Honorary president of the BSA comes out in favor of gay marriage

[Oak Tree]

Good luck with creating spousal testimonial privilege with a standard contract.

 

Yep, Merlyn, good point. I did say that some rights would require government to change the laws, and this would be one. What I should have said in my initial sentence was "there could be a fairly standard contract that two parties could sign that would convey many of the rights of marriage."

[NJCubScouter]

scoutingagain says:

 

Yep, more than one talking head has implied Obama came out in favor of gay marriage because it was politically expedient to do so and distracts voters from the real issues of a sluggish economy. And it's the Republicans that want to get the campaign discussion back on the economy and away from social issues.

 

I realize that. I guess I was just a little surprised to see an "actual person", rather than a tv "talking head", express that opinion. The "talking heads" think that voters are distracted from the economy by things like gay marriage, because the "talking heads" themselves are distracted by it. I doubt that most actual people are distracted by it. Maybe it's just where I live. Maybe if I lived where Packsaddle lived, I would see a lot more concern about it. Here in this "blue state" (although we have a Republican governor), I don't think people devote a lot of their time to thinking about who else can and can't get married. So the chances of most people around me being distracted from the economy by something like gay marriage just seem pretty remote.

 

Also, what would such a distracted voter look like? Would they be someone who is really very worried about the economy, but they are in favor of gay marriage, so they forget about the economy and vote for the President because of gay marriage? That just doesn't make a lot of sense to me. And if they are against gay marriage, they probably weren't going to be voting for the President anyway. Now they are even more against him. Where's the distraction?

 

That speculation alone indicates a sea change in societies outlook on gay marriage compared to how the gay marriage issue was viewed during the mid-term election in 2004.

 

You mean 2010, I'm guessing. And yes, I agree with that, which was my real point to Engineer61. If support for gay marriage is anything but a negative for a presidential candidate, things have certainly moved a lot in just a couple of years. I don't think a major-party nominee for president has ever supported marriage equality before.

 

And I see while Mitt doesn't support gay marriage he seems to think they would make fine parents of adoptive children. So if he believes they can be parents, how would he feel about a gay scout leader?

 

I don't really see a great deal of consistency in Romney's views on much of anything, so I'm probably not the right person to comment. Not that the incumbent has always been a perfect model of consistency either, but I think he's better than Romney in that department (and most others) and I also think he just took a small step toward a greater degree of coherence overall.

[CalicoPenn]

This has been an incredibly fascinating look at what goes through people's heads all in the apparent defense of a word.

 

We have folks saying that the the President's statement is unconstitutional, presumably because it violates a churche's 1st Amendment rights? What action has resulted from President Obama's statement, itself guaranteed by the 1st Amendment, that infringes on a Churches 1st Amendment? Are you suggesting that because the President has stated that he now personally supports gay marriage (from the beginning of his political career, he supported gay marriage as public policy - a rare politician who can faithfully represent his constituent's beliefs even if they conflict with his own personal beliefs) that it somehow will prevent churches from opposing gay marriage? Balderdash!

 

We now have folks saying that federal recognition of marriage is unconstitutional. Ok - I might be willing to buy that, if you can tell us how it is unconstitutional without just stating it is and leaving it at that - and no, asking me to prove it is not unconstitutional is not the same as proving it is unconstitutional.

 

Seems a number of posters think the answer is to just eliminate marriage from the governmental sphere and leave it to religions, calling for a separate civil union if one wishes to get governmental benefits that accrue to married couples. So in other words, we'll split the two in order to preserve the word marriage to mean what religious groups says it means. So which religious group gets to define what marriage means? We already have a lot of folks out there who claim Catholics aren't Christian, Mormons aren't Christian, Reformed Jews aren't real Jews, Shi'ite Muslims aren't Muslims, ECLA Lutherans aren't real Lutherans, etc. etc. etc. Now we're going to be faced with all these religious denominations that get along on a rather fine edge fighting over which of their definitions of marriage is real? Do we really want people telling their co-workers that their co-workers aren't really married because they wed in a different faith?

 

We've gotten into what is a legitimate interest of the state which includes a statement that pretty much precludes adoption by same-sex couples.

 

We've gotten statements suggesting that the LGBT community has to rely on the courts rather than the "marketplace of ideas" because it can't succeed in the "marketplace of ideas". Well let's just go ahead and apply that same "let the marketplace of ideas" standard to Blacks, Hispanics, Jews, Women, etc. The courts are a safeguard against that "marketplace of ideas" that can, has, and will (every chance it gets) trample on the civil rights of "the other". When the "market place of ideas" decides that American Idol and Fox News are what people want to watch, you have a choice to turn it off if you don't care for what the idiots in the majority have decided. If you are gay, black, Jewish, female, you don't have a choice if the idiots in the majority decide you shouldn't be able to enjoy the same rights they have.

