be forced to advertise? Rape? Incest? Polygamy?

    There you go pulling out the victim card to marginalize and dismiss the argument by calling it “hate.” The “sheep” who are bleating the loudest are the homosexualist sheep forcing their agenda on everyone else. If the homosexualists would all think for themselves instead of getting all emotional about supposed “civil rights” then the whole thing would die down. Those who follow the “gay” agenda are the lemmings.

  16. March 10th, 2011 at 14:50 | #16

    @Sean If something is illegal it should not be promoted in a newspaper. Simple as that.

  17. kate
    March 10th, 2011 at 15:40 | #17

    So many words.. I am just a simple aussie… and life doesn’t need to be so tough. We are all equal, all deserve to be respected for our own beliefs and for who we are. SSM is NOT a criminal offence… we are not talking about publishing where to buy illegal drugs, or how to create bombs, or where to go to sign up for a terrorist group… we are talking about a newlyweds sharing their happiness… what is wrong with shouting it out from rooftops I AM IN LOVE AND HAVE JUST MARRIED THE PERSON I WANT TO SPEND THE REST OF MY LIFE WITH….. nothing… so quit trying to justify homophobic prejudices and being miserable.

  18. Paul H
    March 10th, 2011 at 16:16 | #18

    Sean:
    Why is this a tough line? If someone is being hurt or harmed because of membership in a group, often a group they have no choice in belonging to and that does no harm, why discriminate?

    Did you read the rest of my comment? If you did, it provides an example that should answer your question. Hint: We probably aren’t using the exact same definition of the word “discriminate.”

  19. March 10th, 2011 at 16:50 | #19

    A newspaper should have the right to publish or refuse to publish any announcement it pleases. The local SSM law has nothing to do with it: If the law changed, and The Morning News still chose not to publish SSM announcements, that would also be its right. Likewise, the local gay paper (in a city the size of Dallas, there almost certainly is one) has the right to publish SSM announcements. If anti-discrimination laws should exist at all, they must not extend to compelling speech; if the law defines marriage as pertaining only to complementary-sex couples, that must not extend to prohibiting speech.

    Obviously, the same principles resolve Rob’s case: The standards for a marriage worthy of announcement in a newspaper are properly set exclusively by the newspaper.

  20. March 10th, 2011 at 17:34 | #20

    Glenn, I didn’t ask whether it was likely a paper would refuse these announcements — I asked whether people here think they have the right to do so. Because the original post reference first amendment rights. I want to know how far your principles go, and that’s never an absurd thing to ask.

  21. Sean
    March 10th, 2011 at 18:54 | #21

    “If something is illegal it should not be promoted in a newspaper. Simple as that.”

    It is legal to get married in some states. What are you talking about, illegal? The gay couple got married in Washington DC. They’re married. The location of a newspaper doesn’t change their marriage.

    What about when they have or adopt children? Will the newspaper announce that?

  22. kate
    March 10th, 2011 at 20:01 | #22

    “Obviously, the same principles resolve Rob’s case: The standards for a marriage worthy of announcement in a newspaper are properly set exclusively by the newspaper.” ….. PATHETIC ATTITUDE !!!! who “thinks” they have the right to judge the “worthiness” of another persons marriage…. let he who has no sin cast the first stone… how many people with this attitude have had failed marriages, how many have cheated on their spouses… how many of you have family members whose marriages have ended in divorce…. The paper announces marriages… this is a marriage which the couple wished to announce, they are discriminating against a group of people !!!

  23. March 10th, 2011 at 22:35 | #23

    Thanks Alexander. It may surprise you to learn that I agree: a newspaper has the right to decide what it will and will not publish.

  24. Chairm
    March 11th, 2011 at 05:19 | #24

    If the paper publishes marriage announcements, then, it is within its freedom of expression to limit those announcement to unions of husband and wife.

    If the paper publishes other kinds of announcements, such as for this or that version of nonmarriage, that, too, is within its freedom of expression.

    What this trivial lawsuite is about is the curtailment of the freedom of the press. This is a natural product of the SSM idea; it shows yet another way in which the conflict between the SSM idea and the marriage idea has wider implications than what the trivial lawsuite proposes.

