Reflections on Marriage

Comments (120)

1. LGBT Activists Declare WAR on Marriage!

   Q: Who said it first? "First, the president and his aides decide to go to war against Fox News..."

   A: Mr. Nichols

   Q: Who said it next?

   A: FOX NEWS: "Surprisingly, the White House continues to declare **WAR** (my hyperbolic caps & asterisks) on a news organization instead of focusing on the critical issues that Americans are concerned about like jobs, health care and two wars.

   Back at Reality Ranch: The WH did not use the word war. Did not use synonyms for war, did not gesture or gesticulate in a war-like manner.

   And neither did any LGBT person.

   Posted by winyahn at 10/18/2009 @ 9:00pm

2. "Marriage is a crucial civil right, but not a panacea."

   No, it's not.

   "I hope same-sex marriage changes marriage itself. I hope it changes marriage the way that no-fault divorce changed it."

   It won't.

   "I hope it changes marriage the way that allowing women to own their own property and seek their own credit changed marriage."

   It won't.

   "I hope it changes marriage the way laws against spousal abuse and child neglect changed marriage"

   It won't.

   Marriage is a very specific social contract, between a man and a woman, with roots as a religious rite. Its purpose is a partnership in division of labor to facilitate raising children. Marriage as it stands now, means a specific thing. Same-sex marriage will allow that institution to mean anything, so marriage will end up meaning nothing.

   Posted by twillie at 10/18/2009 @ 9:22pm

3. As a proud gay man, I feel that the notion of marriage as a "right" that must be ratified and accepted by government is a dangerous one, especially when it seeks to progressively define marriage to include our own notions of what defines a loving relationship.

   Gays and lesbians should have absolutely equal rights to form any relationship they choose under circumstances they dictate; there should be no legal preference in adoption rights, wills, etc. for "one man, one woman" relationships.

   It is a remarkably hypocritical statement, then, to talk about "marriage equality" without talk of expanding legal equality to other relationships, whether they consist of many individuals or close relatives. The sad truth is that many self-described advocates of "equality" realize that polygamous or familial unions are politically unpalatable, and therefore reject true equality in favor of a slight modification of the status quo.

   Instead of fighting for government recognition, why can't we fight to get the government OUT of our relationships altogether? Shouldn't consenting adults have the right to enter into any relationship they choose? I would hope that so-called "equality" advocates would answer yes to those two questions, but their lack of spine and acceptance of government's approval of their relationships is depressing, to say the least.

   Posted by liberalcorner at 10/18/2009 @ 9:43pm

4. Ms. H-L -

   I'm surely not the first to mention re Bardwell that one of the childhoods he would have prevented is that of our president, which likely wasn't far from his mind.

   And speaking as a lesbian long divorced from a man, been thru the poly hell, and planning to jump in with my girl of 12 yrs as soon as the water's fine in the U.S., I see marriage as sort of the familial democracy: terrible, but not when you compare it to the alternative.

   Posted by Chrisblue at 10/18/2009 @ 9:57pm

5. Well, the marriage debate seems often framed within the binary terms of males and females, with the concepts of opposite-sex and same-sex marriages. It's framed that way in this article.

   The reality that I, that as a transsexual woman, could marry into an opposite sex marriage in one state only to have it considered a same sex marriage in another state.

   And intersexuals? They can have similar difficulties if their gender is identified incorrectly on their birth certificate. Different states identify male and female differently -- and sometimes the decisions on who is declared male and female can be arbitrary.

   We like to think this is all about males and females, but some of us don't fit well into the sex and gender binary. And, for those who don't fit into that sex and gender binary, we actually now have that marriage-being-annulled-at-state-lines problem of Loving v. Virginia for either same-sex or opposite-sex marriages.

   I guess this is one of those privilege assumptions that many make about their own experiences: If one isn't transsexual or misgendered intersexual oneself, it's hard to imagine not having the privilege of not living within the sex and gender binary.

   In the meantime, I prefer to call it marriage equality, without any "same-sex" attached to it. Marriage equality, as a concept, includes trans people like me, and intersexuals misgendered at birth as well.

   Posted by Autumn59 at 10/18/2009 @ 10:05pm

6. MH-L: The power to love, commit, and consent is more deeply human than that......Marriage is now a minority lifestyle among black people. African American women in all socioeconomic categories are the group least likely to marry, most likely to divorce, and most likely to bear and rear children alone."

   Somewhere in this long, long commentary, is an admission that quite a few, if not most, black heterosexual males, lack the capacity to "commit". What a Great Society these black males have......all fun, change of sexual partners at your heart's desire, and NO responsibilities! Man, that is a Great Society!

   BTW, instead of expecting something focusing on the the BIG crisis of the massively missing black marriages, this long piece was just long!

