An LA Times poll finds 51% of Americans say "if gays are allowed to marry, the institution of marriage will be degraded," and 60% say homosexual relationships are "against God's will." This is hardly surprising.
What is surprising and what is most significant about the poll are these numbers:
- While about six in 10 people felt homosexual relationships are "against God's will," a similar percentage felt that legal recognition of same-sex marriages was inevitable.
Sixty percent of those polled described themselves as sympathetic to the gay community. About the same percentage said they would be willing to vote for an openly gay political candidate. [AP]
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - boomcrashbaby
Can somebody explain to me what opposing equality but being 'sympathetic to the gay community' means? If you are against gay people getting what you have, but you sympathize with them about it, what does that mean?
2 - Natalie Davis
It means they are opposed to us but feel bad for us anyway. See, antigay folks aren't *all* bad (which, of course, is what they want us to believe).
3 - Craig Lyndall
A lot of people that I have encountered are against gay marriages in terms of their religion and in their churches. At the same time, they do believe in equal LEGAL rights. They are willing to separate the things that our president won't.
4 - Natalie Davis
They sound like reasonable people, unlike your president.
5 - Tom Johnson
I think people are upset about the definition of marriage changing from being religious and becoming more of a legal aspect. At least that's what I've encountered when people speak about the issue. I just don't see it. I don't understand why this issue effects so many people who really shouldn't be effected by it. Gay people only gain rights that any married couple has, and straight people lose absolutely nothing. I don't see why this is such an issue. Am I missing something? I'm not kidding - I really want to know what I'm missing here.
6 - Mark Saleski
favorite cartoon about gay marriage seen so far: a couple proclaiming "It's destroy the sanctitiy of marriage"...as they're about to be married in vegas by a guy dressed up as Elvis".
7 - Sandra Smallson
It's not about "them" wanting to show they are not all bad, Natalie. It's just common human reaction/nature. It is against their beliefs but at the same time so is discrimination. I don't think "they" give a toss if gay people think "they" are all bad. That is neither here nor there.
8 - boomcrashbaby
Sandra, it might be against their beliefs but no one is forcing them to get into a same-sex marriage. So what you are saying is they want us to abide by their beliefs, or punish us by not following their beliefs? How Talibanish.
9 - Sandra Smallson
Oh Lord! That is not what I am saying at all. I am saying,okay, let me take me for example and I will dare to speak on behald of the 60% Eric is referring to. I think that's where I am. I think homosexuality is a sin. That is my belief. However, we are not to sit in judgment of anybody because we are all sinners. Therefore, if gays want to get married (outside the church ofcourse) they can. So, they can enjoy all the taxation benefits and what have you, that heterosexual couples enjoy. Get it? "they" are not forcing anybody to abide by their beliefs. This particular 60%. These ones don't mind what you do. As long as you do not do it in their place of worship. Is that too much of a request for the gays to accept?
Atleast, that is my understanding of Eric's post. Some believe it's a sin but at the same time sympathise with the fight for equality. I fail to understand which part of that statement is pregnant with the other meanings you wish to give it.
10 - boomcrashbaby
Yes, I get it. That is much clearer. Thank you for the clarification.
About your comment that we don't 'do it' in their church...is that what the biggest fear is here, among those 60%? That next we will demand they marry us in their church?
11 - Sandra Smallson
I'll speak for myself on that one. Yes, that's my "issue" not necessarily fear. I would hate to see political pressure put on churches to marry gays. The church has it's moral stance. It exists because of a belief system. The church should not be forced to change it's ways and go against the rules of its very existense simply because society has found itself in a quandary of whether gays should be accepted as married couples or not.
12 - Eric Olsen
I think the church/state matter does cause a lot of confusion, and it's going in both directions. The "civil union" compromise - as long as it does include all the same civil rights as marriage - would remedy the civil rights discrepancies, but a lot of gays - perhaps sensing momentum moving in their favor, or just being fed up with general second-class status - are saying "nothing less than full marriage is acceptable," which then causes the religious and leery to fear that gay marriage will find its way to their church.