  25. March 11th, 2011 at 06:32 | #25

    @kate There you go with “homophobic” – gotta marginalize the argument again. I don’t know anyone who is afraid of homophiles. We just don’t want our rights trampled by the special rights given to SSM. If something is against the law, it IS criminal by definition. The paper compromised and said they’d put the notice under “Commitments.” What is the problem with that?

  26. March 11th, 2011 at 06:35 | #26

    @Rob Tisinai The paper has the right to not print anything. It is their paper and they have the right to decide what to print in it without being called discriminatory. But, even at that, there is nothing wrong with discriminating – we do it with every decision we make. We discriminate between right and wrong. We discriminate by not publishing things we disagree with. The paper DID NOT refuse to publish – they only refused to put it where the couple wanted it. Tough bananas. It is their paper, not yours or the couple’s.

  27. March 11th, 2011 at 06:36 | #27

    @Sean In Texas it is illegal. That is where the paper is. They didn’t refuse to do the announcement – they just refused to put it where the couple wanted it. So what – it is their right!

  28. March 11th, 2011 at 06:38 | #28

    @kate I just love people who twist scripture out of its context to justify themselves. Remember what Jesus told the woman after the people left – “GO thou and sin no more.” He didn’t say continue in adultery, did he? So if you want to use Jesus words, then obey Him and leave SSM!

  29. Bob Barnes
    March 11th, 2011 at 10:26 | #29

    Glenn E. Chatfield :
    @Sean In Texas it is illegal. That is where the paper is. They didn’t refuse to do the announcement – they just refused to put it where the couple wanted it. So what – it is their right!

    Actually, illegal implies there is a penalty. At best, I would say Texas does not recognize .

  30. March 11th, 2011 at 14:56 | #30

    @Bob Barnes In Texas it is not legal. That doesn’t have to imply a penalty. If something is not legal, it is illegal. You are trying to split hairs. Nevertheless, it is the paper’s right to print or not to print without being whined about.

  31. kate
    March 11th, 2011 at 15:49 | #31

    LMAO… it is the self riteous who continue to “twist” scripture as they please to suit themselves… Get back to their importance, look at the 10 commandments and also how they were summed up in the New Testament at Matthew 22, when Jesus was confronted by the religious “experts” of the day:

    “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus replied: ” ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments” (Matthew 22:36-40).

    So go ahead, do the predictable… start quoting sin, Leviticus… but remember when you do that to take careful note of all the other “sin’s” people were to be stoned or killed for, not just your own interpretation.

    SSM is NOT a crime in Texas.

    @Glen… there YOU go TWISTING things… this is about a married couple NOT adultery.

    Oh, so it would be ok for the paper to CHOOSE not to print a birth announcement for a black child ???? Wake up, surely we have progressed beyond any kind of discrimination.

    The world has been facing a seemingly endless run of horrific Natural Disasters, has that not taught you anything about how precious and how fragile life is, and how we are all here for such a short time… no time for prejudice or hate… open your eyes and your hearts. We are ALL equal, and ALL deserve to be treated with respect for our differences.

  32. Sean
    March 11th, 2011 at 15:58 | #32

    And gay couples have the right to sue whom they wish, without being whined about.

  33. March 11th, 2011 at 20:01 | #33

    kate :
    “Obviously, the same principles resolve Rob’s case: The standards for a marriage worthy of announcement in a newspaper are properly set exclusively by the newspaper.” ….. PATHETIC ATTITUDE !!!! who “thinks” they have the right to judge the “worthiness” of another persons marriage…. let he who has no sin cast the first stone… how many people with this attitude have had failed marriages, how many have cheated on their spouses… how many of you have family members whose marriages have ended in divorce…. The paper announces marriages… this is a marriage which the couple wished to announce, they are discriminating against a group of people !!!

    Everyone has the right to judge everyone else. Everyone has the right to express his or her judgments. It seems to me you’ve judged me and expressed quite a harsh judgment of me. And that’s your right — though perhaps someone who condemns others for supporting the right to judge might want to think a bit more about first stones.