   Posted by Happy at 10/18/2009 @ 10:55pm

7. "This is not solely about selfish individuals unwilling to sacrifice for joint commitment. Marriage itself is still bolstered by a troubling cultural mythology, a history of domination, and a contemporary set of gendered expectations that render it both unsatisfying and unstable for many people"

   so true!

   "Same-sex marriage will allow that institution to mean anything, so marriage will end up meaning nothing"

   why is marriage predicated on the condition that it mean something?

   shouldn't the meaning of marriage be a personal thing?

   "Somewhere in this long, long commentary, is an admission that quite a few, if not most, black heterosexual males, lack the capacity to "commit"

   oh man, what a whopper! happy is (officially) a blatant racist! does happy actually think that white guys don't also lack the capacity to commit? oh, i'm sorry, they repress their desires and have closeted, meth-fueled, homosexual trysts in public airport bathrooms!!!!

   "What a Great Society these black males have......all fun, change of sexual partners at your heart's desire, and NO responsibilities! Man, that is a Great Society"

   rush limbaugh has had three divorces.

   Posted by darladoon at 10/18/2009 @ 11:59pm

8. "deaths of soldiers don't bother me as much as civilian deaths."

   "soldiers are trained to kill. so if they die, oh well."

   Posted by darladoon at 10/17/2009 @ 12:41pm | ignore this person | warn this person

   QUOTE OF THE CENTURY! from the most honest leftist HATER we know! ?

   but Rush never wished American servicemen to die as you do!

   Posted by BigPasture at 10/19/2009 @ 01:03am

9. "This is a pragmatic, political strategy, but I hope it is not true. I hope same-sex marriage changes marriage itself. "

   MHL is on to us. I do consider it a political strategy and calling it same-sex marriage is part of the strategy. In the end what I hope for is a law that says no one can be denied marriage on the basis of sex or gender identity. And we won't just have equality, but liberty. Because really what we want is the freedom to define our relationships however we want.

   We want the liberty to get married, or not. The liberty to marry who we want to, when we want to (within the age of consent). Some people may want to wait until they're 30 or 40.

   I keep telling people when we get our marriage license this doesn't mean we weren't married before. I've been with my girlfriend for 12 years. We already are married. We just want to do everything possible to protect that.

   Posted by GrrrlRomeo at 10/19/2009 @ 03:41am

10. Anyone who thinks what transpires between homosexuals constitutes the base of "equality" in something they call "marriage" -- which they flunked in life -- is probably a H1Ni vax defective.

    The Nation drivelling -- and dying.

    Let them go to hell.

    Posted by jones at 10/19/2009 @ 06:22am

11. THIS, my god, plus two pieces on the tribe of Jews, diasporic and West Bank psychopaths.

    4-5 pages print out 8 pages for "American Jews Rethink Israel" 6 pages for "Confessions of an AIPAC Veteran"

    20 pages of everything except praise for WHO,CDC, DR. Fauci, the Swine Flu Vaccine Kill'em in NY -- I do mean the NURSES -- not our kind 'o tikkun olamers -- nothing but women, queers and Jews calling themselves "lefties" hehehe making up this squealin' squalene squad.

    Truly, an institution gone to the dogs heheh.

    bring in some more COLLEGE REPUBLICANS! -- that'll do it fer ya! hehehe

    Posted by jones at 10/19/2009 @ 07:04am

12. "Let them go to hell."

    No, "jones," I'd rather let you go to Iran, to live with like-minded bigots. Iran - now, there's a country that really makes marriage work! No divorce problem there, I presume. Though I hear tell that the Iranians do have something of an "equality" problem, "jones," just as you do.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 10/19/2009 @ 07:11am

13. Here are my views.

    Thanks to feminism, which is entering a more mature phase, we all have higher expectations of fairness in marriage. However, making a marriage fair is still more of an art than a science. Therefore, although we have higher expectations of marriage, we often fail to live up to them. This accounts in part for the higher divorce rate.

    Advanced notions of child welfare have made divorce more humane, for the sake of the children who have to live through it - and who are better off not being the hostages of an unhappy marriage.

    The third, and biggest, part of the story is economic. Economic instability accounts in large part for the increasing popularity of relationships less permanent than marriage. Whereas formerly women and men were assigned rigid roles that made them dependent upon each other, nowadays, women can hold jobs, and men are beginning to discover homemaking. In a job market that provides no permanence, we struggle to attain either balance or stability in our family management. The family unit, moreover, remains in many cases "nuclear," and frequently, the nucleus has only one parent. An extended family would provide more security and stability, but the appeal of living together with one's parents or other relatives is too weak to make this an attractive option except for immigrants. Childcare is now haphazardly commodified rather than universally available to working parents. On the one hand, childcare workers are poorly paid; on the other, parents cannot afford to pay them. Thank God for public school!

