How ironic when MLK’s main advisor and mentor during his early activist years, Bayard Rustin, was openly homosexual. MLK clearly didn’t hate him. That is proof of his stance on gay marriage and civil rights.
“I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people. But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King Jr. said, ‘Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.’ I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream, to make room at the table of brotherhood and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people.”
-Coretta Scott King
Both Martin Luther king and his wife supported gay marriage.
traditional marriage has always been defined as it is now.
Less than 110 years ago, a court ruling ensured that married women in every state could own property and sign legal contracts in their own name. This landmark decision, and the steady struggle for married women's rights preceding it, fundamentally changed the role of marriage in American society. In 1967, the fifteen states which still banned interracial marriage were forced to legalize it, despite outcries that an essential purpose of marriage—preserving racial purity—was under threat. Opponents to both changes argued that they would lower the social value of marriage and cause the disintegration of the family unit—sound familiar? Go back even further in time and the concept of marriage becomes almost unrecognizable: in some societies, it was an agreement between the parents of two people who may have never met.
Even people who oppose gay marriage will agree that in these cases, creating a new tradition was the best way to maintain a fair and just society. Likewise, allowing same-sex couples to marry is necessary to create equality for all citizens. The institution of marriage is still alive and well despite repeated upheavals, and embracing a more fair-minded tradition will help it stay that way through the twenty-first century.
Marriage has always been about one man and one woman.
As the Reverend Andrew Warner of the Plymouth UCC has pointed out, we only have to read the story of Jacob to see a Biblically sanctioned marriage of one man to two women, who were sisters! Besides, as mentioned in the previous section, just because something has always been done one way doesn't mean it shouldn't be changed if it creates a better, more equal society.
Allowing gays to marry will harm straight marriages.
Where do we start here? There are not a restricted number of marriage licenses available in the country. Any straight couple who are in love and have made the decision will still be able to marry. A comedian once joked that “gays should be allowed to marry so they can be as miserable as the rest of us.” As we see it, gay couples should be allowed to marry so we can be as happy as other loving spouses.
Some claim that getting married will have less value, will “cheapen”, when same-sex couples are allowed the right to it as well. A heterosexual marriage would still be the same life-changing vow; straight couples wouldn't care less about their spouses—so what are they afraid of losing? For people who are uncomfortable with being merely equal to lesbians and gays, marriage inequality is one of the last things they can use to show that the United States government considers their relationships to be better than those of their gay neighbors. When gay marriage becomes legal, they lose that token of superiority. That's not what marriage should be about—it’s a declaration of love and commitment, not a country club.
In Massachusetts, Connecticut and California, where gay couples have been allowed to marry, there has been no reported damage to quality of life among straight married couples. In fact, out of all fifty states, Massachusetts and Connecticut have the lowest divorce rates.
Many married couples raise children; some come from both parents, others may be conceived through egg or sperm donors, and some may be adopted or blended into a step family. The worth of a family isn't based on whether the children are biologically related to both parents, any more than it's based on whether the parents are gay or straight. Of course, not everyone is able to reproduce, or wants to, yet no one has suggested we prevent childless heterosexual couples from marrying.
We don’t need gay marriage because LGBT couples can be protected through civil unions and domestic partnerships.
The rights given through civil unions and domestic partnerships vary widely from state to state. Civil union laws are meant to confer all the state-based rights given by marriage, but don't provide any federal rights because of DOMA. Domestic partnerships do not even provide all the state-based marriage rights.
Even if DOMA was repealed and all states had full civil unions like Vermont, would it be all right to sequester LGBT relationships into a different legal category? No—it's still biased to honor some couples with the word “marriage” and not others merely because of the genders of the people involved. Saying it's “just” verbal discrimination doesn't change the fact that discrimination of any kind doesn't have a place in U.S. law.
Marriage is a sacred institution, and since churches don't allow gay marriages, neither should the law.