  34. Ruth
    March 11th, 2011 at 22:17 | #34

    @kate
    We do have to judge things. That is the cost of living in a society; we cannot do whatever we wish.

  35. Brian Powers
    March 11th, 2011 at 22:25 | #35

    In regards to the last comment by Alexander isn’t it up to GOD to judge not the people? I think he did and here it the passage:

    In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus actually had a lot more to say about judging others than just one sentence. Here is the verse in context of the other things Jesus said about judging others:

    “Do not judge so that you will not be judged. “For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. “Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? “Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ and behold, the log is in your own eye? “You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye. (Matthew 7:1-5)

  36. Brian Powers
    March 11th, 2011 at 22:28 | #36

    What is clear from the context is that Jesus was talking about people making personal judgments against others, when their own behavior was much more seriously compromised than the persons they were judging. Even when taken in context, the object of Jesus’ statements is not readily evident in this sermon. However, in other preaching, Jesus made it clear that He especially had a problem with the hypocrisy of the Jewish religious leaders of His time. In other confrontations with them, Jesus made some pretty strong statements against those leaders:

    “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside they are full of robbery and self-indulgence. You blind Pharisee, first clean the inside of the cup and of the dish, so that the outside of it may become clean also. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which on the outside appear beautiful, but inside they are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness. So you, too, outwardly appear righteous to men, but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness…” (Matthew 23:25-28)

    There are many other verses that indicate that Jesus was more unhappy about the behavior of hypocrites than just about anything else He encountered.3 So, His warning against judging others was primarily aimed at those who thought they were superior to others. In other words, get your own house in order before you criticize others.

  37. kate
    March 11th, 2011 at 22:28 | #37

    @ Alexander… We are ALL equal, and all deserve to be treated with respect. We are all entitled to our own beliefs and customs, provided they do not adversley affect anyone else. Point one finger and you will have 3 pointing back at you.. love thy neighbour as yourself…

  38. March 12th, 2011 at 09:30 | #38

    @kate It is not love to sanction what God calls sin. It is not love to assist people to live in a lifestyle God calls sin. Loving people means you also have to tell them they are sinning.

    The reference you made to the lady caught in adultery was taken out of context to say that no one can judge if they have no sin. Scripture calls us to make righteous judgments all the time, not hypocritical ones. My point about using the scripture you referenced was that the Jesus loved the woman was to tell her to sin no more, yet you want us to sanction the sin of SSM. What I say is that we tell those who are homophiles to leave their sexual immorality behind and don’t justify it by the oxymoronic title of “same sex marriage.”

    It is not prejudice or hate to call sin what it is. If I say adultery is sin, I doubt if you would call that prejudice or hate, but because I say homosexual behavior is sin your charge me with hate and prejudice. Very illogical and biased.

    A privately owned newspaper has the right to print or not print whatever they choose. Period.

  39. March 12th, 2011 at 09:31 | #39

    @Sean The right to sue has to be tempered with the rights of the sued. You can sue anyone for anything, but that doesn’t make it right. If you want tolerance from those who object to SSM, then you also must tolerate their right not to sanction SSM. Or does tolerance only work one way?

  40. March 12th, 2011 at 09:35 | #40

    @Brian Powers If you note carefully that passage, Jesus doesn’t say not to judge, he says first look at yourself and judge yourself before you judge others. The issue is that one is not to judge hypocritically. Example, if I am engaged in an adulterous relationship I would have no right to judge another’s sexual immorality without first judging my own. We are to judge behaviors. We are to judge righteously (Lk. 7:43; Lk 12:57; Jhn 7:24), we as Christians can judge anyone’s behaviors as right and wrong based upon God’s commands. But we can only judge those who are christians as to their person (1 Cor. 5:11) for disciplinary action. If we are not able to make judgments, then you could make no laws.

  41. March 12th, 2011 at 09:41 | #41

    @kate But being equal in regards to humanity does not make one equally qualified for everything in society. Members of the same sex are not qualified for real marriage and so must redefine what the word means in order to claim qualification for it. You keep talking about being treated equally and fairly, yet those promoting SSM refuse to treat those against it fairly. They fight for laws which force the rest of us to accept it or be punished. Where is the tolerance for our beliefs and values?