    Marriage is merely a model for creating a fair, humane, and economically viable family unit by means of contract. It can be easily expanded to include different contracting partners, but with similar shared responsibilities.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 10/19/2009 @ 07:44am

14. 'Marriage is a very specific social contract, between a man and a woman, with roots as a religious rite. Its purpose is a partnership in division of labor to facilitate raising children. Marriage as it stands now, means a specific thing. Same-sex marriage will allow that institution to mean anything, so marriage will end up meaning nothing.'

    So you don't believe, "twillie," that gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender couples want any social contract, or that they want a fair and humane partnership in a religious or secular sense, or that they want to divide labor to facilitate raising children? Why not? There is no reason for your set of assumptions but bigotry.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 10/19/2009 @ 07:49am

15. After that phenomenally offensive second posting, "jones," you get the rare distinction of earning my "ignore this person" rating! Congratulations, and goodbye!

    Posted by JakobFabian at 10/19/2009 @ 07:53am

16. I find it interesting but disheartening and even disturbing that Melissa Harris-Lacewell, an expert on black studies wouldn't even mention in passing, the effect on welfare fraud in relation to black marriages. For two generations, black women had multiple pregnancies without the benefit of a marriage partner of support, only to place the burden of their crime on unsuspecting working people of all colors but mainly white.

    Now we have an estimated 70% of black families with only one parent living in the household doing all the heavy lifting. Where are all the fathers? Why do the women continue to have babies they cannot support?

    Ms. Lacewell would do well to reflect upon her own thesis and do some justice toward working people who were and are victims of irresponsible behavior in black and other poor communities, but predominately black. The suspicion remains that this behavior was committed intentionally.

    It's time to have an honest discussion of all things racial and to stop exculpation of the people who abused the hand that fed them, literally. An expert like Ms. Lacewell should be leading the charge instead of sweeping the problem under the rug. She makes only passing reference. Same-sex marriage is a minor problem when compared to lack of marital commitment in the black community, especially where taxpayer money plays a role. And yes, I know, poor whites and other groups are guilty as well. To ignore this abomination only serves to further exacercerbate hard feelings and the thriving of groups like the Tea Party. What is the solution?

    As Bill O'Reilly would say, "What say you, Ms. Lacewell?"

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/19/2009 @ 10:18am

17. Marriage is a civil contract with a plethora of legally imposed conditions. When entered into between two compatible persons who have the necessary resources to maintain a decent lifestyle, marriage confers powerful social and economic advantages notwithstanding the whining of observors of the decline in the "state of marriage:' 1. It brings tax advantages with regard to not only federal and state income taxes, but also with federal and state estate and inheritance taxes. 2. It provides the parties with available, safe sex. Beats have to chase down dubious partners in local "meat market" bars or paying diseased prostitutes. 3. It allows the parties to form an economic unit capable of significant, positive results. 4. Most people more highly value the married state than the single state. Politicians intuitively know this. I doubt that a single man or woman could be elected president of the US today. The chief reason marriages fail is that the parties don't have enough money and wind up in debt. And when debcomes in the door, love goes out the window.

    Posted by jsens at 10/19/2009 @ 10:29am

18. Quite a lot of white marriages end in divorce, too, "gunslinger1," as you realize rather late in your screed. This leaves a lot of white women to raise their children alone.

    So what's your solution? Should all those marriages be forced back together by means of your most beloved tool, the shotgun? Or is this delicate means of persuasion only to be used with Blacks?

    Here's my recommendation: People need to have realistic expectations about childrearing before they get into it. This requires sex education in public schools. Not "abstinence-only" education, but abstinence plus everything else education, because that's what works.

    There are innovative new "baby colleges" that educate young adults very effectively about childrearing. Geoffrey Canada is a pioneer in this field. You would do well to read about him - Google his name if you haven't yet. I'm sure Melissa Harris-Lacewell knows all about him.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 10/19/2009 @ 10:32am

19. Marriage as it stands now, means a specific thing. Same-sex marriage will allow that institution to mean anything, so marriage will end up meaning nothing. Posted by twillie at 10/18/2009 @ 9:22pm |

    It's the same contract regardless of the gender of the signers, Twinkie.

    And it doesn't have to necessarily mean ANYTHING about children (though most gay couples want the same things hetero couples do; they're just better at raising their kids, on average).

    Posted by snowball777 at 10/19/2009 @ 10:50am

20. 2. It provides the parties with available, safe sex. Beats have to chase down dubious partners in local "meat market" bars or paying diseased prostitutes.

    antediluvian.

    tough to get a date? small wonder with those attitudes.

    Posted by emile duBois at 10/19/2009 @ 10:52am

21. 2. It provides the parties with available, safe sex. Beats have to chase down dubious partners in local "meat market" bars or paying diseased prostitutes.

    antediluvian.

    tough to get a date? small wonder with those attitudes.