My overall point here is that if 60% think - at least in the back of their minds - that legal recognition of gay marriage is inevitable, then they have already reconciled with it at some level, AND they recognize that ultimately it is a civil rights issue, and regardless of their own feelings on the matter, civil rights cannot be denied under law.
I think this should be seen as very encouraging to those who favor gay marriage, where a majority of minds have accepted it as inevitable and just, even if their hearts lag behind.
13 - boomcrashbaby
Being someone who's activism towards gay marriage is limited to my pocketbook and my comments, both online and in the 'real' world, I only discuss gay marriage when the issue is brought up. And I should point out that I have spoken with literally hundreds of gay couples seeking equality. And it should be noted that not a single couple or individual is seeking those who are against gay marriage to modify their views. We have our churches (Unitarian). We want to get married in city hall as well, because our entire agenda is equality with the government.
Please note that I am not speaking for the extreme activists who protest the cathedral in NYC or the like. These extreme activists are as much a minority in the gay community as Fred Phelps and his congregration are a minority in the heterosexual community.
Our beef is WITH THE GOVERNMENT, both state and federal. Our beef is with corporations (spousal benefits, etc.) - although that battle can be pretty much considered won.
To think that we want to be integrated into YOUR religious community is as absurd as an African American fighting to become a Klansman. So hopefully that clears things up. And as I stated before, if the heterosexual community wants to call what I have a civil union and not a marriage, then personally, I am 100% okay with that, as long as in terms of governmental recognition it is 100% the same, (we do not seek more and we cannot accept less) although I think it's silly to have two things equal but have a need to call them different names. But that's fine if that is a compromise.
14 - boomcrashbaby
Eric, when the gay community says that civil unions do not equal marriage, it is because as civil unions currently stand, they only cover about 5% of what marriage covers. If civil unions are 100% the same as marriage then there will be a lot more, (moving into the majority) who will 'settle' for it. Although there will always be those who think differently. No group is ever 100% in agreement with itself, not even the heterosexual community.
After all, Vermont offers civil unions equal to that of marriage and how many gay people are currently battling Vermont?
15 - Sandra Smallson
Oh Dear! Slap me upside the head and hump me sideways! What is this about, now? Boomcrash, I don't care what they call it. Civil union or marriage. I dare say "they" don't care what they call it either. Again, I have no interest or desire to integrate gays into my religious beliefs. I dare say, "they" could not care less either. Please, rest assured, that I tell you as it is.
The problem with some gays is that once somebody shows some skepticism about gay marriages or disinterest or conditional opinions such as mine, they go off on a tangent about nothing. Why on earth do you think the church would want to integrate gays into "their" system? What is that about?
...Because one is not jumping at the bits chanting "let them marry" does not mean one does not understand your issues. Because one understands your issues does not mean one has to discard one's beliefs completely. Therefore, because one then states these opinions, does not mean one has any interest in integrating you anywhere or naming your coupledom.
Me thinks you credit "us" with far too much interest in the little details of your fight. "They" are only interested in one issue and one issue alone..we can not carry out gay marriage ceremonies. They can attend the mass/service if they want but due to moral stance, the ceremony can not take place in "our" churches. Yes, go do it in the Unitarian church wherever it is,
I mean, what's the beef here! Goodness! It seems a certain section of gays can't be pleased no matter the concessions. Always ready to do battle when there is no battle to be fought. Soon, you'll start fighting amongst yourselves.
16 - boomcrashbaby
I have no interest or desire to integrate gays into my religious beliefs. Please, rest assured, that I tell you as it is.
As my post clearly stated, we have no interest or desire to be integrated into your religious beliefs.
,i>Why on earth do you think the church would want to integrate gays into "their" system? What is that about?
As my post clearly stated, we have no interest or desire to be integrated into your religious institution.
because one then states these opinions, does not mean one has any interest in integrating you anywhere or naming your coupledom.