  42. March 12th, 2011 at 14:30 | #42

    Brian Powers :
    In regards to the last comment by Alexander isn’t it up to GOD to judge not the people?

    That is one of the moral claims Christians make with which I most strongly disagree. (I am an atheist.) I agree, however, that one should avoid condemning others for something of which one is oneself guilty, at least until one has recognized one’s own failure and begun trying to do something about it.

    Kate, I agree that we all have the right to live as we wish without harming nonconsenting persons. But we do not have the right to have others regard our choices as good ones, even if our choices are within our rights. Rights form the boundaries of one’s freedom of action; they do not entitle one to anyone else’s positive appraisal. For example, a man who inherits enough money to live on for the rest of his life, buys a beach house, and succeeds in living unproductively on that fortune for the rest of his life, is contemptible, while a man who inherits nothing and makes a fortune through honest production is admirable, and yet neither has violated anyone’s rights.

  43. Sean
    March 13th, 2011 at 07:03 | #43

    @Glenn

    “If I say adultery is sin, I doubt if you would call that prejudice or hate, but because I say homosexual behavior is sin your charge me with hate and prejudice. Very illogical and biased.”

    There’s a huge difference: adultery might be sinful among religionists but it isn’t a part of who someone is. Homosexuality very much is a part of someone’s identity, just as heterosexuality is. Our basics instincts are beyond our control, and in some cases, are personally defining.

    That’s why the argument of “hating the sin, loving the sinner” doesn’t wash on this issue. Being a non-Christian would presumably be a sin to the Christian, yet I don’t see Christians getting loud about their hatred of Jews or Muslims or Atheists. Well, Muslims.

    Christians are very selective in their public condemnations and gay and lesbian Americans have had to bear the brunt of Christian hatred for too long now. Go pick on another group for a while! Go after the divorced people or something!

  44. Sean
    March 13th, 2011 at 07:07 | #44

    “Members of the same sex are not qualified for real marriage and so must redefine what the word means in order to claim qualification for it.”

    That’s quite a judgment, one that really doesn’t reflect reality. Marriage has never been defined as “for opposite-sex but not same-sex couples.” You’re confusing the practice of marriage with the institution. In any event, there is no particular harm in changing who has access to marry, just as society extended voting rights to women. Voting wasn’t “redefined,” as if redefining something causes some kind of harm LOL.

  45. Chairm
    March 14th, 2011 at 01:48 | #45

    Sean said: “You’re confusing the practice of marriage with the institution.”

    1. The practice of marriage.
    2. The institution of marriage.

    Now, go ahead and explain the difference(s), in your view, and explain how, in your view, that part you quoted from Glenn has confused the two things.

    Since the SSM idea is a rejection of the marriage idea, the replacement of the latter with the former would indeed be, at the very least, a redefinition of marriage in our laws.

    Right at the outset, as you have conceded, SSM would not be a sexual type of relationship at law; but marriage law has long recognized and treated the union of husband and wife as a sexual type of relationship. This is a big difference in the redefinition being demanded by SSMers.

    And that is based on the pro-SSM demand that the basis for eligiblity be changed. That demand places into doubt all lines of eligiblity and ineligiblity. SSMers have shrugged at the way in which their argumentation opens the door wide to incestuous marriage, polygamous marriage, and group marriage. It would also undermined the lines drawn based on age.

    Your LOLing does not suffice, Sean. It only displays your trivialization of serious subjects.

  46. March 14th, 2011 at 08:25 | #46

    @Sean NO, homosexuality doesn’t have to be a part of a person’s identity. Thousands of homosexual people have walked away from it. But let’s say that someone is genetically wired (no proof exists, by the way) to be oriented homosexually. It is still a sin to act on that orientation. Orientation isn’t a sin – behavior is. SO it is exactly the same as the issue of adultery. One choose whether or not to violate God’s law.

