Are there any Democrats on this forum that oppose gay marriage?

[Torie]

The above is precisely why I chose to be very candid about my sexuality - to everyone. I thought I owed it not only to myself, but the gay community. I just don't fit many of the gay stereotypes as it were. Maybe that is because I did not figure it all out until about age 58. 

[bedstuy]

The better way for gay people to change their minds is to be openly gay and lead by example in showing gay people are responsible, honest and morally upstanding people.  That's the essential reason gays have moved forward politically and hopefully more people will see the light on that issue.

Depends on what you mean by this. If you're advocating showing that queer people are, well, people with all the capacities of any other person than sure. If you mean dropping any practice or belief that suburban soccer moms might object to so that middle America doesn't find us scary than that is a terrible idea and one of the biggest problems with the mainstream "gay rights" movement today.

No, I mean, be open about your sexuality and be a nice, good person.  Simple as that. 

[Ban my account ffs!]

Yeah!  Be nice to the poor victimized religious folk who want equal treatment for me but not for thee.

Bedstuy I hope you're gay because if not... tell me an issue you that you care about very very much that is tied to who you are at your very core.. so I can belittle it and drag it through the mud.

[Brittain33]

What about Gustaf? He's a red avatar.

[windjammer]

Supporting SSM doesn't make us better person, see Koch.

[bedstuy]

Yeah!  Be nice to the poor victimized religious folk who want equal treatment for me but not for thee.

Bedstuy I hope you're gay because if not... tell me an issue you that you care about very very much that is tied to who you are at your very core.. so I can belittle it and drag it through the mud.

I'm gay.  What's your point?

[TJ in Oregon]

The result is that opposition to gay marriage consistently does better in the polls than in the comments. There are relatively few of us who are willing to oppose gay marriage openly. Myself & hifly are the only ones that come to mind. I also have a vague recollection of TJ opposing it but I'm not sure about that.

I am against gay marriage, though I rarely post that explicitly and am far more concerned about the various proxy issues involved than about the government recognition of gay marriage itself. There are a number of train wrecked Atlas threads buried various places on here that I was partially responsible for train-wrecking

I also am far more personally opposed than politically opposed if that makes any sense; the government does not have the power to define morality. The thing that has to matter here when we consider our personal actions in regards to others, at its root, is that we 1) want them to go to heaven when they die, and as a distant second, 2) want to minimize their suffering here on earth or at least not directly cause it. I can't honestly say that opposing government recognition has been a particularly effective strategy here; if anything of late it's been a total fiasco. If on a ballot initiative, I would still vote against government recognition, but I've mainly come to the realization (and this is not a recent thing; I saw this coming years ago) that gay marriage is coming regardless at this point and the main question is what degree individuals, parents, and religious institutions are permitted by the government to dissent from the popular notions of morality.

I wrote this a couple years ago but other than the 2012 election predictions, I stand by it:

Same-sex marriage and civil unions will be an important issue in 2012, but more in the same way that abortion is an important issue. Most people, outside of those whose ideology prevents them from being swing voters anyway, don't have strong opinions about it and probably really don't care that much. This will become more an issue like abortion that just polarizes people to particular parties than an issue that actually determines the outcome of elections. The 2012 election will be determined by economics provided the Republicans nominate a competent candidate (and I think we'll pick Romney in the end). Homosexuality will be a political sideshow, not the main event.

Homosexuality and the various proxy issues involved, such as gay marriage, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, etc. is something like abortion’s alter ego. On abortion, the majority of the nation is pro-choice but the pro-life side of the argument has a much stronger allegiance to the issue. Pro-choice support is largely soft-support based on people who mostly vote for other issues. Not to say the pro-choice side doesn’t have devoted activists, just that it has fewer of them. Gay marriage has been the opposite and the pro-gay marriage side has the smaller number of devoted activists while opposition has been based on soft support, ie. the people who think homosexuality is “icky” but don’t have a firm reason to oppose legal recognition.

Now, the soft opposition to gay marriage is collapsing. This would have been very hard for conservatives to stop because conservatives have been fighting to save a meta-stable political state that is contradictory. After the sexual revolution of the 1960s (and earlier growing support of contraceptives among mainline Protestant sects) it became socially acceptable to look at porn, or to have pre-marital sex, or to use a condom. Once we decided those things are okay, then why is homosexuality any different really? Over the last ten years we’ve seen plenty of polls where about 60% of Americans believe pre-marital sex is okay and closer to 70% believe divorce is okay. How on earth can anyone expect an electorate like that to keep gay marriage illegal? Yet, that is in practice what conservatives are trying to preserve. It’s an unwinnable war because most of the conservative support was based on feeble ideas like “gay sex is icky”.