    Posted by emile duBois at 10/19/2009 @ 10:52am

22. Posted by JakobFabian at 10/19/2009 @ 10:32am

    You asked so I'll answer and I appreciate the opportunity. Of course there are divorces in all communities. But there has to be a marriage before there can be a divorce. You ignore the staistics. There are over twice as many single parent black families then in any other demographic. Based on blacks as a percentage of the entire population, this is a startling figure. Why is this I ask? Also, white divorced fathers are much more likely, not only to have the means but also the desire to support their offspring, subjectively speaking.

    I maintain, as do others, that there was a calculated effort and even an expectation that white America should indeed pay for the rearing of black children because of a feeling, on the part of blacks, that they were entitled as part of RAP-arations, (Goggle Rap Brown). There was no acrimony on their part or even feelings of guilt because they 'had it coming'. It was expected.

    So now we see the results of this irresponsible behavior along with faulty legislative logic, in all the urban areas throught the country. Poverty, unemployment, gang warfare, drugs, prostitution, blight and unchallanged children. The predominance of the faces are indeed black. Is this working America's fault. Did we turn a blind eye as a substitute for the repressed guilt that arose from the sins of our forefathers in their advocacy of slavery? Maybe. But too much time has passed since then and the Rap-arations have been paid.

    It is now the responsibility of black leaders from Barack Obama on down and to experts like Ms. Lacewell to begin the process of self improvement in the black community. The well of assistance is dry and white working families are struggling to survive themselves.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/19/2009 @ 10:54am

23. marriage is a civil contract. we cannot discriminate in civil contracts. that was in the past.

    marriage is also a religious institution, where each religion can do what they like.

    he who cannot distinguish between the two is an ass.

    an ignored ass.

    Posted by emile duBois at 10/19/2009 @ 10:56am

24. All I, and others who agree, are asking for is some honest dialogue on the subject. We are all in this together. Those who are impoverished will continue to breed without any means of support. The answer has to come from THEM. Practicing birth control for awhile would go a long way. Hell, everybody likes sex. Give America a chance to catch up and formulate solutions. With out co-operation, we will all go down together. I think this is pretty much how Abraham Lincoln felt, only in a fundamental sense.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/19/2009 @ 11:01am

25. Posted by emile duBois at 10/19/2009 @ 10:56am

    All well and good, but you forget the part about taxpayer's money being involved.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/19/2009 @ 11:02am

26. May God Save Andrew Golis: A courageous soul who has dared enter the maelstrom.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 10/19/2009 @ 11:16am

27. Quite a theme that reflects the fruit of liberalism that flourished out of the so-called "Great Society".

    The welfare stated led to the breakdown of marriage in Black culture

    No fault divorce made breaking up the family easy.

    The sexual revolution led to promiscuity and eventually the homosexual lobby coming out of the closet and forcing their perverse lifestyle on America.

    America is heading down the same degenerate road as Europe. It's simply happening a slower pace.

    I pray that I don't live long enough to see these movements fully develop into a modern Sodom and Gemorrah;but we are getting close.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/19/2009 @ 11:16am

28. America is heading down the same degenerate road as Europe. It's simply happening a slower pace.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/19/2009 @ 11:16am

    If the President supported your position on marriage equality, would that be a positive step?

    Posted by Mistral at 10/19/2009 @ 11:41am

29. If the President supported your position on marriage equality, would that be a positive step?

    Posted by Mistral at 10/19/2009 @ 11:41am

    He does and no it doesn't change the societal degradation that is occurring.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/19/2009 @ 11:53am

30. 'Here's my recommendation: People need to have realistic expectations about childrearing before they get into it. This requires sex education in public schools.' -- JakobFabian

    Sex education, maybe. But try this instead: every night for a week, wake your teenager up several times at random intervals, make him or her go into a kitchen and warm up a bottle of frozen milk (not in the microwave! it damages breast milk!) then stand there with a doll for fifteen minutes or so to simulate feeding. For realism, play a tape of a baby screaming at the top of its lungs from time to time.

    No offense to the Marines, but it's good parents who are really "the Few and the Proud."

    Posted by HonestLiberal at 10/19/2009 @ 11:57am

31. Marriage is a very specific social contract, between a man and a woman, with roots as a religious rite. Its purpose is a partnership in division of labor to facilitate raising children. Marriage as it stands now, means a specific thing. Same-sex marriage will allow that institution to mean anything, so marriage will end up meaning nothing.

    Posted by twillie at 10/18/2009 @ 9:22pm

    twillie, your bigotry is showing again.

    Marriage started as a very specific business contract, between a man and a man (two fathers, or perhaps a single man and the woman's father), with roots as a business proposition. That's how it started, not as some sort of religious ceremony in which two people vowed to love each other for the rest of their lives. That is also why marriage in the United States is sanctioned by the STATE and not a religious institution. Notice that the priest, minister, justice of the peace, whatever, ALWAYS says, "By the power vested in me by the STATE of whatever..." those are required words in every legitimate marriage in the United States.