  47. March 14th, 2011 at 08:28 | #47

    @Sean It is not hatred. And no one is “selective” about sin, and divorce is also addressed by Christians. The BIG difference is that there are no divorce activists demanding special rights, demanding people accept what they do or be punished, etc. Stop forcing us to accept homosexuality by state sanctioning and punishment for those who refuse, and there wouldn’t be an issue. Quit indoctrinating school kids and there wouldn’t be a problem.

  48. March 14th, 2011 at 08:30 | #48

    @Sean Voting is not a moral issue. What planet are you from. There is indeed a historical definition of marriage, which never includes SSM. You don’t change thousands of years of the meaning of marriage (check any dictionary before the past 3 or 4 decades of gay activism) and you will find nothing mentioning SSM. You want a total revamping of culture to satisfy 2-3% of the population. You want thumb your nose at God.

  49. Sean
    March 14th, 2011 at 20:01 | #49

    “Since the SSM idea is a rejection of the marriage idea”

    No it isn’t, it’s a rejection of the OSM only idea of marriage.

    “SSM would not be a sexual type of relationship at law”

    OSM isn’t a sexual type of relationship at law, either. So far as I know, the government doesn’t monitor couples for their sexual behavior, frequency, likes and dislikes, etc. Even if OSM is sexual in nature, how does that argue against same-sex marriage and it being a sexual arrangement? Gay people have sex, too, you know!

    “homosexuality doesn’t have to be a part of a person’s identity. Thousands of homosexual people have walked away from it.”

    Millions of people have shed Christianity, but for those left behind, most consider it a part of their identity.

    “But let’s say that someone is genetically wired (no proof exists, by the way) to be oriented homosexually. It is still a sin to act on that orientation. Orientation isn’t a sin – behavior is. SO it is exactly the same as the issue of adultery. One choose whether or not to violate God’s law.”

    Sexual orientation is thought by medical (but not religious!) organizations to be set in place during pregnancy, and revealed during adolescence. Since you didn’t decide whom you’re romantically attracted to, you can probably understand that gay people don’t either.

    “The BIG difference is that there are no divorce activists demanding special rights, demanding people accept what they do or be punished, etc.”

    That’s because they don’t have to: Divorce is legal. If your objection relates to people demanding equal rights, then grant those people their due, and the demanding will cease. I suspect that the perceived “uppity” demands of gay people are part of the objection.

    “Stop forcing us to accept homosexuality by state sanctioning and punishment for those who refuse, and there wouldn’t be an issue. Quit indoctrinating school kids and there wouldn’t be a problem.”

    No one wants you to accept homosexuality, whatever that means. You can still hate gay and lesbian Americans if you wish when same-sex marriage is legal. Lots of things are legal that you might not like or approve of. All good Christians, of course, oppose legal pre-marital sex, legal adultery and legal divorce, since the Bible opposes those things. But legal they are. We don’t make laws based on religious beliefs, obviously.

    “You want a total revamping of culture to satisfy 2-3% of the population. You want thumb your nose at God.”

    A total revamping of society? That seems a little overwrought. I think God would be quite pleased to see children raised by married parents, instead of outside of wedlock.

  50. March 15th, 2011 at 07:35 | #50

    @Sean To compare Christianity as an identity and homosexuality as an identity is a logic fallacy. Homosexuality is a behavior, Christianity is a belief system. Now if you want to admit homosexuality is just a chosen philosophy, then we are getting somewhere!

    Notice you appealed to authority being medical organizations as THINKING homosexual orientation is set during pregnancy. In other words SOME doctors THINK this might be true, but there are not facts. And, as noted, orientation and behavior are two different things. The behavior is sin.

    There is not special rights due to homophiles, so how are we supposed to “give them their due?”

    There you pull out the victim card of hate to marginalize the issue again. NO HATE IS INVOLVED, except we hate being forced to comply with indoctrinations. By the way, the Bible does have legal divorce. And this country, and the morality behind all the laws, were indeed founded upon the Judeo-Christian religious beliefs.

    It is a total revamping when you turn marriage upside down. And, no, God is not pleased by SSM or SS unions, so he is not pleased by them raising children in a skewed version of real marriage and family, not learning what true human sexuality is about. And stats have shown most children raised by SS couples end up being homosexual themselves – after all, that is what they learn as normal.