Note: I use “you” as a blanket reference to all social conservatives
So where do we as social conservatives go from here? Other than abortion (abortion is the only social issue with stable views across all age groups for most surveys) we are going to lose these fights and continue losing them. I think we may be hitting the reality that changing our culture and its morals can’t start with politics. It may end up there, but it has to start with individual people. As Mother Theresa once said, “Be the change you wish to see in others”. Hold strong to your moral convictions through thick and thin and don’t give in to whatever concupiscence you experience in life. We may individually feel that God is dead to our world, but realize that God can’t be dead to the world as long as he lives in you. The other thing is, we can’t pretend like we’re either a) better than everyone else or b) some kind of tragic victim of society. Doing that is an attention gathering tactic and just annoys people. I’m not saying don’t vote (heck, I’ll vote no on gay marriage if we get a ballot initiative in Ohio), but if we really want to change our society’s ideas of right and wrong the place to do it is in our lives not at the ballot box.

[Torie]

TJ, could you flesh out more what you mean by "proxy issues" and give some examples, so that I can better understand your point of view on this?  Thanks.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Yes... I'm curious also.

I hope we're not going into the straw-man of "won't someone please think of the children!!?!?!"

[TJ in Oregon]

TJ, could you flesh out more what you mean by "proxy issues" and give some examples, so that I can better understand your point of view on this?  Thanks.

Here are a few examples:
- The City of Chicago preventing a business (Chick-fil-a) from expanded there based on the anti-gay marriage views and donations of its owner.
- Catholic adoption agencies in Massachusetts (and IIRC a couple other states) being forced to close due to the state requiring all adoption agencies to execute adoptions to gay couples.
- A number of cities barring the boy scouts from using public parks due to anti-discrimination rules, as well as the bazillion lawsuits the boy scouts have had to endure under their policy of not permitting openly gay scouts (formerly) and leaders.
- The use of fair housing ordinances to require women renting out a room to live with a lesbian, right here in Madison, Wisconsin.
- The New Mexico wedding photographer who was forced to shoot a gay wedding against her wishes or incur a lawsuit. There are dozens upon dozens of cases like this one, some of them a bit absurd to object to but they happen and will continue to.

In general I am concerned about religious organizations being forced to condone homosexuality in some way, either by the threat of revoking tax exemptions, redefining religious institution as only pertaining to worship, or by reinterpreting the First Amendment and classifying religious teachings against homosexuality as hate speech. Of course none of this could happen today with this current SCOTUS, but I am a rather young man still. The Millenials and subsequent generations have not really ascended to power yet. Go ahead and call me chicken little, but a man should consider the long term ramifications of changes in public opinion of social policy.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Yeah!  Be nice to the poor victimized religious folk who want equal treatment for me but not for thee.

Bedstuy I hope you're gay because if not... tell me an issue you that you care about very very much that is tied to who you are at your very core.. so I can belittle it and drag it through the mud.

I'm gay.  What's your point?

My point is I'm not ready to treat people who think I should burn for eternity and believe I should be treated as a 2nd class citizen nicely.

I'm glad you can be the better man here, but I'm a bitter old bitch.

[Brittain33]

I thought Catholic charities in Mass drew public funding for its adoption efforts and preferred to close rather than open their work to same-sex couples. The issue was taking money from the state government, not whether or not they were allowed to discriminate with their own money.

Do you think they had a right to discriminate against same-sex couples while drawing state funds? If not... Do you agree with their choice to close down rather than accept same-sex couples as candidates?

I am biased, but when they made that decision, it came across as sour grapes on their part. They didn't have to shut down, but they did.

[President Tyrion]

If someone opposes SSM for religious reasons (Phil and TJ come to mind), I respect that, and I think it wrong to harass a poster in any way if that is the case. What I get impatient with is non-religious ersatz, make weight, non-empiracally based arguments against SSM. Then I get out the hammer and bang away. That's life in the public square, and there is nothing wrong with that.

Hopefully, most share my point of view on that. It's just wrong (and hurtful and cruel) to demean someone's religious beliefs (unless, way, way out there, like believing that by force of law, baby girls should have their clitoris excised or something, or believe in slavery or whatever - SSM is just not in that category).  

I get so tired of people who hide behind their Bible because they have no better excuse for being a bigot.

It's not like they haven't just swept half of the rest of the Bible under the rug for convenience purposes.

I used to buy into the "respect them cuz it's their belief" BS as well.  Not anymore.

Do you question the motives of those who oppose SSM for religious reasons who adduce no non-religious reasons for opposing gay marriage?  Anyway, as to someone who is in that position, I suppose you could call them a bigot, but it won't change their mind, and beyond whether it is fair or decent to treat folks that way,  it might not be a good tactic, because it might turn off folks who are more open to the idea. It certainly is a good way to poison the public square. JMO.