    I will argue that the divorce rate among heterosexuals in this country is doing more damage to the institution of marriage than anything same sex marriage could possibly do. It is divorce that renders marriage "meaningless," not same sex marriage.

    BTW, what precisely does marriage "mean" now, since you say it means a specific thing? Does it mean "till death do us part?" Does it mean "child support included after we divorce?" Does it mean "I can screw around on you if I don't get found out?" What SPECIFICALLY does it mean? And why don't people act like it means that specific thing?

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/19/2009 @ 12:29pm

32. To ignore this abomination only serves to further exacercerbate hard feelings and the thriving of groups like the Tea Party. What is the solution?

    As Bill O'Reilly would say, "What say you, Ms. Lacewell?"

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/19/2009 @ 10:18am

    But I thought you were a FAN of the Tea Party crowd....

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/19/2009 @ 12:35pm

33. All I, and others who agree, are asking for is some honest dialogue on the subject. We are all in this together. Those who are impoverished will continue to breed without any means of support. The answer has to come from THEM. Practicing birth control for awhile would go a long way. Hell, everybody likes sex. Give America a chance to catch up and formulate solutions. With out co-operation, we will all go down together. I think this is pretty much how Abraham Lincoln felt, only in a fundamental sense.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/19/2009 @ 11:01am

    Sounds like you're all for giving teenagers condoms and doing away with "abstinence-only" sex education and telling our young people all about sex.

    Wow. Or is it only the poor people and/or the black people who should practice birth control?

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/19/2009 @ 12:40pm

34. America is heading down the same degenerate road as Europe. It's simply happening a slower pace.

    I pray that I don't live long enough to see these movements fully develop into a modern Sodom and Gemorrah;but we are getting close.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/19/2009 @ 11:16am

    I hope to God that we become more like Europe everyday, because they actually practice tolerance a little better than we, a supposedly Christian nation, do. I guess they are simply closer to Christ than you, Larry.

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/19/2009 @ 12:44pm

35. "Clearly marriage is rooted in something far more personal and spiritual..."

    Yeah, property rights. At the root...it's a property agreement.

    "To sustain marriage some were willingly to endure slavery."

    That's funny in so many ways, I'll just chuckle. The more things change, the more they stay the same - except the slaves aren't all African Americans.

    SINGLE PEOPLE UNITE !! LOL

    Posted by TheAfterParty at 10/19/2009 @ 12:56pm

36. "twillie, your bigotry is showing again. Marriage started as a very specific business contract, between a man and a man (two fathers, or perhaps a single man and the woman's father), with roots as a business proposition. That's how it started, not as some sort of religious ceremony in which two people vowed to love each other for the rest of their lives. That is also why marriage in the United States is sanctioned by the STATE and not a religious institution. Notice that the priest, minister, justice of the peace, whatever, ALWAYS says, "By the power vested in me by the STATE of whatever..." those are required words in every legitimate marriage in the United States. I will argue that the divorce rate among heterosexuals in this country is doing more damage to the institution of marriage than anything same sex marriage could possibly do. It is divorce that renders marriage "meaningless," not same sex marriage. BTW, what precisely does marriage "mean" now, since you say it means a specific thing? Does it mean "till death do us part?" Does it mean "child support included after we divorce?" Does it mean "I can screw around on you if I don't get found out?" What SPECIFICALLY does it mean? And why don't people act like it means that specific thing?" Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/19/2009 @ 12:29pm

    What a wanker! What bigotry? and what do you mean "again".

    Marriage didn't start out with dowry, it started before well before then, as a division of labor. It has since evolved, but still has a specific meaning. The fact that you don't like it, belies more about how you were effected by the Sixties, and less about whether it needs modifying now.

    Before you start throwing around terms like "bigotry", wanker, you ought to consider other arguments.

    Posted by twillie at 10/19/2009 @ 12:57pm

37. You asked so I'll answer and I appreciate the opportunity. Of course there are divorces in all communities. But there has to be a marriage before there can be a divorce. You ignore the staistics. There are over twice as many single parent black families then in any other demographic. Based on blacks as a percentage of the entire population, this is a startling figure. Why is this I ask? Also, white divorced fathers are much more likely, not only to have the means but also the desire to support their offspring, subjectively speaking. I maintain, as do others, that there was a calculated effort and even an expectation that white America should indeed pay for the rearing of black children because of a feeling, on the part of blacks, that they were entitled as part of RAP-arations, (Goggle Rap Brown). There was no acrimony on their part or even feelings of guilt because they 'had it coming'. It was expected. So now we see the results of this irresponsible behavior along with faulty legislative logic, in all the urban areas throught the country. Poverty, unemployment, gang warfare, drugs, prostitution, blight and unchallanged children. It is now the responsibility of black leaders from Barack Obama on down and to experts like Ms. Lacewell to begin the process of self improvement in the black community. The well of assistance is dry and white working families are struggling to survive themselves. Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/19/2009 @ 10:54am

    I don't think you're considering the whole picture. I suspect that once you factor in socioeconomic status, the rate of single-parent black families would be similar to other races.