 

We have a question on whether same sex marriage has ever existed in the past that hasn't really been answered - the answer is yes - same sex marriage was legal in ancient Rome and ancient Greece as well as in parts of ancient China. In addition, in the 10th, 11th and 12th centuries, the Christian Church (and back then, there really was only one Christian Church to speak of) had not one but two liturgical ceremonies for uniting same sex couples - one that applied to males or females and a later one that applied only to males.

 

This whole defense of the word marriage would be comical if it wasn't so absurd - all of the same arguments, including diving into a book that had had so many translations and mistranslations, both accidental and intentional, to justify the arguments have been made in the past when people opposed people of different races marrying and people of different religions marrying, and in some places, people of different classes or castes from marrying.

 

no one - not ONE person, here, or anywhere else for that matter, has ever been able to answer one very simple question:

 

"How would my neighbor (uncle, cousin, brother) Bob marrying his partner John affect MY marriage?"

 

Would it somehow lessen your marriage? That would say a heck of a lot more about the sorry state of your marriage than it would say about your neighbor's marriage.

 

Folks are arguing about a concept - a CONCEPT. I'd like to suggest that folks take some time out this weekend, sit against a tree watching the clouds, or a river, or whatever, and think about that simple little question. How would it affect your marriage - then come back and tell us if the defense of the concept is more important than your actual marriage.

 

On a final note, Oak asks:

 

"On topic: how long will Barack Obama be willing to be the honorary president of an organization that so directly contradicts his personal belief?"

 

I would say until the end of his term. He was certainly willing to support gay marriage as a matter of public policy even when he personally disagreed with it. Why would that change now? How many of us here still support the BSA even when opposing the BSA's policy on the three G's? Why should he be held to a different standard? I would suggest the ball is in the BSA's court - if they want to buck a centuries worth of tradition and declare that President Obama won't be the Honorary President of the Boy Scouts of America, they're welcome to do so. I doubt they will because they know they would take yet another unneccessary hit to their public image.

[scoutingagain]

Sorry NJ I should have been clearer. I did mean 2004, when the Massachusetts court ruling on gay marriage was viewed as energizing the Christian Right to vote for George Bush and defeating John Kerry. (It was also the the year the Red Sox beat the Yankees in the playoffs after being down by 3 games, so I understand if you choose to block 2004 from your memory. )

 

I'd point out that ruling was generally libertarian in its approach. The court, as I understand it, basically said, there's nothing in the state laws about marriage that refer to gender so there's no reason two men or two women can't be married.

 

It was the social socialists(aka social conservatives) that went back to their legislatures and said we need new laws and regulations to prevent a specific group of citizens from marrying who they want to. We need the authority of the state to impose our interpretation of marriage. So much for the idea of limited government.

 

SA

 

 

[Beavah]

Beavah you forget New Hampsire now allows same-sex marriages.

 

Nah, I didn't forget. That was the point, and yeh apparently missed it completely. The states listed all had civil unions which essentially or completely accorded gay couples the same legal rights as marriage, but that wasn't enough. They insisted on the "marriage" word. The goal was for the state to establish a position contrary to the religious and historical definition. It wasn't about rights.

 

Merlyn points out da issue of access to federal rights, but the state law changing the word does not in any way affect access to federal privileges of marriage, so that's a red herring. Da issue at the state level was solely co-opting the religious word.

 

We have a question on whether same sex marriage has ever existed in the past that hasn't really been answered - the answer is yes - same sex marriage was legal in ancient Rome and ancient Greece as well as in parts of ancient China. In addition, in the 10th, 11th and 12th centuries, the Christian Church (and back then, there really was only one Christian Church to speak of) had not one but two liturgical ceremonies for uniting same sex couples - one that applied to males or females and a later one that applied only to males.

 

Yah, CalicoPenn, yeh usually do a better job on your research, eh?

 

While a few Roman Emperors like Nero set their own law for themselves, ancient Rome in fact did not allow same-sex marriage.

 

The nonsense about Christian ceremonies uniting same-sex couples, though, is hilarious. First, there were of course more than one Christian Church in the centuries yeh mention, because that was after the effective split between the Orthodox and Roman Catholic traditions in the Great Schism. Second, this notion can be traced to the book of one Yale scholar, John Boswell, who has been roundly debunked. Boswell took elements from a filial adoption ceremony in a few Eastern Rite churches (adelphopoiesis), and twisted it in interestin' ways to promote his personal agenda as a gay man. Interestingly, some of those ceremonies are still practiced in some Eastern churches, where they signify spiritual blessing of friendships. It's no more an endorsement of homosexuality than the middle eastern practice of male friends holding hands in public is.