  51. Chairm
    March 15th, 2011 at 22:21 | #51

    Mark agreed with me.

    I said that the SSM idea is a rejection of the marriage idea.

    Sean said that the SSM idea is “a rejection of the OSM only idea of marriage”.

    He is catching on, slowly.

    Adding “opposite-sex” to the word, marriage, is redundant. Adding the one-sexed scenario as a form of marriage would be a rejection of the marriage idea itself.

    Marriage unites the sexes. The marriage idea is 1) integration of the sexes, 2) provision for responsible procreation, and 3) these combined as a coherent whole, i.e. as a foundational social institution of civil society.

    The one-sexed scenario, by its lack of the other sex, is intrinsically sex-segregative. It is intrinsically nonfertile and cannot provide for the unity of motherhood and fatherhood much less for responsible procreation. The SSM idea is not foundational to civil society; it lacks the coherency of a social institution, anyway.

  52. Chairm
    March 15th, 2011 at 22:22 | #52

    Oops, I meant to refer to Sean.

    (Mark probably agrees with Sean’s remark so I expect there is no harm no foul.)

  53. Chairm
    March 15th, 2011 at 22:26 | #53

    Sean still struggles with the contradictions of his own SSM argumentation.

    He concedes that SSM is not a sexual type of relationship, at law. So he imagines that the sexual basis of marriage law must be abolished so as to make marriage identical to SSM.

    But then he wants his cake and eat it too. He says: “Even if OSM is sexual in nature, how does that argue against same-sex marriage and it being a sexual arrangement? Gay people have sex, too, you know!”

    Your have conceded that same-sex sexual behavior is irrelevant to SSM, at law. Meanwhile the sexual basis of marriage law does not fit the one-sexed scenario — gay or not.

  54. Chairm
    March 15th, 2011 at 22:29 | #54

    Sean said: “You’re confusing the practice of marriage with the institution.”

    1. The practice of marriage.
    2. The institution of marriage.

    Now, go ahead and explain the difference(s), in your view, and explain how, in your view, that part you quoted from Glenn has confused the two things.

  55. Sean
    March 16th, 2011 at 19:35 | #55

    The practice of marriage is who participates. The institution of marriage is the bringing together in a legal relationship two consenting adults.

    Think about voting. The practice was men only but the institution was about giving each citizen input into who represented him in government.

    See the difference? The institution of marriage, like most institutions, isn’t about who participates but rather what the institution is about, its purpose, etc.

  56. March 17th, 2011 at 06:38 | #56

    @Sean The institution of marriage may not be consenting adults, as throughout history marital arrangements were made by parents without the consent of the children. Consent is not required in the REAL definition of marriage. The purpose of marriage is to bring about a family unit, which is the foundation of society. The institution of marriage never, ever includes same-sex unions.

  57. Chairm
    March 17th, 2011 at 16:56 | #57

    Consent is very important but it is not a trump card against the laws of eligiblity. Never has been. No reason to start now.

    That to which consent is given is the key, not consent alone. And for marriage, it is more than the consent of the participants that matters: society also consents via our laws and governing authorities. Again, consent to marry entails consent to the sexual basis of marriage law; it does not mean consent to the SSM idea which, as Sean has conceded, is not a sexual type of relationship at law.

    Lots of laws bring people together to form particular type sof consenting relationships and arrangements. That to which consent is given is what makes the difference. That is so in our laws in general — not only for marriage law. That said, not all consenting relationships are subject to legal requirements, licensing, and the rest.

    Some types of relationships are merely tolerated; some are protect; and some are preferred by society. Justification for tolerance is not the same as justification for protection; and justification for societal tolerance or for societal protection is not the same as justification for societal preference. SSM argumentation amounts to a plea for protection but it does not even justify tolerance.

    But tolerance and protection are already available for types of relationships in the nonmarriage category which are similarily situated with the gay subset that SSMers emphasize in their rhetoric. So SSM argumentation does not need to justify tolerance and protection; that already exists in the law and through provisions for designated beneficiaries.