    Posted by twillie at 10/19/2009 @ 1:03pm

38. "Advanced notions of child welfare have made divorce more humane, for the sake of the children who have to live through it - and who are better off not being the hostages of an unhappy marriage."

    What in the world makes you think that children of divorce are better off? Higher rates of teen pregnancy, crime, and dropping out of formal education makes them "better off"?

    In cases of spousal abuse, I'm all for quick divorce and legal penalties. In other cases, instead of a quickie divorce, so the adults can get back to reliving their single days, courts should mandate marriage counselling. Why? "For the children", that's why.

    "Childcare is now haphazardly commodified rather than universally available to working parents. On the one hand, childcare workers are poorly paid; on the other, parents cannot afford to pay them."

    Why is that? Maybe one parent should stay at home, and save on childcare. Maybe society should take steps to encourage stay-at-home parents, instead of encouraging parents to ship the kids off to daycare with government subsidies.

    "Marriage is merely a model for creating a fair, humane, and economically viable family unit by means of contract. It can be easily expanded to include different contracting partners, but with similar shared responsibilities."

    Posted by JakobFabian at 10/19/2009 @ 07:44am

    In your opinion, maybe. I disagree. If you expand it, you change it irrevocably.

    Posted by twillie at 10/19/2009 @ 1:20pm

39. Indeed the Times seemed intent on portraying Valenti's marriage as a morality tale: tough feminists may talk about social equality, but all girls really want is a good man and note-worthy bustle. For some, Valenti's wedding became a lens for assessing her feminist credentials.

    ***********

    I think this only proves that former Nation guest blogger, Valenti, is four or five decades smarter than Gloria Steinem.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/19/2009 @ 1:27pm

40. "So you don't believe, "twillie," that gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender couples want any social contract, or that they want a fair and humane partnership in a religious or secular sense, or that they want to divide labor to facilitate raising children? Why not? There is no reason for your set of assumptions but bigotry."

    Posted by JakobFabian at 10/19/2009 @ 07:49am

    The problem is, I don't know what they want. We're told that the ONLY modification needed is to change marriage to a union of two people, regardless of sex. Well, is this arrangement agreeable to bisexuals? I don't know, but I'm guessing, maybe not. Same for transgenders. So, I'm wondering, what changes to marriage do they want? and, what will other groups that we have'nt heard from want?

    And that's where I arrive at, if you change to mean anything, then it will mean very little. that, my friend, is hardly bigotry, unless you define bigotry as "anyone who disagrees with you".

    Posted by twillie at 10/19/2009 @ 1:31pm

41. "And that's where I arrive at, if you change to mean anything, then it will mean very little. that, my friend, is hardly bigotry, unless you define bigotry as "anyone who disagrees with you"

    in current marriage law, there is no rule which states that one partner should have a penis, and the other partner should have a vagina.

    there isn't even a rule which states that one partner should have similar chromosomes, and the other opposite chromosomes.

    so, when you say, "change to mean anything," you have demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of what the laws state.

    and you therefore have also embraced the faulty assumption that a union of two opposite-sexed, or opposite 'chromosomed,' partners is the only "normal" or "legal" union by which all other unions are measured.

    and the example of interracial marriages is a perfect example....it demolished the previously held understanding that only same-race partners could marry.

    Posted by darladoon at 10/19/2009 @ 2:00pm

42. I hope to God that we become more like Europe everyday, because they actually practice tolerance a little better than we, a supposedly Christian nation, do. I guess they are simply closer to Christ than you, Larry.

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/19/2009 @ 12:44pm

    Jesus did not "tolerate" money changers in the temple. It is the difference between accepting who people are vs. accepting their actions.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/19/2009 @ 2:01pm

43. " If you expand it, you change it irrevocably."

    so what?

    why are conservatives so afraid of change?

    Posted by darladoon at 10/19/2009 @ 2:04pm

44. Speaking of becoming more like Europe:

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/10/19/ unlike_obama_americans_reject_european_model_98768.html

    Unlike Obama, Americans Reject European Model By Michael Barone

    An interesting paradox. Last year, America elected a president who, in attitudes and policies, is closer to the elites of Western Europe than any of his predecessors. Yet in the nine months that he has been in office, ordinary Americans have been moving away from those attitudes and policies ...

    Despite the recession, by about 50 to 40 percent Americans continue to prefer smaller government with fewer services to larger government with more services ... Some 80 percent want the government to sell its interest in General Motors ...