 

Now ancient Greece poses some interestin' questions, because legal codes aren't as well preserved, passing as they did through the lens of da Christian eastern empire. It seems clear that the practice of older men "mentoring" young boys was accepted in some circles. I'm not sure that we want to offer Greek pederasty as an example of homosexual 'love' to be emulated, however.

 

I can't speak to provinces in ancient China beyond readin' Wikipedia like you did. They sure didn't last too long, though, eh?

 

So aside from Nero writin' the law for himself, we're hard-pressed to find many, if any, examples. At most, we're talking very few, far-between, short-lived, and generally associated with social and moral decline.

 

Do we really want people telling their co-workers that their co-workers aren't really married because they wed in a different faith?

 

Yep, there it is, eh? The heart of the matter. The liberal folks want to limit the free speech of those who disagree with 'em. The government should decide who is married, and should muzzle a Catholic who refuses to believe in a Druid ceremony, or vice versa. Not a policy argument on whether benefits should be accorded, but people should not be permitted to disagree on the word.

 

Who cares if your co-worker says you're not really married accordin' to his religion? Only somebody who cares about ridin' on the coattails of goodwill and social norms that were established by that religion.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[moosetracker]

Beavah - you didn't finish reading my post.. You state

That was the point, and yeh apparently missed it completely.

 

 

Which doesn't make sense if you had read my full post, which stated that while we had civil marriage, it did not give the same rights to those who were in a civil marriage.. At least it did not at the DMV. I am sure there were other places that were not the same, like I don't think your employer had to offer benefits for you civil union partner that it would for your spouse.

[packsaddle]

Calico, I'll answer your question. Neither the concept nor the fact of gay marriage affects nor will it affect MY marriage at all. No effect, nothing.

 

Regarding the prospect of one religion taunting another that 'the other' marriage isn't legitimate, hey, we already have that kind of thing running rampant in religion.

I mean for example, who is going to go to heaven? As far as I can tell it's 'only those who are members of MY religious flavor' or something along those lines. And I'm guessing that for at least some of us, the prospect of an eternity in heaven is a bit more important than a short stint in some form of matrimony. Always remember that like TheScout said, "The purpose of religion isn't to bring people together."

 

There's nothing that prevents any individual from forming their own religion and church for that matter. Heck, my old tax protester buddies have advocated that kind of thing for decades in order to avoid paying taxes. (for some reason they cringe when I refer to them in public as 'Reverend', heh, heh....so I do it as often as possible.)

[Beavah]

Interestin', moosetracker. I'm less familiar with NH than some of the others, but I can't for the life of me figure out what marriage has to do with the DMV. Although wisecracks about women drivers do come to mind. (ducking for cover)

 

There were a few differences in California, too, but they were only because da laws involving marriage tend to wind through all kinds of obscure places, and the writers of civil union laws would occasionally miss small things here and there. California caught and corrected a bunch of these, but it wasn't enough, eh? Folks wanted the "m" word.

 

B

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Good luck with creating spousal testimonial privilege with a standard contract.

 

Yep, Merlyn, good point. I did say that some rights would require government to change the laws, and this would be one.

 

By allowing any two people to create privileged communication by signing a contract? I foresee a lot of crminals using that.

[Scoutfish]

Saw a very interesting comment of facebok.

 

" Claiming that someone else's marrage is against your religion is like being angry at somebody else for eating a doughnut because you are on a diet"

 

 

And you know what?

 

It's true!

 

So what if what somebody else's idea of marrage is not the same as yours? Who gives a damn!

 

They do not owe you anything. I do not owe youy anything. You do not owe me anything.

 

It's just like taking a poll in here about what "real scouting" is. No matter how hardcore or better you think your idea of what real scouting is, somebody else will trump it with something better and then say your idea of real scouting is a farce and totally ruins their ideal of scouting.

 

Another example: KUDU. He thinks WB is a total farce! COOL! That is his right! I support his right to think and feel that way. But that doesn't mean I support his right to cancel the WB course I am going to take, nor does it mean he has the right to have National not give me credit for taking WB because it dioesn't meet his ideals or beliefs of what WB really is.

 

Now as for gay marrage or such....I don't care, Why?

 

Because I am not gay. Not planning on being gay.

 

As far as I am concerned, gay marrage is no more of an issue to me that snails that are borth sexes or frogs that change sex during their life.

 

I do know this: I do not have the right to impose or expect other people to have to follow my beliefs because they are my beliefs.

 

In NC, amendment one passed. Everyboy kept saying trhat it wasn't about being anti gay, but in fact, that is exactly what it was. Preventing gay from being able to get married because it goes against some peoples religious beliefs.

