Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   New York Times editorial board: "Religious groups shouldn't be allowed to dictate who can and can't get married." No, the New York Times editorial board should make that call   (nytimes.com) divider line
    More: Amusing  
•       •       •

633 clicks; posted to Politics » on 25 Apr 2007 at 5:58 PM (15 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



36 Comments     (+0 »)
 
2007-04-25 4:49:49 PM  
Who, in particular, has the NYT said CAN'T get married?

Can = freedom. Can't = non-freedom.

Why does subby hate freedom?
 
2007-04-25 4:57:20 PM  
No, they should be the only ones to dictate that. But only for ceremonies within the religious group. They should stay out of other groups' business, and the government should stay out of it entirely.
 
2007-04-25 4:58:06 PM  
Ok, if I have to choose one or the other then I choose the NYT.

Are those really my only choices in the matter ?

Really ?
 
2007-04-25 4:59:15 PM  
No, they should be the only ones to dictate that. But only for ceremonies within the religious group. They should stay out of other groups' business, and the government should stay out of it entirely.

QFT
 
2007-04-25 5:27:57 PM  
No, the New York Times editorial board should make that call

No, dumbmitter, the parties should make the call. WTF is your problem?
 
2007-04-25 5:46:34 PM  
That's exactly what they said, subby. Way to go.
 
2007-04-25 6:19:55 PM  
It should be clear that these religious institutions have the right to refuse to marry anyone within their own religious houses. But they should not be allowed to dictate who can and cannot be married by the state.

Uh, Subby, I don't see anything there where the NYT editorial board is saying that they get to be next Reverend Moon.
 
2007-04-25 6:23:12 PM  
Welcome to the dumbest greenlit thread since the redesign, folks.

I bet someone could top it pretty quick, though.
 
2007-04-25 6:23:57 PM  
Subby appears to be a 26%er. Let us know how the rapture works out for you.
 
2007-04-25 6:24:16 PM  
No, they should be the only ones to dictate that. But only for ceremonies within the religious group. They should stay out of other groups' business, and the government should stay out of it entirely.

agreed, i guess i am third or fourth to qft ya...lol
 
2007-04-25 6:24:31 PM  
Stupid, stupid Subby. Bad evil stupid Subby.
 
2007-04-25 6:30:42 PM  
incendi: No, they should be the only ones to dictate that. But only for ceremonies within the religious group. They should stay out of other groups' business, and the government should stay out of it entirely.

TFA: Mr. Spitzer is right to be fighting for gay marriage. Civil unions and domestic partnerships are an important recognition of gay relationships by a state. But they still represent separate and unequal treatment. One federal study identified more than 1,100 rights or benefits that are accorded only to the legally married. That means that even in states recognizing civil unions and domestic partnerships, gay couples often have to use legal contortions to protect their families in ways that married couples take for granted. Gay couples may also be discriminated against when it comes to taxes and pension benefits.

According to TFA, Government has already got its hands deeply entwined in marriage.
 
2007-04-25 6:32:57 PM  
I don't know what the NYT editorial board has do do with this story but religious institutions shouldn't be allowed to dictate ANYTHING to ANYBODY but their own sheeple.
 
2007-04-25 6:36:06 PM  
Dear Mods: Read Taranto every day. Some days he's hilarious, some days he's insightful, some days he's meh and some days he's wrong. But every single day someone swipes his stuff and submits it to you, unattributed. You guys get mad when the morning DJ's take their stuff off of Fark without attribution, right? Well, that.
 
2007-04-25 6:39:26 PM  
They do have this on the opinion page and I have no troubles w/ that.
 
2007-04-25 6:40:18 PM  
The government shouldn't issue marriage licenses at all. Both sides are mistaken in thinking that their romantic union somehow finds legitimacy in the approval of the state.

/god new fark sucks balls
 
2007-04-25 6:40:56 PM  
No, the government should have no say in the word "marriage" at all.
 
2007-04-25 6:42:48 PM  
Misch: According to TFA, Government has already got its hands deeply entwined in marriage.


Then the solution is to get them out of that. To get rid of government sanctioned-marriage altogether, instead of just expanding it to include whatever new group wants it.
 
2007-04-25 6:46:59 PM  
I think the issue should be decided by the democratic process. The people, through their elected representatives, should make the call.
 