    A 58 to 35 percent majority say keep the budget deficit down even if it takes longer for the economy to recover ... A 53 to 33 percent majority oppose more government regulation of the finance sector ...

    June's 50 to 45 percent approval of Democratic health care proposals morphs to a similar margin of disapproval in October ... And satisfaction with one's own health care arrangements rises from 29 percent in 2008 and 35 percent in May 2009 to 48 percent in August ...

    Support for a handgun ban has fallen from 60 percent in 1960 and 43 percent in the early 1990s to 29 percent in May 2009 ... By a 48 to 34 percent margin, Americans believe global warming is caused by long-term planetary trends rather than human activity ...

    (... Barone cites polls)

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/19/2009 @ 2:09pm

45. thanks for straying off topic darin.

    Posted by darladoon at 10/19/2009 @ 2:11pm

46. " If you expand it, you change it irrevocably."

    so what?

    why are conservatives so afraid of change?

    Posted by darladoon at 10/19/2009 @ 2:04pm

    Well, the word, "racism" used to be a bad thing. But it was expanded to include everything including the kitchen sink. Today it means a white person. It's lost all of viceral punch. Surely, that's a bad thing to lose a valuable tool in the fight against bigotry.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/19/2009 @ 2:19pm

47. thanks for straying off topic darin.

    Posted by darladoon at 10/19/2009 @ 2:11pm

    I didn't stray off topic, Carver said he wished we were more like Europe. According to polls he's about the only one.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/19/2009 @ 2:22pm

48. and the example of interracial marriages is a perfect example....it demolished the previously held understanding that only same-race partners could marry.

    Posted by darladoon at 10/19/2009 @ 2:00pm

    What, you mean previously to Othello and Desdemona?

    Posted by Mistral at 10/19/2009 @ 2:28pm

49. "so, when you say, "change to mean anything," you have demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of what the laws state. and you therefore have also embraced the faulty assumption that a union of two opposite-sexed, or opposite 'chromosomed,' partners is the only "normal" or "legal" union by which all other unions are measured. and the example of interracial marriages is a perfect example....it demolished the previously held understanding that only same-race partners could marry."

    Posted by darladoon at 10/19/2009 @ 2:00pm

    No, I don't display a fundamental misunderstanding. Current laws say marriage is between a man and a woman. No genital checks are needed at the door.

    And the "example of interracial marriages" is not a perfect example. They were also between men and women. I'm guessing that interracial marriages were illegal for a century or less. Marriage is quite a bit older.

    Posted by twillie at 10/19/2009 @ 2:35pm

50. "I didn't stray off topic"

    you did just that.

    Posted by darladoon at 10/19/2009 @ 2:35pm

51. Marriage didn't start out with dowry, it started before well before then, as a division of labor.

    Posted by twillie at 10/19/2009 @ 12:57pm

    I think you're wrong. We see division of labor among virtually all the species irrespective of whether they are life-long pair bonding or not. Female lions do all the hunting. Female bears raise the cubs. Queen bees sit on their asses. Male penquins shuffle the eggs on their feet.

    Life-long pair bonding is not about division of labor. It is about life-long pair bonding because life-long pair bonding is hard-wired into our brains.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/19/2009 @ 2:36pm

52. why are conservatives so afraid of change? Posted by darladoon at 10/19/2009 @ 2:04pm

    Why are liberals so afraid of the status quo?

    Posted by twillie at 10/19/2009 @ 2:38pm

53. Marriage didn't start out with dowry, it started before well before then, as a division of labor. It has since evolved, but still has a specific meaning. The fact that you don't like it, belies more about how you were effected by the Sixties, and less about whether it needs modifying now.

    Before you start throwing around terms like "bigotry", wanker, you ought to consider other arguments.

    Posted by twillie at 10/19/2009 @ 12:57pm

    Call me a wanker all you want, but you have yet to answer the question: What is marriage's "specific" meaning?"

    Just because YOU say a thing has a specific meaning, that only means it has a specific meaning TO YOU. I am curious to know what it's specific meaning is to everyone. Bet you can't answer that, probably because every person's answer would be different, thus making it pretty non-specific, wouldn't it?

    But then I guess my bet would make me a wanker again, right?

    You righties are so easy to upset.

    By the way, I was born in the sixties to a military family, I wasn't "effected" by it.

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/19/2009 @ 2:42pm

54. Jesus did not "tolerate" money changers in the temple. It is the difference between accepting who people are vs. accepting their actions.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/19/2009 @ 2:01pm

    Jesus didn't tolerate a lot of what you and Larry seem to think of as acceptable in a so-called Christian nation. Yet again, I only point it out not to show that I am somehow holier than Larry (because I consider myself holier than no one), but that he is not half so holy as he likes to believe.

