*swoon*

[jazzfish]

Dr rivka FTW. Twice, even.

I think it's entirely reasonable for religious organizations to be able to declare that gay marriage isn't marriage by their definition - that they won't perform those marriages in their churches, and won't recognize those couples as being married in the eyes of the church. I don't agree with that point of view, but I consider it to be up to the members of those denominations.

What is not reasonable, in my mind, is for religious denominations to say that it would somehow be injurious to their faith if my friends Charles and Glen, who have been together for nearly thirty years, could share health benefits and have widowers' rights to each other's Social Security benefits. When you claim that your religious rights are infringed upon unless rights are withheld from other people, that's where you've lost me.

Comments

[heptadecagram.livejournal.com]

It's great. I love her words. They're crystal clear. But the problem is that a surprisingly large number of the population opposing gay marriages come from the same denominations that oppose women ordination. You'd have to approach it just right, probably getting them to admit that (1) The ordination of women is a moral issue, and (2) even though it is a moral issue, it should not be a law, and (3) homosexual marriage is a moral issue, so it should not be a law. You could trap the person in this way, but that's still not likely to change their mind: gays are Wrong and Bad the same way murder is Wrong and Bad. Soddom and Gommorah were destroyed because they tolerated gay people, not because they were inhospitable and suspicious. The only thing that really changes them is for them to meet gay people who are willing to be their friends.