Wednesday, December 16, 2009

BALDERDASH AND A REPLY

hello Colin, I enjoy your knitting and have tolerated your lifestyle choices which are different than mine. I'm a musician and have provided my services willingly for gay marriages here in the US. However, if I were a clergy person, officiating at the marriage, I could not do it, for religious reasons. Here in the US there is freedom to practice your religion---which includes protection from government forcing people to do things that are against their beliefs. I do not condemn gays, but at the same time, I don't agree that (if I were a minister) I should be forced to marry them, the same as if I were a doctor the government cannot force me to perform an abortion or sex change surgery. I welcome anyone into my home and I know I will see everyone in Heaven, however, marriage is between a male and female. I know this is controversial---but it is my belief--- and I should not be forced to change my beliefs on issues so sacred as life, marriage, death. What's next? Forcing people to believe there is no Heaven?

Oh get real! Of course you condemn gays. You just don't have the balls to admit it! You clearly cannot read either. No one is talking about forcing clergy to do anything. The issue is abotu a government employee, a registrar. It is a purely civil thing, just as all marriage is. Marrying in church is just what some religious people do but the marriage itself is a legal union, nothing else. So religious bigots will not be forced to mark the marriage of those they despise with their pomp.
I don't need you to tolerate me! How patronizing and dishonest. One only has to tolerate something unpleasant.
Homosexual people are not asking for privileges or special tights. We are just demanding that our rights as human beings be restored to us.

No one is trying to force you to stop being a bigot. No one can do that. What people of conscience will do is prevent the likes of you destroying the lives of others by denying them their rights.

12 comments:

Iris said...

It's one thing to tell a Church entity they MUST marry people whose lifestyle is not condoned by their religious beliefs. This is a civil servant who has decided she doesn't have to follow the law. She can find another job more to her liking. Separation of church and state means just that and a civil servant is an arm of the government and, as such, must either put aside religious convictions in the course of the job, or go FIND ANOTHER JOB. It seems to me the church wants protection by the state but doesn't wish to extend the same protections to persons they consider controversial.

So -- the writer is, as usual, narrowminded, bigoted and unfair.

Anonymous said...

This guy is so off base. No church is required to marry anyone. I know of couples who could not be married in their own church because they were living together or in another case because they were two different religions. The state didn't require the church to marry those couples. They won't require churches to marry gay couples if they don't want to. Since I am a firm believer in commitment, I believe that gay couple should be married. My piece of advice to people who don't believe in gay marriage would be "Don't have one then!" Melinda Allen

Tallguy said...

I cannot believe anyone can openly admit to being so high and mighty as that person, and yet trying to tell everyone that he is so clean and pure. Hypocritical bigot!

No one is forced to do anything. No one can force any clergyman to perform a marriage; no doctor is forced to perform an abortion. They are still being done, whether they agree with them or not. How wonderful he can have such high standards -- for others.

You are right -- any marriage performed by any religious person is still not legal. It needs to receive the seal of approval from some civil servant. I wonder in which hole he keeps his head.

Hey, those 51 years may not have all been rosy, but look what they have created! You go, man!!

Kerry said...

I might not have a great grasp on this concept, but if there is separation of church and state wouldn't a registrar not be able to bring their religion in to play in a situation such as this? If civil unions are allowed in a state I would think that as a government employee they would be bound to perform a civil ceremony. In a civil ceremony they would not be acting as a go-between for their God and the couple. A civil ceremony is a legal union and is not recognized by any one religion. I could be wrong, but I believe gays are only asking for the right to a civil union and not asking that the government force any one religion to perform a religious ceremony. If your religion doesn't believe in gay marriage then a civil union wouldn't mean anything to them anyways. They wouldn't even recognize it. It shouldn't be an issue because as far as the religion is concerned it doesn't even exist. A civil ceremony and a religious ceremony are totally and completely separate of each other. Right?

Bev said...

I love it, Colin! Keep it up.

Anonymous said...

One of the things (just one!) I find so frightening about comments like this, is that the commenter does not (perhaps cannot) see how hypocritical they are.

They feel they are completely reasonable and just.

I pray I am not as blind in my views. I worry that I would never know it if I was. An eternal human dilemma.
Sabine

Fred said...

There was an article in the paper today where a registrar tried declining to perform civil ceremonies on the grounds of her religious beliefs but lost the case and been refused to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

Lol said...

'Tolerated'? Beyond belief. The arrogance is gobsmacking.

Lisa Dunn said...

I agree with you, Colin. Gay couples should have the right to be married, to form a legal union which gives each partner certain rights and protections. I am an American CPA, and when I had a public practice I had several gay couples as clients. Because they couldn't be legally "married," they were denied several tax planning strategies, which I think is terribly unfair. Heterosexual spouses are granted legal rights and protections as part of the legal aspect of a marriage, and homosexual spouses should have the same rights and protections. This has nothing whatsoever to do with anyone's belief system. It has to do with equal rights for all citizens.

FuguesStateKnits said...

Here's an interesting bit written sometime around, oh, hmmmm, 1776:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Thomas Jefferson
Declaration of Independence

Anonymous said...

Well I hope you all are feeling happy with your selves, after being so intolerant of my viewpoints. Do any of you out there really know me? No. You assume I am a man (maybe I am...) you assume that I hate gays (no I don't) and you assume that I don't know the diff between a civil marriage and a religious one. And at every turn each of you hurled a stone at me....very loving indeed. I shall go on with my happy, faithful ways, which includes many gay friends (and not a few that converted back to heterosexuality), and listen to my gay friends stories of being abused or neglected as children...and I will love each one of them, even if they don't agree with my Orthodox faith, they know that I am a good person, and God knows it too. Too bad Colin decides that I am not good enough for him, but only "bad" enough to be hurled a stone, and to invited others to do the same. You have all done as you wished....

Georgina said...

Well done Colin - what a shame the writer will never reflect, just rail against any suggestion that they might have deep predjudices that they are unaware of, and that, if addressed, would liberate them into a genuinely loving way to relate to all their fellows on earth....
PS love the typo - (rights/tights)