Honestly, I don't respect that position. I'm sure you're a great guy, but I cannot stand by what you're saying. If you hold a religious position, and you want people to back off the criticism just for the sole reason that it is a religious position, that doesn't withstand the test of logic. Religion isn't a reason, or rather, it shouldn't be. Religion is not evidence, and religion is not proof. Religion is a conclusion. You cannot base another conclusion or belief upon an existing conclusion without expecting the base conclusion to be questioned. It's an utter logical fallacy to state "I believe something; therefore, it is justifiable that I believe something else without recourse." No, no, no my dear sir. I cannot let that stand. Judge each situation on its merits, or don't judge at all.

I hope ^that paragraph was worthy of a public discussion. I have a fierce disagreement with you, sir, and I'm trying to find a civil way to say it.

[TJ in Oregon]

I thought Catholic charities in Mass drew public funding for its adoption efforts and preferred to close rather than open their work to same-sex couples. The issue was taking money from the state government, not whether or not they were allowed to discriminate with their own money.

Do you think they had a right to discriminate against same-sex couples while drawing state funds? If not... Do you agree with their choice to close down rather than accept same-sex couples as candidates?

I am biased, but when they made that decision, it came across as sour grapes on their part. They didn't have to shut down, but they did.

They did draw public funding but the funding was not the reason they were required to either give children to gay couples or close. The state required adherence to their nondiscrimination policy to maintain licencing.

And yes they were, obviously, given the option to comply rather than close, but they could not have done so and act in good conscience as a Catholic organization. I agree with their decision. If a field does not permit Catholics to continue in it and act in good conscience, it is better if possible to leave the field than comply.

[tpfkaw]

Preventing children under your care from being adopted by qualified families is an exploitative abuse of guardianship powers, and if you as an orphanage are unwilling to do so you cannot claim the moral right to exercise guardianship powers.

[TJ in Oregon]

Preventing children under your care from being adopted by qualified families is an exploitative abuse of guardianship powers, and if you as an orphanage are unwilling to do so you cannot claim the moral right to exercise guardianship powers.

The Catholic Church is not going to accept the classification of gay couples as qualified families, so it must leave the adoptions market in states that require it to do so. If there is an example of how government recognition of gay marriage requires religious organizations to agree with it, here it is.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

So TJ, what would be your thoughts if a Catholic adoption agency refused service to a heterosexual couple on the grounds that they were "invalidly married" if it was discovered at least one of them was baptized and raised a Catholic but they were married in a Protestant church or civil ceremony? Because such a marriage is just as invalid as a same-sex one to the Catholic Church per its literal canon law from my understanding, yet the Catholic Church most certainly doesn't "enforce" its rules against it as such, I've never heard of a Catholic school teacher being fired for having a heterosexual wedding in a Protestant church. For another example a woman who often preaches at my church is actually also a professor at a Catholic university here, yet the Catholic Church obviously considers her role in the church to be illegitimate and wrong, yet don't hold that against her of course (sure she's not a Catholic, but the church wouldn't take that as an excuse from a gay teacher.)

[tpfkaw]

Preventing children under your care from being adopted by qualified families is an exploitative abuse of guardianship powers, and if you as an orphanage are unwilling to do so you cannot claim the moral right to exercise guardianship powers.

The Catholic Church is not going to accept the classification of gay couples as qualified families, so it must leave the adoptions market in states that require it to do so. If there is an example of how government recognition of gay marriage requires religious organizations to agree with it, here it is.

You are using children as helpless pawns in that scenario and deliberately worsening their lives to fit your bigoted worldview.  Denying a child the benefits of an emotionally, socially, and financially supportive home simply because you hate gay people means that you are not qualified to care for children, since you put your own "values" ahead of their well-being.

[TJ in Oregon]

So TJ, what would be your thoughts if a Catholic adoption agency refused service to a heterosexual couple on the grounds that they were "invalidly married" if it was discovered at least one of them was baptized and raised a Catholic but they were married in a Protestant church or civil ceremony? Because such a marriage is just as invalid as a same-sex one to the Catholic Church per its literal canon law from my understanding, yet the Catholic Church most certainly doesn't "enforce" its rules against it as such, I've never heard of a Catholic school teacher being fired for having a heterosexual wedding in a Protestant church. For another example a woman who often preaches at my church is actually also a professor at a Catholic university here, yet the Catholic Church obviously considers her role in the church to be illegitimate and wrong, yet don't hold that against her of course (sure she's not a Catholic, but the church wouldn't take that as an excuse from a gay teacher.)