Many gay and straight people regard marriage as sacred and view it from a religious perspective. But legal marriage is a function of our government, and it’s the government’s responsibility to not impose one group’s religious beliefs on any citizen. In addition, what about faiths that do celebrate same-sex marriage, including some Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, and Unitarian congregations? We shouldn’t place a lower priority on their beliefs. Religion is so infinitely varied, especially in our country, that presenting one group as the religious viewpoint makes no sense.
Allowing gay couples to marry will force religious officials to perform ceremonies that violate their beliefs. The government will persecute people whose religious beliefs aren’t gay-friendly.
A good number of religious groups in the U.S. today disagree with some of the legal marriages that already take place here. So far, not one religious official has been required by law to carry out a marriage ceremony that goes against their beliefs. Conservative Catholics don’t allow remarriage after a divorce, and priests are free to turn away couples if one has a divorce in their past. Likewise, any religious leader would be allowed to turn down a same-sex couple that asked them to officiate at their wedding. Sources
O’Grair, Scot: “Effects of Same-Sex Unions: Data on Several Jurisdictions.”
DivorceMag: “US Divorce Statistics.”
Gold, Melanie; Perrin, Ellen; Futterman, Donna; Friedman, Stanford. “Children of Gay or Lesbian Parents.” September 1994: Pediatrics in Review, 15: 354-8.
If we allow gay marriage, then traditional marriage will collapse. We need to protect traditional marriage, otherwise it will become totally meaningless.
The Answer
There is only one possible way that the allowance of gay marriage would cause traditional marriage to collapse, and that is, if gay marriage was so vastly superior to traditional marriage that as soon as everyone saw how much better it was, everybody would leave traditional marriage and flock to gay marriage.
You see how ridiculous that is, and it feeds on the myth that homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle. Up to but not more than ten percent of the population is gay. Allowing gay people to get married will simply accommodate the vital needs of a few people.
You see what a lie that argument is. It is saying that in order to protect marriage, they have to forbid people to get married.
11 comments:
How ironic when MLK’s main advisor and mentor during his early activist years, Bayard Rustin, was openly homosexual. MLK clearly didn’t hate him. That is proof of his stance on gay marriage and civil rights.
“I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people. But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King Jr. said, ‘Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.’ I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream, to make room at the table of brotherhood and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people.”
-Coretta Scott King
Both Martin Luther king and his wife supported gay marriage.
Stand up to NOM’s Shameful Behavior in Minnesota
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6pnY37DKl4&feature=player_embedded
traditional marriage has always been defined as it is now.
Less than 110 years ago, a court ruling ensured that married women in every state could own property and sign legal contracts in their own name. This landmark decision, and the steady struggle for married women's rights preceding it, fundamentally changed the role of marriage in American society. In 1967, the fifteen states which still banned interracial marriage were forced to legalize it, despite outcries that an essential purpose of marriage—preserving racial purity—was under threat. Opponents to both changes argued that they would lower the social value of marriage and cause the disintegration of the family unit—sound familiar? Go back even further in time and the concept of marriage becomes almost unrecognizable: in some societies, it was an agreement between the parents of two people who may have never met.
Even people who oppose gay marriage will agree that in these cases, creating a new tradition was the best way to maintain a fair and just society. Likewise, allowing same-sex couples to marry is necessary to create equality for all citizens. The institution of marriage is still alive and well despite repeated upheavals, and embracing a more fair-minded tradition will help it stay that way through the twenty-first century.
Marriage has always been about one man and one woman.
As the Reverend Andrew Warner of the Plymouth UCC has pointed out, we only have to read the story of Jacob to see a Biblically sanctioned marriage of one man to two women, who were sisters! Besides, as mentioned in the previous section, just because something has always been done one way doesn't mean it shouldn't be changed if it creates a better, more equal society.
Allowing gays to marry will harm straight marriages.
Where do we start here? There are not a restricted number of marriage licenses available in the country. Any straight couple who are in love and have made the decision will still be able to marry. A comedian once joked that “gays should be allowed to marry so they can be as miserable as the rest of us.” As we see it, gay couples should be allowed to marry so we can be as happy as other loving spouses.
