Question One Opponents are Not Children

Question One Opponents are Not Children

I enjoy Mrs. Larson’s weekly column and know from reading it that she is a serious Bible reading Christian. I respect that, and certainly don’t want to get into a Bible duel with her. However, as I pointed out in my recent letter, there are many parts of the Bible that have no relevance to our lives today. In places, the Bible condones slavery, subjugation of women, polygamy and other practices that we abhor. It was written many years ago by many different men, in an entirely different culture.

However, if one is going to take the Bible literally, as some do, one can’t pick and choose. The book of Samuel describes the relationship between David and Jonathan that is clearly homosexual (“ ... and they kissed one another and wept with one another, until David exceeded.” “ …. Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women.”) At one point Jonathan takes off all his clothes before David, not typical male behavior at that time. I wonder how often this passage is discussed in fundamentalist Bible study groups.

Mrs. Larson quotes St. Paul. St. Paul was a remarkable, eloquent man. But everyone who reads St. Paul’s letters knows he thought it would be best if people remained celibate, as he was. (“I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.”) He thought sex of any kind was a distraction, but admits that people are different. He believed that marriage was at best a necessary evil. (“I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I. “ ….. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.”)

Mrs. Larson compares those against anti-gay marriage to grown-ups preventing a child from jumping into a fireplace filled with flames. Those who support gay marriage are not children. They are thinking adults. I know many same-sex couples who have strong religious convictions and who lead principled, productive lives. A loving God would never condemn these good people to the flames, as those who think like Mrs. Larson clearly have. Vote “no” on Question 1.

Pat Stewart

Greenwood

The Bethel Citizen

I would support YES on 1 if it included a clause preventing second (third, fourth, etc ) marriages where some evil step-"mom" can terrorize children to the point of making them call 911. I believe marriage should be between one human and ANOTHER human. Proving your humanity is a whole other issue. Second marriages should mostly be ok, cuz everyone makes a wrong choice at some point. but 3rd and 4th and anything beyond should be subject to judicial approval.

I think the last post is right on the mark, one mark of many.

Today, I left Question 1 blank when I voted. As much as I would love to oppose authoritarian religious fundamentalists, I am just not sure this is the best arena. The thing is, I think the gay marriage movement is pushing aside and squashing the establishment of civil unions.

Marriage and families are in crisis. Our society needs to redefine the idea of family and create a means to open the possibilities. Civil unions do that. They do not necessarily have a sexual subtext. What if two cousins have lived together for decades? Shouldn't they have the right to visit each other in the ICU? What if an elderly lady and her paid companion, over the years, become each others' only significant attachment. Shouldn't they?

There are many possibilities for family that don't involve the parties having sex with each other. Thus the "marriage" context doesn't really provide what's needed.

Further I think, and many can start screaming here, that if the fundamentalist religious movement endorsed gay marriage, gay marriage would disappear. I think it's basically a great way to torment those who have tormented gay people, "we're here, we're queer, get used to it" writ large.

In the meantime, a necessary avenue to deal with soaring divorce, single mothers, isolated elders and many others is being closed down.

Phil, you are still not getting it (even though I am guessing you meant well)! If you want your old aunts to have rights to visit and make decisions for each other (not that they shouldn't), that's a whole other law (unless they wanted to get married). This law was never about the right to have sex! People have sex (or not, as the case may be) all the time. And if your same-sex cousins wanted to marry, that would be cool to. They wouldn't be asked how many times they plan to engage in sexual activities. Same for the lady and her paid companion! Gay people, surprisingly!, marry all the time... but to opposite sex partners, either for convenience or fraud. The ones who marry to "prove" their hetero-ness.... well, that never works out and ruins lots of lives in the process.

I am still not sure what your actual point was. But i think yesterday was a sad day for Maine. But I can applaud Baldacchi for his courage.

The current controversy nonwithstanding, I think our society and I guess I mean the whole of modern civilization, excluding perhaps tribal cultures, needs to solve the problem of the growing failure of marriage as a foundation of society.

Not easy. But civil unions seemed to me an avenue to explore.

The definition of family once was strongly predicated on economic function. Romance and sex merely provided a basis for an economic function. An arranged marriage is probably not very romantic, and the couple probably did not find their civil rights validated, but they may indeed have prospered thereafter.

Problem with marriage is that people can tolerate each other okay for a couple of decades, but when life span increases from 48.236 years to 78.236 years, toleration plummets. Half or more of all couples discover they've had enough and get divorced. Dolly Copp, of White Mountain fame, walked away from her hubby in her eighth decade. "Sixty years with one man is enough," she said. Go visit the Dolly Copp campground and see the monument (yes! monument! Live free or die baby.).

So that leaves a lot of wreckage. How to fix this? Gay marriage does not seem to me to be an answer. I was looking to the gay community to be the vanguard of new forms and solutions. Unfortunately, they've fallen back on failed institutions.

Either same-sex unions are acceptable and legal, or they are not. If a civil union offers the same legal status, protection, and government recognition as a marriage then why the argument over the name? No single religion owns the term, or should be allowed to define how a modern, civilized society defines the terms of that union.

My wife and I were married by a Justice of the Peace in Mobile, Alabama. There was no clergyman, minister or priest in attendance, no blessing of our union took place. Yet, we are married, not in a civil union, civil partnership, registered partnership, domestic partnership, significant relationship, reciprocal beneficiary relationship, common-law marriage, adult interdependent relationship, life partnership, stable union, civil solidarity pact, or any of the other names that countries are using in place of marriage.

Mark Henry