The two are not the same in Catholic theology, BRTD. The Catholic Church recognizes Protestant marriages or even civil marriages as being valid if freely consented to, which is why if a Protestant couple converts to Catholicism they are not remarried in the Catholic Church upon conversion. For baptized Catholics, it may be some degree of sacrilege, but that does not make it invalid.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

So the people on Catholic Answers forum encouraging others to boycott such weddings are just being ridiculous zealots? (Not that that would surprise me.)

Other point remains though, the Catholic university is not holding anything against this woman for taking a role the Catholic church sees as invalid (in all fairness I'm pretty sure this university wouldn't fire a professor for being gay either. But I also doubt she'd be fired if she taught at a more conservative college.)

[TJ in Oregon]

Preventing children under your care from being adopted by qualified families is an exploitative abuse of guardianship powers, and if you as an orphanage are unwilling to do so you cannot claim the moral right to exercise guardianship powers.

The Catholic Church is not going to accept the classification of gay couples as qualified families, so it must leave the adoptions market in states that require it to do so. If there is an example of how government recognition of gay marriage requires religious organizations to agree with it, here it is.

You are using children as helpless pawns in that scenario and deliberately worsening their lives to fit your bigoted worldview.  Denying a child the benefits of an emotionally, socially, and financially supportive home simply because you hate gay people means that you are not qualified to care for children, since you put your own "values" ahead of their well-being.

Of course now that the gay rights lobby has chimed in, no one is allowed to disagree with their view of morality, or heaven forbid, a religious institution take into account the prospect of a child's eternal salvation when considering what course of action to take. If believing people of same-sex inclinations are sinning by acting upon them makes me a bigot, them I'm a bigot. I guess I may as well finally embrace that term and get it over with. If that makes me hate gay people then I guess I hate gay people. If that makes me unqualified to care for children then it's a good thing I don't have any.

But anyways, you've won, and now the Catholic Church can't run an adoptions agency in Massachusetts anymore. Congratulations on the win for freedom

[Napoleon]

heaven forbid, a religious institution take into account the prospect of a child's eternal salvation when considering what course of action to take.

Oh yeah, because who cares if children without good families are more likely to end up in gangs or committing crimes? Gayness is the intolerable sin, anything else and we will take our chances.

I'm a bigot.

Yes, but not for the reason you connected it to in your post.

[TJ in Oregon]

So the people on Catholic Answers forum encouraging others to boycott such weddings are just being ridiculous zealots? (Not that that would surprise me.)

It may still be sacrilege and most likely would be (unless the Catholic has received the bishop's permission, which is possible but most likely not the case. If the people are completely aware of the lack of the bishop's permission they really should boycott it but otherwise it wouldn't be necessary.

Other point remains though, the Catholic university is not holding anything against this woman for taking a role the Catholic church sees as invalid (in all fairness I'm pretty sure this university wouldn't fire a professor for being gay either. But I also doubt she'd be fired if she taught at a more conservative college.)

In theory she could be if the Catholic college decided to require all its faculty be Catholic and uphold all the Church's teachings in their private lives. I'm not sure if there are any in the US that require this. Most likely any that would also would forbid Protestant faculty members from being hired, since we're more or less talking about the same degree or sacrilege and/or heresy.

[TJ in Oregon]

heaven forbid, a religious institution take into account the prospect of a child's eternal salvation when considering what course of action to take.

Oh yeah, because who cares if children without good families are more likely to end up in gangs or committing crimes? Gayness is the intolerable sin, anything else and we will take our chances.

Children would not be placed the homes of known criminals or current gang members either. It's not a matter of equating the two. It is not in the interest of the child's spiritual formation to be adopted by a gay couple not simply because the child is more likely to be gay but also that the child would be subject to a union that is gravely disordered. A Catholic adoption agency cannot place a child into such an environment and justify it by citing some statistical likelihood of gang membership; the ends do not justify the means.

I'm a bigot.

Yes, but not for the reason you connected it to in your post.

Okay, I'll bite, what is it then? Is it actually believing that the principle I outlined is not some distant esoteric view but rather something that individuals should have the ability to direct in their lives? Or is it believing that religious institutions should be allowed to have their own rules pertaining to marriage rather than be forced by the government to accept its? Or is it that parents should have some ability to direct the actions of their underage children?

[Brittain33]

If "in the interest of the child's spiritual formation" is the basis...

Why does Catholic charities place children with non-Catholic families? Is placing children with a same-sex couple different from placing with a Jewish or non-religious couple (which they did) in that regard? If it is different, please spell out why... The fact that homosexuality is considered a sin, while not being Catholic is a question of not achieving salvation, does not adequately explain it.

I'm fairly certain Catholic Charities did get Mass funding for its adoption activities. I'm open to evidence proving they were financially independent. (BTW, I am a Mass taxpayer in a SSM.)