Some claim that getting married will have less value, will “cheapen”, when same-sex couples are allowed the right to it as well. A heterosexual marriage would still be the same life-changing vow; straight couples wouldn't care less about their spouses—so what are they afraid of losing? For people who are uncomfortable with being merely equal to lesbians and gays, marriage inequality is one of the last things they can use to show that the United States government considers their relationships to be better than those of their gay neighbors. When gay marriage becomes legal, they lose that token of superiority. That's not what marriage should be about—it’s a declaration of love and commitment, not a country club.
In Massachusetts, Connecticut and California, where gay couples have been allowed to marry, there has been no reported damage to quality of life among straight married couples. In fact, out of all fifty states, Massachusetts and Connecticut have the lowest divorce rates.
Marriage is about procreation.
Many married couples raise children; some come from both parents, others may be conceived through egg or sperm donors, and some may be adopted or blended into a step family. The worth of a family isn't based on whether the children are biologically related to both parents, any more than it's based on whether the parents are gay or straight. Of course, not everyone is able to reproduce, or wants to, yet no one has suggested we prevent childless heterosexual couples from marrying.
We don’t need gay marriage because LGBT couples can be protected through civil unions and domestic partnerships.
The rights given through civil unions and domestic partnerships vary widely from state to state. Civil union laws are meant to confer all the state-based rights given by marriage, but don't provide any federal rights because of DOMA. Domestic partnerships do not even provide all the state-based marriage rights.
Even if DOMA was repealed and all states had full civil unions like Vermont, would it be all right to sequester LGBT relationships into a different legal category? No—it's still biased to honor some couples with the word “marriage” and not others merely because of the genders of the people involved. Saying it's “just” verbal discrimination doesn't change the fact that discrimination of any kind doesn't have a place in U.S. law.
Marriage is a sacred institution, and since churches don't allow gay marriages, neither should the law.
Many gay and straight people regard marriage as sacred and view it from a religious perspective. But legal marriage is a function of our government, and it’s the government’s responsibility to not impose one group’s religious beliefs on any citizen. In addition, what about faiths that do celebrate same-sex marriage, including some Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, and Unitarian congregations? We shouldn’t place a lower priority on their beliefs. Religion is so infinitely varied, especially in our country, that presenting one group as the religious viewpoint makes no sense.
Allowing gay couples to marry will force religious officials to perform ceremonies that violate their beliefs. The government will persecute people whose religious beliefs aren’t gay-friendly.
A good number of religious groups in the U.S. today disagree with some of the legal marriages that already take place here. So far, not one religious official has been required by law to carry out a marriage ceremony that goes against their beliefs. Conservative Catholics don’t allow remarriage after a divorce, and priests are free to turn away couples if one has a divorce in their past. Likewise, any religious leader would be allowed to turn down a same-sex couple that asked them to officiate at their wedding.
Sources
O’Grair, Scot: “Effects of Same-Sex Unions: Data on Several Jurisdictions.”
DivorceMag: “US Divorce Statistics.”
Gold, Melanie; Perrin, Ellen; Futterman, Donna; Friedman, Stanford. “Children of Gay or Lesbian Parents.” September 1994: Pediatrics in Review, 15: 354-8.
Protection of marriage
The Argument:
If we allow gay marriage, then traditional marriage will collapse. We need to protect traditional marriage, otherwise it will become totally meaningless.
The Answer
There is only one possible way that the allowance of gay marriage would cause traditional marriage to collapse, and that is, if gay marriage was so vastly superior to traditional marriage that as soon as everyone saw how much better it was, everybody would leave traditional marriage and flock to gay marriage.
You see how ridiculous that is, and it feeds on the myth that homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle. Up to but not more than ten percent of the population is gay. Allowing gay people to get married will simply accommodate the vital needs of a few people.
You see what a lie that argument is. It is saying that in order to protect marriage, they have to forbid people to get married.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
Post a Comment