2007-04-25 7:21:38 PM  
hmm Fark newness...
 
2007-04-25 7:36:06 PM  
Actually, the government shouldn't be allowed to dictate who can and can't be married. They should be concerned with enforcing contract law instead. Let couples or other groups whip up a handy-dandy contract to cover what would normally be covered by a marriage license, and let people define their relationship however they want.
 
2007-04-25 8:05:06 PM  
We would be better off with the marriage protection amendment because we aren’t ready for the repercussions of gay marriage and the negative effects on our society (and with the way the liberals are, we’ll probably never will).
 
2007-04-25 8:08:17 PM  
neuroticus:
Actually, the government shouldn't be allowed to dictate who can and can't be married. They should be concerned with enforcing contract law instead. Let couples or other groups whip up a handy-dandy contract to cover what would normally be covered by a marriage license, and let people define their relationship however they want.

Yes, but then men will be marrying turtles.

As it stands, two men or two women can go through the exact same motions as a heterosexual couple, kiss at the altar and say "I do", and then head off to the government office to make it official... where they will then be denied the right to do so as a heterosexual couple would. that is the government discriminating... not the New York Times.
 
2007-04-25 8:09:29 PM  
incendi

No, they should be the only ones to dictate that. But only for ceremonies within the religious group. They should stay out of other groups' business, and the government should stay out of it entirely.

So you think only religious people should be able to marry? Face it marriage has long been both a state as well as religious institution.

The issue seems very straightforward and simple to me. Some religious denominations will marry people of the same sex, so the states refusal to treat these marriages in the same way as marriages in other denominations is discrimination against the first denomination. Also just because the state might consider a same sex coupled legally married, doesn't mean you or your church have to consider them married spiritually.
 
2007-04-25 9:25:54 PM  
(Me): Actually, the government shouldn't be allowed to dictate who can and can't be married. They should be concerned with enforcing contract law instead. Let couples or other groups whip up a handy-dandy contract to cover what would normally be covered by a marriage license, and let people define their relationship however they want.

No Such Agency: Yes, but then men will be marrying turtles.

Turtles sign contracts really slowly.
 
2007-04-25 10:20:01 PM  
Alien Syndrome

What an insightful, coherent comment. Let me just ask you to clear up a few points.

What negative effects on our society? What repercussions? And if, by chance, there are some, how are liberals at fault for us not being ready?

So, yeah, could you clear up all of your points, please?

Did the mods import a bunch of incoherent freepers with the redesign?
 
2007-04-25 10:27:40 PM  
what Beast_Ice said.

Refusal to honor an ordained, same-sex marriage is a direct violation of freedom of religion; and existance of marriage-based benefits (especially tax treatment) is an abridgement of church and state, unless church has no grounds for dictating terms of marriage, in which case our taliban have no grounds for interference in the first place.

/fark taliban, wherever they exist.
//especially the ones here.
 
2007-04-25 11:00:41 PM  
I just had this conversation with a guy who is pretty reasonable just yesterday, we were talking about religion in general and I was arguing that bible based legal systems create problems so eventually we got to gay marriage. His argument essentially boiled down to seeing two men walking as a couple was about the same as a naked person walking down the street. A lot of people would be disturbed by it. I could care less.

My theory is that people who are threated by catching the gay probably have a little bit of it in them already and they don't want to be outcast in their own circles, otherwise why the stress? Hell, gay guys have hit on me even offered to put me up in a place and take care of me. Sure it's weird but who gives a damn. Not like women haven't made the same offer. I've even had a few close friends hit on me, is it any different than when a female friend does it? Do you just tell either friend that you don't want to know them anymore. Nah, you get past it, eventually they realize it was a phase.

But if you have some huge prejudice because your church tells you that satan's going to throw a case of the gay your way then there isn't really a damn thing anyone is ever going to say to change your mind.
 
2007-04-26 12:07:19 AM  
The only reason marriage has become a government institution is because some bonehead decided to write tax breaks for married couples into tax law. The spirit of that law was to acknowledge that the family bread-winner (who, at that time, was the man who was the sole source of income for the family) was providing for more than himself and was give deductions to reflect his wife and children to ease his tax burden. Up till then the government didn't sanction marriage. The government should stop recognizing marriage altogether and instead recognize domestic partnerships allow for homo and hetero partnerships. Marriage has ALWAYS been a religious institution since the beginning of organized religion. If a church wishes to accept and encourage homosexual marriages then so be it. If a church has historically and traditionally discouraged homosexuality and wishes to continue to do so then I say let it. After all one of America's founding was that congress would write no laws that establish a state religion. This has been interpreted to mean a separation of church and state. That concept in itself permits, nay empowers, religion to discriminate, AS IT SHOULD BE.