As my post clearly stated, we have no interest or desire to be integrated into your religious beliefs.
"They" are only interested in one issue and one issue alone..we can not carry out gay marriage ceremonies. They can attend the mass/service if they want but due to moral stance, the ceremony can not take place in "our" churches.
As my post clearly stated, we have no interest or desire to be integrated into your religious institution.
17 - boomcrashbaby
It seems to me the problem we face here is that some people cannot separate their church from their government.
18 - Sandra Smallson
LOL..Boomcrash..no matter how old you are, you can still be baptised. What date do you want to set up for baptism? catholic or anglican? We will welcome you with open arms. Really. I sense a struggle within you. You obviously will so dearly love to be accepted by religious institutions. Poor baby:) You can't have everything, sugar pie:)
Indeed, you are unable to seperate govt and church. In a calmer moment, read my posts on this topic. When all the adrenalin from your last march has worn off:) I simply stated my opinions and you started accusing me and them..lol..of wanting to integrate you into our beliefs.
Like we haven't got enough problems our damn selves. We've got more important issues than worrying about integrating gays. Is self obsession/ self importance running rampant over there?! I had no idea it was a pre-requisite and if I wasn't aware of gays without all the chips of the Taj Mahal on their shoulders, you would definitely have convinced me that those two traits were necessary requirements when batting for the other side. Unbelievable!
19 - boomcrashbaby
I've been baptized.
Indeed, you are unable to seperate govt and church. In a calmer moment, read my posts on this topic.
I did. I asked you if the 'fear' was that your congregration was afraid that we would want to marry in your church. You said yes. That has nothing to do with us currently suing the government for recognition, but it is still your fear.
It's interesting to note that should a gay person speak out on their own behalf, they are angry and militant. Caps and exclaimation points signify shouting and anger on a blog. At no time is an anonymous person who types a message on the web, capable of getting me angry. Perhaps it's actually the other way around, when someone is in a discussion that runs counter to their religion, then all other participants are angry and bitter and need to be saved. It certainly appears that way here.
20 - RJ Elliott
BCB:
I guess we actually AGREE here. Gays can get all the rights that a marriage entails, but it is termed a "civil union" instead of a marriage. And churches are allowed to refuse performing the ceremonies.
Is this a fair compromise? I think so. I think everybody wins.
21 - Natalie Davis
Except those who don't believe in the concept of "separate but equal." I find the notion of "civil union" repugnant. If het pairs can marry legally -- and this has nothing to do with what goes on in discriminatory churches; they are free to discriminate at will -- morally, so should GLBT couples. Anything less is not equality at all.
22 - RJ Elliott
Ms. Davis:
This is not "seperate but equal" by a long shot. You don't have to ride in the back of the bus. You do not have seperate drinking fountains. You get everything you want, except a fucking WORD.
This isn't good enough for you?
23 - Mac Diva
I'm going to agree with Eric that for Americans this is progress. A surprisingly high proportion of the population usually fails to grasp any legal issue. For example, when the Bill of Rights is read to men (and women) on the street, many say they disagree with its provisions. So, to have them make the distinction between their 'moral' opposition to gay marriage, while accepting that gays may have a right to equal treatment under the law, is something. Enough? No, But, something.
24 - Sandra Smallson
Boom crash, I am not going to argue with your emotions. You have deliberately ignored the replacement of fear with "issue" and "them" with "I". I understand.
I have stated my opinions. They are what they are and I am what I am. Ditto for you, I presume. That's all.
25 - boomcrashbaby
I guess we actually AGREE here. Gays can get all the rights that a marriage entails, but it is termed a "civil union" instead of a marriage. And churches are allowed to refuse performing the ceremonies.
Using the Mass. ruling as an example, because that is the only place that currently has decided that gay marriage is Just, (well, except for Alaska and Hawaii, who already decided that, but then the general public freaked and had to modify their state constitutions), when they said gays are allowed to be married, that is not the same thing as saying a priest has to perform the marriage. The ruling does not extend INTO the church, it applies to the state government. Gay people can get married there soon, in city hall and in their own churches. This in no way forces any church to go against their religious belief. Some other people should read the actual court ruling before they go making irrational judgements about the non-issue of having to modify their biblical teachings.
Is this a fair compromise? I think so. I think everybody wins
Like I said, personally, I'm fine with it, although I think it's stupid. I said on another thread, if you want your ice cream cone and you want me to call mine a frozen dairy product on top of an edible holding device, then fine. Whatever. It's still a freaking ice cream cone, and I'm going to refer to it as such, but you can call it whatever you want if it makes you feel you haven't strayed from God by doing so.
My own belief, RJ, is that the benefits of marriage that are bestowed by the state and the government and the human resources departments across the land, are there to help the family foundation. By providing tax credits, filing jointly, the automatic transfer of benefits upon death, spousal privilege in the judicial system, whatever. They are to assist the family unit and make the family stronger. Well, I have a family, those are what I want, NOT access to a church who's philosophy is fundamentally illogical and flawed.
As far as the overuse of the word 'fear' by myself and others, I will need to learn to keep it in check. Sometimes when I use the word, I am referring to a phobia, and sometimes when I use it, it's just a general description like "I'm afraid we're going to have to have leftovers tonight". I realize online that it's hard to make the distinction now, so I'll need to be more cautious with the word.
Last night, my partner and I took our daughter to Toys R Us. We needed to get a larger car seat. When we were standing by the door, waiting for someone to bring one up from the back, a lady approached me. I was holding my daughter and I had noticed the lady was watching us for a few minutes before she approached me. She mentioned that she taught music for children, my daughters age, (and their parents) in the nearby church on Wednesdays and Fridays. She could tell my daughter was musically inclined because we were singing together and she was having a ball. She turned to my partner and asked who he was. He mentioned he was her father. She looked surprised (being biologically mine, my daughter looks like me, so the assumption people will always make is that I am the dad) and then she turned to me with the question, I knew was coming, on her face. I said I was her father too, and that she had two dads. She just turned and walked out the door. Who was punished here, RJ? A 20 month old child. That's who. A 20 month old innocent soul, who is probably going to be heterosexual, is being punished and excluded. THAT is not following the word of Christ. Christ does not shut the door on the sinner, rather he extends the hand of compassion.
When I was in my teens and coming to terms with my sexuality, I attended Christian church regularly. Our church had three pastors and one of them had a son who was gay. Because the son had a difficult time in the bible belt where we grew up, he eventually moved to london to be one of those cathedral bell-ringers. The old blue-haired ladies who donate the most money to the church, thereby ending up really running things, voted this pastor of 25 years out of the church because they objected to his son being gay. This was almost 20 years ago. This pastor still attends that church but in a non-official role, because he knows his place is there. This pastor is straight, BTW.
I have accepted Jesus a long time ago, and I talk with God often, but I am completely disillusioned with the church. Time and time again, I see them punish straight people, I see them shut the door on gay people, I see them cling to biblical beliefs that run contrary to Jesus's teachings on a daily basis. Nowhere in the struggle for marriage are we seeking to modify their beliefs. They will have to answer to God on judgement day for that one.
My daughter will probably have to be home schooled. The alternative is to put her in a PUBLIC school system that is going to be AFRAID to mention that families like hers exist for FEAR of a lawsuit. This is further reason why I need marriage/civil union/frozen-dairy-whatever recognition from the government. Because it's going to be a difficult road ahead to protect my family from the millions of religious fanatics out there who believe they are doing the moral and just thing by punishing those who commit sins that they don't commit. Having completely forgotten that many sins of the bible include eating shellfish, women wearing makeup, working on the Sabbath, etc. We live in a world where religion gets to pick and choose it's sins for convenience, disregard those sins that they commit and punish others who commit sins that they don't commit. I DO NOT want to be part of a church who does that.