    SSM argumentation and the gaycentric rhetoric is about special status; a demand for societal preference that cannot be justified by sexual orientation nor by gay identity. Not even according to the terms of SSM argumentation used by SSMers far and wide. So they rely on their rhetorical emphasis and that means they really are demanding that Government act arbitrarily in favor of their favored identity group. It is not about justice, for them it is all about “just us”.

  58. March 18th, 2011 at 07:52 | #58

    @Chairm I wish I had said that!

  59. Sean
    March 18th, 2011 at 18:41 | #59

    “The purpose of marriage is to bring about a family unit, which is the foundation of society.”

    Exactly. Gay families are families, too. The children of same-sex couples would benefit greatly if their parents could get married, like in five of the US states and several foreign countries.

    “The institution of marriage never, ever includes same-sex unions.”

    It does in Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Iowa and the District of Columbia, as well as quite a few foreign countries. Never say never, I guess.

  60. Sean
    March 18th, 2011 at 18:45 | #60

    When the government gives special rights and privileges to a favored group of citizens, that’s a problem if the government can’t come up with any reasons for such favoritism. Why do the governments of some states only want straight people to be able to marry, but not gay people? Is there a method to this madness?

  61. Ruth
    March 18th, 2011 at 23:40 | #61

    @Sean
    Children benefit greatly by having their parents, the mother and father who conceived them, provide them with a stable, loving family.
    Blaming the state won’t do.
    Parents have to be proactive and self-sacrificing to, as far as is humanly possible, provide what their children need from them.
    It really isn’t about what adults want.
    It’s about what children need.
    Would you say to a child whose mother or father died, “Nothing has changed”?
    Then why would you negate the need that any child has for both a mother and a father?
    “Why do the governments of some states only want straight people to be able to marry, but not gay people?”
    By “gay”, do you mean two same-gender sexually involved adults?
    If so, and if you truly can’t figure out why that would be bad for a child, you may have come to a point of being unable to think rationally.

  62. March 19th, 2011 at 07:27 | #62

    @Sean You just don’t get it. Same-sex couples do not make families. If one of the couple has children from a previous normal union, then that person and the child is a family. Families are either biologically-connected or legitimately adopted. Adoptions by same-sex couples are not legitimate, even if legal. Too many liberal activists are making laws harmful to children. Children in same-sex unions do not group up with a normal outlook on life, and their knowledge of human sexuality is skewed, so much so that the majority group up to be homophiles.

    The institution of marriage, never, ever includes same-sex unions, no matter what some Leftist activist judges force onto the public as “legal.” In the eyes of the majority of the people – those who aren’t homophiles or homosexualists – there is no marriage. And in the eyes of God it is an abomination.

    Marriage is not a right – and that is the problem with your argument; your premise is wrong. It is the homophiles who are demanding the right to redefine what marriage is so as to be qualified for the practice, but you will never change a dandelion into a rose.

  63. Sean
    March 19th, 2011 at 19:58 | #63

    “Children benefit greatly by having their parents, the mother and father who conceived them, provide them with a stable, loving family.”

    Well that may be true (or not: some research suggests that having two moms is better for kids than having a mom and a dad), like children are better off when they have unfettered access to health care. But some children don’t have unfettered access to health care. So what do we do with those children? Tell them to bug off, you had the dumb luck to be born to poor parents?

    I think children do better when their parents are wealthy and can send them to great prep schools and then off to the Ivy League. Sadly, most parents cannot provide their children with this kind of advantage. It’s all well and good to craft ideal situations but at some point, you have to return to the real world. There are same-sex couples raising children, quite legally, in all 50 states. These children would have more secure lives if their parents could get married and create the legal protections for their relationship that only marriage can provide.

    “It really isn’t about what adults want. It’s about what children need.”

    Then let the children of same-sex couples enjoy the security of marriage! If you really believe it’s about what kids need, not adults, then put your adult disdain for gay people aside, put your adult fixation with religion aside, and give kids the security they deserve, whether their parents are gay or straight.

    “Would you say to a child whose mother or father died, “Nothing has changed”?”

    What would you tell a child being raised by two lesbians who asked why his two moms can’t get married like all the other parents in the neighborhood?

    “Then why would you negate the need that any child has for both a mother and a father?”