 

It's a sad day too becaue that was exactly the reason we had a little thing called The American Revolution.

 

We were tired of having to live under the rules of one religious belief wether we believed them or not. We wanted to be able to pursue and live out our own beliefs. No government established or respected ( as in NC's case)religious laws.

 

And here's the deal, I do not support gay marrage nor do I ban it.

 

I do recognize that ALL Americans have the right to live their own lives under their own beliefs and that the Constitution says that too.

 

Do I agree with most of the stuff people of other religions think?

 

Nope, not at all. But I do recognize that they have just as much right to live it, feel it, have it as I do.

 

And that's only fair for everybody!

 

And the very moment we decide that other people do not get the same rights as us, that is the very moment we become the same thing we revolted against way back when.

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Beavah writes:

Folks wanted the "m" word.

 

No, they wanted genuine equality. Your head has yet to absorb the fact that none of these civil unions are federally recognized as marriage. It is not equal.

 

It's extremely clear that it isn't that gays want the "m" word but that you, very much, want to deny them the "m" word.

[Beavah]

Your head has yet to absorb the fact that none of these civil unions are federally recognized as marriage. It is not equal.

 

Nah, you're too thick to realize that da change in state law from civil unions to "marriage" that were insisted upon didn't affect federal law at all, eh? So that was not the issue unless yeh think all those folks lobbyin' for gay rights were too dumb to understand that.

 

Is that what yeh think? I don't. I think they understood perfectly, and intended what they asked for. Even though the change did not affect their rights under the law at all, either federal or state, they wanted the state to endorse gay marriage. The word is powerful because it implies thousands of years of religious cultural tradition, eh?

 

Now, is it the same as eatin' donuts? I don't think so. Leastways, not unless yeh eat a lot of donuts. But sure, I might encourage an obese friend to go lighter on the pastry. Does my neighbor smoking affect my health? Probably not, but if the neighbor is a friend I might encourage him to quit, and I wouldn't want him to smoke around my kids, or celebrate smoking around my kids on Smoker's Pride Day. Does my best friend's penchant for gambling affect my financial stability? No more than a gay couple affects my marriage, as CalicoPenn suggests. I would still counsel my friend to stop, and I still may oppose legalizing gambling in my state because I think legalized gamblin' has negative societal effects. Or because I oppose gamblin' on religious grounds, which for a religious critter really is the same thing.

 

Now in the end, I might lose that public debate and da state may start openin' up casinos in inner cities to abet the robbing of the poor, but I reckon I'd still object vigorously if they officially named casino gambling "Retirement Planning". Particularly if in da public schools they then issued books about the different types of "Retirement Planning", treatin' 'em all equally.

 

At that point, I reckon I'd prefer the state to get out the business altogether, rather than providin' a state endorsement to a form of "retirement planning" that I felt was individually and socially harmful.

 

I think that's a pretty reasonable position, eh?

 

Beavah

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Beavah babbles:

Nah, you're too thick to realize that da change in state law from civil unions to "marriage" that were insisted upon didn't affect federal law at all, eh?

 

Beavah, stop being dishonest. I'm referring to these false statements of yours:

 

"By and large civil unions accord folks all the same rights as married couples under state law except the word "married". Da issue is that some folks aren't content with only being accorded civil rights, they want to claim da religious title of marriage."

 

You continue to ignore the fact that state civil union laws don't confer federal marriage privileges. You keep dishonestly claiming that the ONLY issue is the word "marriage" when that's clearly false.

 

Stop lying.

[Beavah]

Yah, Merlyn, so when I write

 

"By and large civil unions accord folks all the same rights as married couples under STATE law"

 

I'm lying because they don't have the same rights under federal law?

 

Might I humbly suggest that yeh learn how to read English?

 

B

 

[moosetracker]

Well, they may know that getting the state to adopt marraige rather then civil unions will not get them automatic Federal legal rights, but they know it gets them a step closer to asking for them.. They know that, and so do those opposed to same-sex marriages.. That is why they are pushing for a law against it..

 

Why?.. If they are against the religious implications, but are fine with people getting equal rights, then why oppose what is just legality.. Perhaps because they are also against equality for this group of people..

 

Maybe if a civil union did give them truely ALL the priviledges of marriage state, federal and all the little unforseen small legal hoops, and employeers were given the option to accept or not a civil marraige.. Maybe they would be content with it.. Maybe.. But that is alot of maybe's.. At this point in time they have been insulted with the fact it wasn't equal it already now conotates too negative an image, you are right Beavah.. At this point it will not be good enough even if you change the name to blingering or whatever..

 

Seprate but equal was the idea with black segragation.. We know how well that worked out.. Seprate, but hardly equal.. Well that is the civil union.