To recap, government should NOT in any way be in the business of marriage and provide for domestic partnerships regardless of the orientation of the couples in the partnership. Churches SHOULD be in the marriage business. Besides, if a church believes and preaches that homosexual relationships are sinful and a path to damnation, why would a gay couple want to beg for acceptance with a title of marriage? Why would a gay couple want to be accepted into a bigoted institution? Take some pride in who and what you are. Don't beg to join a party where you are not invited.
 
2007-04-26 1:40:04 AM  
Churchill2004

The government shouldn't issue marriage licenses at all. Both sides are mistaken in thinking that their romantic union somehow finds legitimacy in the approval of the state.

I agree that government shouldn't be involved with "marriage" at all. But there are important reasons why the government should issue civil union certificates. All sorts of things like hospital visitation rights, inheritance, etc. depend on this.

I don't know but it actually feels like this entire argument boils down to semantics and the use of the word "marriage". I'm fine with limiting that to the religious rites and having the state use some other phrasing.
 
2007-04-26 2:13:55 AM  
Churches farked up when they let a religious ceremony become a legal document. Now marriage should be subject to the same equal-rights laws that apply to everything else.

So religions should either take it back all together and let everyone get civil unions for legal purposes or just shut the fark up.

\straight
\\would gladly donate my right to get married to a gay person
 
2007-04-26 3:24:10 AM  
direvarg

The only reason marriage has become a government institution is because some bonehead decided to write tax breaks for married couples into tax law.

Actually, I don't think this is true at all. At the very least marriage licenses have existed throughout the history of the US. In any case If you look at marriage throughout history, you will see that in ancient greece and rome for instance marriage was not of a religious nature at all but simply a contract between individuals, contract legality I assume was governed by the state/city state back then as well. Also elements of the protestant reformation supported the regulation of marriage by secular authorities(as it was before the catholic church began changing the roman tradition of marriage).
 
2007-04-26 11:37:26 AM  
As long as the government is involved in "marriage", then religion has no right to dictate the terms upon which marriage will be granted. They lost that right as soon as it became the key to government benefits and special rights.

The solution to this "problem" is so blindingly obvious, and has been implemented by other governments already. Just get the government out of the business of marriage, call ALL marriages "domestic partnerships" as far as government is concerned, and let the religious people call it whatever they want.

A related point that is too seldom mentioned: why aren't the other religious groups that DO want to be able to marry gay people screaming religious discrimination? After all, there are numerous Christians who have no problem with gays getting married and would do so if they were allowed to by the government. Couldn't a legal challenge on the basis of the Free Exercise clause brought by one of these groups stand a great chance of overturning the government prohibitions against gay marriage? After all, the government is practicing religious discrimination by choosing the fundie version of Christianity over their own.
 
2007-04-26 12:38:52 PM  
I think the issue should be decided by the democratic process. The people, through their elected representatives, should make the call.

Another fan of the tyranny of the majority,,,,nice.
 
2007-04-26 2:49:07 PM  
After all, there are numerous Christians who have no problem with gays getting married and would do so if they were allowed to by the government.

A lot of Christian Churches already are marrying gay couples. So they're married but the government isn't recognizing the marriage.
 
2007-04-26 3:47:36 PM  
Aexia:

A lot of Christian Churches already are marrying gay couples. So they're married but the government isn't recognizing the marriage.


I know that. My argument is that the government is favoring one interpretation of Christianity (the one that says that gays can't be married) over all others (the ones that say they can) and also over the religious beliefs of people who don't believe in Christianity at all. So by giving special legal rights to the religious ceremonies performed by only one interpretation of Christianity, and not to others, aren't they violating the free exercise rights of the ones who want to marry gays? I think a Christian church that sued on this grounds would have very strong standing to make this argument and would be less likely to get overruled by courts on the basis of prejudice against non-Christians.
 
Displayed 36 of 36 comments


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.