    For the same reason that single parents get to do what they do: personal choice. All human beings have the right to reproduce, don’t they? All adults have the right to associate or not associate with other adults. Given this, we know that there are children being raised by single parents and gay couples. It’s real, it’s a fact of our society. Knowing this, how can you deny marriage to a child?

  64. Sean
    March 19th, 2011 at 20:02 | #64

    “Same-sex couples do not make families.”

    That is wrong. The US Census Bureau says they’re families, former First Lady Laura Bush says they’re families, the country’s leading medical organizations say they’re families. It’s just the religionists and other homophobes who refuse to call them families. What exactly is the term for the lesbian couple and their two teenage sons who live next door? Aliens?

    “The institution of marriage, never, ever includes same-sex unions”

    Except where it does: ten states perform and/or recognize same-sex marriage, and counting.

    “Marriage is not a right”

    Yes it is, according to a 1967 US Supreme Court decision. And equal treatment is a constitutional right, according to the 5th and 14th Amendments.

    We don’t make laws based on what some god wants.

  65. March 20th, 2011 at 05:47 | #65

    @Sean “Some” research – that by homosexualists trying to promote SSM, and real research contradicts them.

    Two moms or two dads is WORSE than no mom or dad at all. There is no “security” in SSM: talk about stats of short-lived unions!!!

    Homophiles don’t have a “right” to reproduce – they can’t do so! It is impossible for two members of the same sex to reproduce. Which is another proof that the unions are deviant and unnatural.

  66. March 20th, 2011 at 05:52 | #66

    @Sean The US Census Bureau can count people living together as families, but that doesn’t make them so. A government entity just can’t call a weed a flower and expect it to be true. Laura Bush isn’t God either. It isn’t just “religionists” and “homophobes” (there’s that nonsensical word again- “fear of sameness” – I never knew anyone afraid of sameness).

    You just don’t get it – or you are being intentionally stupid. How many times do you have to be told that just because liberal homosexualist judges declare something a marriage, that doesn’t make it so. The rest of society says they still aren’t marriages. Keep yelling that a noxious weed is a flower, but the weed will never be one.

    No, the Supreme Court never said marriage was an unqualified right. It isn’t “equal treatment” to demand redefinition of marriage. Get over it.

  67. Sean
    March 21st, 2011 at 16:02 | #67

    “No, the Supreme Court never said marriage was an unqualified right.”

    No, they said it was a fundamental right. Now that states are doing it, it’s going to be awfully hard to pull back from that statement, once a same-sex marriage case makes it to the high court.

  68. Ruth
    March 21st, 2011 at 20:45 | #68

    @Sean
    “What would you tell a child being raised by two lesbians who asked why his two moms can’t get married like all the other parents in the neighborhood?”
    I would tell him that marriage was created by God when He created man and woman. It is not for two women or for two men, and there are many other kinds of relationships that are not to be called “marriage”. I would talk with him about his own future; that marriage is a gift from God; that he might have children of his own some day, that I hope he will be a wonderful father, if that is the gift God gives him.
    Perhaps the child would be relieved to know that what he felt to be true was being reinforced by others.
    “For the same reason that single parents get to do what they do: personal choice.”
    Personal choice is vastly overrated. Instead of a means by which to bless others, it has become a means by which to oppress them in the service of one’s selfish desires. Would a child usually choose not to have a mother or a father? Why is the adults’ choice more important than that of the dependent child?

  69. March 22nd, 2011 at 06:56 | #69

    @Sean But the context of the “fundamental right” was of qualified couples – those who are not of the same sex. Two roosters don’t make a chicken, two bulls don’t make a calf, etc.

  70. Sean
    March 26th, 2011 at 19:44 | #70

    “But the context of the “fundamental right” was of qualified couples – those who are not of the same sex. Two roosters don’t make a chicken, two bulls don’t make a calf, etc.”

    Well, if the Supreme Court ruled that voting was a fundamental right during a time when only men were allowed to vote, would it not also be a fundamental right for women, once they were granted the right to vote? Or would voting only be a fundamental right for men, and something else for women?

Comments are closed.