« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

06/26/2008

Video: FINALLY! An anti-gay voice for church/state separation!

by Jeremy Hooper

Alright, so the following video is just plain nutty. However, the suggestion that evangelicals who are opposed to same-sex nuptials should boycott the civil part of marriage and instead engage in only the religious? Well that might just be the most logical, least hypocritical argument we've ever heard a faith-based marriage opponent make on the subject! Have a looksie:

It makes total sense to us. They've been working so hard for so long to use the Bible to rewrite the constitution; who are we to stop them if they want to eschew the latter for their personal interpretation of the former? In fact, if those who use wholly religious arguments to deny gays their civil equality seriously want to boycott the civil aspect of marriage, we will gladly help them with that campaign. After all, they've done so much to keep us out of the licensing line -- isn't it time we return the favor?

Although we really can't imagine that many religious opponents of marriage equality would ever dream up giving up their state and federally-afforded rights and benefits in the way that this gentleman suggests. Because let's get real -- Denying themselves either the stately or Godly blessings to which they feel they are entitled as a birthright would drastically cut into the time they dedicate denying both to gay people!

Sodomite Marriage, How are the Straight & Godly to Respond? [GodTube]

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

I had to check out crosstheborder.org because that just sounds too much like a spoof, or reverse-psychology. But this guy does (apparently) exist and is preaching this perfectly sane (to me) solution. For all of those who think that separate-but-equal civil unions (or just the right to live together) is any substitute for state sanctioned marriage, let them try it. Let them find out for themselves how unequal separate-but-equal really is. At least they should think about what they would be giving up if they listen to this loon.

Posted by: Dick Mills | Jun 26, 2008 6:22:12 PM

So, am I the only one who realized that the background music was the MuLan soundtrack.

Posted by: TheHungryTanuki | Jun 26, 2008 7:26:45 PM

Ah heck...Hungry now I have to listen to it... I don't do videos..much, but JH is converting me one video at a time.

Did want to say YOU ARE ON! Today J ... that 'reasoned evaluation' is one of your best!

Posted by: LOrion | Jun 26, 2008 8:26:07 PM

Nope, couldn't watch all the way through. MULAN is one of my favorite characters..so I was glad to find she is immortal..at least she was the head of an immortal group in a book I just read. Made sense to me.

Yep let'em just have church ceremonies and no licenses. Heck fewer than 20% of children in schools today live with their married-once-only biological parents. So unmarried definitely prevail especially in the procreation department.

Posted by: LOrion | Jun 26, 2008 8:32:30 PM

I listened to half of that junk, before I wanted to start banging my head against the screen. I will put this clearly as possible. My husband and I were married in a ELCA church. The full liturgy was used. Our pastor, vicar, cantor, and assistant Pastor were there, Rings were exchanged. Our Bible was signed. The one thing missing was a marriage license. The state doesn't give them to same gender couple. When our pastor marries different gender couples, the license is signed out of sight off all present. Many other churches are performing same gender blessings and marriages such as MCC and UCC. That guys is so far off base, he's almost back on.

Posted by: Mike in the Tundra | Jun 27, 2008 12:58:29 AM

Well, let me tell you that I have a legal marriage and do not have a marriage license. No kidding.

(I'm apologizing in advance for the length of this)

Many moons ago, there was a legal battle in the 9th judicial district that resulted in properly worded church marriage covenants (no mention of state sanction, signed by bride, groom, pastor, witnesses) being recognized as a valid and legal union.

Needless to say, this caused me untold hassle when I moved to my current location on the east coast. Nonetheless, folks yielded to the law as required, even though I received more than one nasty face over the matter from various civil servants.

This video is oddly interesting. By proof of my existance, and I'm by far not the only one married in this manner, church folks can be married without a state sanctioned license. The very bottom line is that one of the reasons the state exists to protect and enforce contracts.

Marriages of all sort (religious or otherwise) throughout history have generally been seen as having a sense of solemnity and importance that rises above other types of social agreements (business contracts, dating arrangements, handshake agreements, etc).

The state has a compelling interest in supporting the institutional structures of society to aid in protecting the contract of marriage for the sake of joint property, children, and many other reasons that affect the health of the commonweal.

Thus, for the state to know who's really married there needs to be a reasonable barrier to entry. Getting a license is nothing, really. In fact, my close friends decided one day to just go to the county courthouse, get a license, then go into the judge's office and have him marry them. Thirty minutes and done. (To this day I don't really know why they did that -- I think their families were giving them a bunch of guff -- they're still married, though. 15 years).

You cannot have a reasonable barrier to entry solely through the church, as anyone on the planet can start their own church. Even my church covenant (the concept, that is) had oversight by the 9th judicial district. The state, once agreed that you're married, will provide its full force in protection and defence -- ergo the license. And even then, the state is merely reflecting the will of the people in stating that the marriage contract should have special protections in America. It's not about getting permission, per se, and to say so really distorts the issue.

Posted by: Billy | Jun 27, 2008 11:33:53 AM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails