Ancalagon the Black Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 I know this is a topic that usually ends up in flame wars, with one side yelling "butt pirates!" and the other side yelling "ignorant redneck homophobes!" but I thought I'd post this article anyway as I find it to be eloquent and fascinating in its historical detail. Who knows? It may lead to a civil debate. Oh, and as for the source, he is a respected minister who I admired greatly as a college student. This admiration was shared by people from all walks of life--he is an honest man of principle and grace. So, of course you're free to say about the author what you want, but if you start name-calling, then you'll instantly lose credibility with me. _____ For Massachusetts, a Chance and a Choice By Peter J. Gomes, 2/8/2004 WHEN THE PILGRIMS landed at Plymouth in 1620, among the first things they did for the well-ordering of their new commonwealth was to institute the Dutch custom of civil marriage with which they had become familiar during their long sojourn in the Netherlands. The Dutch made civil marriage the law of the land in 1590, and the first marriage in New England, that of Edward Winslow to the widow Susannah White, was performed on May 12, 1621, in Plymouth by Governor William Bradford, in exercise of his office as magistrate. There would be no clergyman in Plymouth until the arrival of The Rev. Ralph Smith in 1629, but even then marriage would continue to be a civil affair, as these first Puritans opposed the English custom of clerical marriage as unscriptural. Not until 1692, when Plymouth Colony was merged into that of Massachusetts Bay, were the clergy authorized by the new province to solemnize marriages. To this day in this Commonwealth the clergy, including those of the archdiocese, solemnize marriage legally as agents of the Commonwealth and by its civil authority. Chapter 207 of the General Laws of Massachusetts tells who may perform such ceremonies. This little bit of social and legal history should prove instructive in the current debate concerning marriage in this Commonwealth, and the controversial ruling thereon by the Supreme Judicial Court in Goodridge vs. Department of Public Health. The petitioners did not address religious issues, and the court's ruling was not premised on religious grounds: Marriage, its definition, rights, and responsibilities, was understood here as a civil matter, as it has been since 1621. Thus, while the legitimate interests of religious communities in what some of them regard as the sacrament of marriage are worthy of consideration, those interests must not be confused either with the civil law of the Commonwealth or the civil rights of the citizens under its constitution. No clergy of any denomination are required to wed anyone of whose union they do not approve: There is no civil right to be married in church or with its blessing. The civil law is just that, and the distinction between it and ecclesiastical law is as important as the necessary distinction between church and state. Surely, after two years of protracted debate between church law and civil law in the child-abuse scandals we should appreciate the necessity of these distinctions. It is to the civil rights of the citizens of Massachusetts that the Supreme Judicial Court responded in the Goodridge case, and this was no attack on the church, nor on religion. It was recognition that the social custom restricting marriage to heterosexuals, a custom long sanctioned by church and society, was no longer to be regarded as consistent with the rights of citizens under the constitution. We have seen this before. When the courts eventually invalidated long-established laws sanctioned by church and society that forbade interracial marriage, the so-called "miscegenation" laws that obtained in many parts of this country within living memory, the courts that did this were invariably maligned as interventionist, arbitrary, and usurpatious. Most now would agree that those laws were wrong, indeed unconstitutional, and that the courts were right in their judgments on behalf of the petitioners. "Judicial tyranny" is a phrase usually heard from those whose prejudices have not been sustained by a court's decision. Happily, the fundamental rights of citizens in this Commonwealth and republic are in the long run defended against another form of tyranny even more dangerous, the tyranny of the majority. Legislatures more often than not are subject to the prevailing passions of any majority that can muster sufficient votes; rarely are legislatures in the first instance instruments of social change. It was, after all, legislators who, reflecting the views of those who elected them, kept in place every oppressive law on the books until challenged by aggrieved citizens who sought relief in the courts. If society waited for majority opinion and legislative action, African-Americans, for example, would still be enduring the indignities of separate but equal accommodation and the other manifestations of legal, social, and political segregation. If the decision of the Supreme Judicial Court in Goodridge is "judicial tyranny," let there be more of it. In the forthcoming constitutional convention, the legislature will be pressured to develop a politically expedient alternative to the clear and unambiguous meaning of the Supreme Judicial Court's Goodridge decision. It will be a stretch of rationality if it can do so. His excellency the governor is as misguided in his efforts to find an agreeable alternative to the court's decision as he is in seeking an error-proof justification for the reintroduction of capital punishment into this commonwealth. Surely, he has other matters with which to concern himself. These legislative and executive maneuvers are not unlike those of such southern Democrats as Harry Flood Byrd, George Corley Wallace, and Strom Thurmond, who, after Brown v. Board of Education, which just 50 years ago mandated the end of segregation in public schools, sought to use every political and legislative means at their considerable disposal to nullify the meaning of the court's unprecedented decision. Is there anyone, save for the most retro-racist, who says now that Byrd, Wallace, and Thurmond were right and Earl Warren and his court wrong? William Sloane Coffin, former Yale chaplain, civil rights and antiwar activist, in his most recent book defines hell as "truth seen too late." History indicts those who in time of trouble and transition choose the past over the future. There are always conscientious people of deeply held religious conviction who, alas, on the basis of those convictions find themselves on the wrong side of history, such as those in our own Commonwealth who hanged witches in the 17th century and embraced the fugitive slave laws in the 19th century; and those who in our own time find the support of custom, reason, and faith in their prejudices against Roman Catholics, Jews, and persons of other colors and ethnicities. This resistance to extending not special rights but civil rights to homosexuals in marriage is but the most recent instance of this dubious legacy, and is not made any more palatable or respectable today by the support given to it by visible and highly placed clergy across denominational lines, from whom we have a right to expect better. The way to the future is always paved by extending, not restricting, liberties, especially to those who heretofore have been excluded. The health of a republic may well be determined by its capacity to adapt itself to the extension of its own privileges and responsibilities to those whom it would be easy by custom and conviction to ignore. John Adams's Massachusetts Constitution, the oldest such document in the world, laid down the rational basis for a civil body politic whose capacious hospitality has successively embraced people and views not contemplated by the founders. The Great and General Court ought not to betray the fundamental principles of our Commonwealth's constitution by promulgating amendments that will, for the first time in our history, restrict rather than extend the rights and liberties of all of our citizens. To do so will do nothing to restore the difficult circumstances of modern marriage. Divorce will not be halted, abuse will not be eliminated, frivolous heterosexual liaisons such as the recent publicity stunt of Britney Spears will still be lawful, and annulments will still be sought and obtained in the church courts. Nothing will be done to save marriage, and yet in the name of doing so, incalculable, retrogressive, and even punitive damage will be done to those of our fellow citizens who under the civil law crave the legitimization of their loving relationships. The defense of marriage demands much more than legislative manipulation enshrining the status quo. The defenders of traditional marriage argue that marriage has been a heterosexual affair since "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve," and at the same time they argue that this exclusively heterosexual institution is in serious trouble. Logic would suggest that such troubles as marriage experiences cannot be laid at the door of those who have been, at least until Goodridge, rigorously excluded from it. To extend the civil right of marriage to homosexuals will neither solve nor complicate the problems already inherent in marriage, but what it will do is permit a whole class of persons, our fellow citizens under the law heretofore irrationally deprived of a civil right, both to benefit from and participate in a valuable yet vulnerable institution which in our changing society needs all the help it can get. The Legislature has a choice, and a chance to do the right thing. In this case, it is to do nothing. That shouldn't be so hard. Peter J. Gomes is the Plummer Professor of Christian Morals and Pusey Minister in the Memorial Church at Harvard University. He is an American Baptist minister. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 What a F*G!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! TOTALLY JUST KIDDING-- Sorry ATB. I am in humor mode right now and can't stop. There is nothing else for me to do on this board as of now. I'd like to at least contribute that much thank you very much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Punani2 Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 sry double post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 I saw a show on the history channel last week, it was pretty interesting, it was called Sex in the Bible. There was of course a section on homosexuality. They pointed out that Jesus never made a referance to homosexuality, but to compare, he was very much against divorce and adultry. They told the story where an adultress was about to be stoned and he told the crowd, let the person who has committed no sin, cast the first stone. Their point was that even if the old testament condems homosexual acts, the hatred and un civil treatment towards them was more "un christian" than the homosexual act itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvan Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 I don't know what that was all about but if you're truely a Christian you cannonot beleive in gay marriage . Let them read the word of God. By the way GO SKINS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancalagon the Black Posted February 13, 2004 Author Share Posted February 13, 2004 IAMBG, whatever you write is better than insinuating that Bayougator is a liar. Code, the interaction between the morals espoused by the Old Testament and those espoused by the New Testament is very interesting. Mardi Gras Skins posted here the other day saying that God's will is steady, but societal views change--and that's why we see what only appears to be a morality shift. I think that that view is problematic, but it's a fascinating perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancalagon the Black Posted February 13, 2004 Author Share Posted February 13, 2004 Originally posted by tvan I don't know what that was all about but if you're truely a Christian you cannonot beleive in gay marriage . Let them read the word of God. No, you clearly do not know what it is all about. Let me reproduce the byline for you, so you can judge for yourself whether or not this person has read the word of God: Peter J. Gomes is the Plummer Professor of Christian Morals and Pusey Minister in the Memorial Church at Harvard University. He is an American Baptist minister. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 Originally posted by Ancalagon the Black Code, the interaction between the morals espoused by the Old Testament and those espoused by the New Testament is very interesting. Mardi Gras Skins posted here the other day saying that God's will is steady, but societal views change--and that's why we see what only appears to be a morality shift. I think that that view is problematic, but it's a fascinating perspective. Great observation. What gets me is all the guys saying that homosexuality is wrong because it's in the bible... Well, again, Jesus wasn't too concerned about it, he didn't even mention it. Yet he was VERY opposed to Divorce and Adultry, two things that liberals and conservatives participate in on a frequent basis. Oh... but lets pick on the queers... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dblsldyllwlne Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 homosexuality was added into the bible for it threatned reproduction...which then turned into a sin to be interested in the same sex..which in turn birthed homophobia...and so on and so forth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Punani2 Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 BUTT PIRATES!!! j/k I have some serious problem with his logic. First, he talks about the marriage as a civil institution. Yes, that is correct BUT the whole ideals of marriage are based in religion. That's where the concept of marriage comes from. When I hear someone say they are going to get married I always think it's going to be in a church. When I hear some one say they are going to have a civil ceremony then I think courthouse. There is a difference between the two. Then he starts comparing this to the civil rights movement, the Salem Witch trials, etc. which is totally insane and insulting to say the least. Let's remember we are talking about giving rights to individuals based on who their attracted to. There are always conscientious people of deeply held religious conviction who, alas, on the basis of those convictions find themselves on the wrong side of history, such as those in our own Commonwealth who hanged witches in the 17th century and embraced the fugitive slave laws in the 19th century; and those who in our own time find the support of custom, reason, and faith in their prejudices against Roman Catholics, Jews, and persons of other colors and ethnicities I don't think so in this case. If this guy thinks being against Gay Marriage is on the "wrong side of history" I would love to see him back that up in scripture. I'll bet my life he cannot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dblsldyllwlne Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 in this day and age...marriage and religon don't quite mesh as they used to....churches are still the classic and traditional form of a wedding...but more and more your seeing people being married in other places...the world is become less religious...thus marriage is become less sacred and religous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancalagon the Black Posted February 13, 2004 Author Share Posted February 13, 2004 JP, I don't think that you can find progressive ideas being backed up in scripture. For example, there's nowhere in the Bible where it claims that miscegenation is OK, but most people these days (apart from the hardest of hard-core racists) agree that it should be legal. I don't believe the comparison to civil rights and the witch trials is insulting. He says that people are often motivated by religious beliefs, but that they are wrong in their reasoning. An apt analogy, I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Punani2 Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 Originally posted by codeorama Great observation. What gets me is all the guys saying that homosexuality is wrong because it's in the bible... Well, again, Jesus wasn't too concerned about it, he didn't even mention it. Yet he was VERY opposed to Divorce and Adultry, two things that liberals and conservatives participate in on a frequent basis. Oh... but lets pick on the queers... Code, the reason why Jesus talked about Divorce and Adultery was because the Jews thought because of so called loop holes in Jewish Law they could get away with stuff like that. He was clarifying that to them. He was trying to get them to understand that what's in your heart makes more of a difference then what your outwardly actions are. That's why Jesus said "if you lust after a woman you have committed Adultery" I feel the reason why he never went into homosexuality was because it was already specifically talked about in Jewish Law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 Originally posted by Ancalagon the Black IAMBG, whatever you write is better than insinuating that Bayougator is a liar. You know I actually thought that Sarge was overreacting with his post that started the whole backlash, but I am seeing his point these days. I am pretty much ignoring fedex field forums. Everything is whiny and redundant........ It'll get better. I know it. Just have to let Art go nuts here for a bit........:laugh: Whoa there went another one..........:paranoid: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Punani2 Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 Originally posted by Ancalagon the Black JP, I don't think that you can find progressive ideas being backed up in scripture. For example, there's nowhere in the Bible where it claims that miscegenation is OK, but most people these days (apart from the hardest of hard-core racists) agree that it should be legal. I don't believe the comparison to civil rights and the witch trials is insulting. He says that people are often motivated by religious beliefs, but that they are wrong in their reasoning. An apt analogy, I think. Why would the Bible need to say it's ok? Since the bible says that all people came from Adam and Eve then everyone is one race to begin with. I don't think there is really any comparison at all between them. Esp the civil rights stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancalagon the Black Posted February 13, 2004 Author Share Posted February 13, 2004 According to a December editorial in the NYT, "A 1958 poll found that 96% of whites disapproved of marriages between blacks and whites (Deuteronomy 7:3 condemns interracial marriages). In 1959 a judge justified Virginia’s ban on interracial marriage by declaring that ‘Almighty God ... did not intend for the races to mix.’" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 According to a December editorial in the NYT, "A 1958 poll found that 96% of whites disapproved of marriages between blacks and whites Wow, it was that high For god sakes people used the bible to justify slavery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Punani2 Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 Originally posted by Ancalagon the Black According to a December editorial in the NYT, "A 1958 poll found that 96% of whites disapproved of marriages between blacks and whites (Deuteronomy 7:3 condemns interracial marriages). In 1959 a judge justified Virginia’s ban on interracial marriage by declaring that ‘Almighty God ... did not intend for the races to mix.’" Yes, but where is the scripture that backs up their thinking? There is the difference... Also, Deuteronomy 7:3 doesn't condemn interracial marriage... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dblsldyllwlne Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 god/the holy bible/ a higher power...is the ultimate justifier....it is so open to interpretation people can make it mean whatever they want it to mean....thats why its hard for me to base my whole moral system of such a shaky piece of literature...the bible can go from being a very positive reinforcement of basic morals....to a justified excuse for something that obviously was not meant to have that sense of connotation...the bible teaches great basic moral values...but since it is such a great sorce of power...it can be corrupted and molded far too easily Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phat Hog Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 I guess if you isolate any part or person in the Bible, you can make up just about anything you want (ie: Judas went and hanged himself… go thou and do likewise). Since we are on the subject of homosexuality in the context of a particular Christian’s point of view, though Jesus said nothing specifically about the subject hardly means that the whole counsel of the Bible is silent on the matter – the context of the whole is the key. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 If everyone is so for gay marriages then where are they?? I don't see long lines of guys screaming or yelling. Remember guys don't even want to get married now you have 2 of them :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OaktonSkins/BushFan Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040213/D80M44180.html :puke: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phat Hog Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 Phyllis Lyon, left, 79, and Del Martin, 82 This is why we need the ban ! :puke: :thud: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OaktonSkins/BushFan Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 Originally posted by Phat Hog Phyllis Lyon, left, 79, and Del Martin, 82 This is why we need the ban ! :puke: :thud: And what purpose have they served in life other than to fulfill their own selfish desires? Sad, very sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OaktonSkins/BushFan Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 If I were Arnold, I would immediately reprimand and punish all responsible San Franciscan politicians. I would also rescind their unlawful action and enforce the law by all means necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.