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/19/2009 @ 2:47pm

55. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/19/2009 @ 2:09pm

    Just curious Darin (and still of topic, sorry Darla), how MANY of those Americans polled are truly knowledgeable about Europe, eh, or were simply going off what the media feeds them on a daily basis about "socialist" Europe?

    It seems to me that during the recent health care debates, Americans have proven themselves to be, by and large, completely devoid of realistic and accurate information about anything European, which is not terribly surprising, considering that as a nation, we are incredibly egotistical. Hell, I would imagine many Americans still think the Norwegians still wear viking helmets and the French are all losers and the Germans are all Nazis and the Italians are all mobsters and the Polish...well (insert Polish joke here). I bet most Americans know next to nothing about the majority of European people.

    So I have to ask you, are polls answered by people uneducated about the subject matter of the poll, statistically relevant to ANY conversation?

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/19/2009 @ 3:01pm

56. Why are liberals so afraid of the status quo?

    Posted by twillie at 10/19/2009 @ 2:38pm

    What an ignorant wanker question. Because the status quo, as it currently exists in this country, denies people basic freedoms of which we are guaranteed in the greatest document the planet has ever known, the Constitution.

    The status quo 50 years ago stopped black and white people from marrying.

    The status quo 100 years ago meant that women couldn't vote.

    The status quo 150 years ago had white people owning black people.

    The status quo 200 years ago (or thereabouts) had us as English citizens unfairly taxed.

    Do I need go on?

    The Constitution, in its wisdom, does NOT mention god once. Your resistance to same sex marriage is rooted in bigotry and hatred of things you can't possibly understand and obviously have no intention of even trying. It's not about the "slippery slope" of "where do marriages end?" "Are the bisexuals happy with that?" Please. To you, it's about making sure there are still people you and your kind can continue to discriminate against.

    Until there is freedom for all, there is freedom for none. I don't know who said that originally, but he (or she) was a genius.

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/19/2009 @ 3:11pm

57. Yet again, I only point it out not to show that I am somehow holier than Larry (because I consider myself holier than no one), but that he is not half so holy as he likes to believe.

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/19/2009 @ 2:47pm

    We are all sinners. Every Sunday in the ELCA we confess that "We are in bondage sin and cannot free ourselves." I'm sure Larry knows he's a sinner.

    I have always been impressed with Larry's committment to live his faith more faithfully than I have the courage to do.

    On homosexual marriage, I'm more liberal than Larry. I think states should change their laws through the legislative process to accept gay marriage if that is consistent with the electorate's wishes. I would probably even vote for the proposition if it were a ballot initiative.

    I don't think homosexuals are more sinful than adulterers, masturbaters, fornicators, sodimites (even within marriage), or those who lust. I am reminded of Jesus's teaching that to God, lust is adultery and anger is murder.

    I know I will never be able to stop lusting, but at least I try to stop masterbating. I suppose it would be a lot harder to pretend I was trying to stop if I was contractually obligated to masturbate on a semi-regular basis. (Like homosexuals in a homosexual marriage are contractualy obligated to engage in homosexual sex on a semi-regular basis.)

    Even that is a cop-out. There are those who believe that all non-procreative sex even within marriage is sinful. Having had a vasectomy there are those who would consider sex within my marriage no different than homosexual activity.

    There darla, I'm back on topic.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/19/2009 @ 3:31pm

58. Great to see more and more good thinkers like Ms. Harris-Lacewell and several of the commenters who recognize that the problem is discriminating on the basis of marital and relationship status, and that same-sex marriage is nowhere near a complete solution. Society should help all individuals and relationships thrive.

    The Alternatives to Marriage Project is the only national nonprofit organization working to end discrimination and achieve fairness for all unmarried people. Check out our work at www.unmarried.org/politics.html!

    Posted by UnmarriedDotOrg at 10/19/2009 @ 3:38pm

59. Your resistance to same sex marriage is rooted in bigotry and hatred of things you can't possibly understand and obviously have no intention of even trying.... it's about making sure there are still people you and your kind can continue to discriminate against.

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/19/2009 @ 3:11pm

    If the President opposed your position on marriage equality, would you change your opinion?

    Posted by Mistral at 10/19/2009 @ 3:38pm

60. So I have to ask you, are polls answered by people uneducated about the subject matter of the poll, statistically relevant to ANY conversation?

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/19/2009 @ 3:01pm

    Yes they are relevent to the subject of elections.

    I am convinced that I don't like green eggs and ham. If I ordered a cheeseburger and the waitstaff brought me green eggs and ham, I'd leave without paying and without tipping and go get a cheeseburger. That's just the way I roll.

    If a politician passed a law mandating that I experiment with green eggs and ham, I'd resist and vote him out of office the first chance I get and vote in someone to repeal the green eggs and ham bill.

    Yeah, the Brits and the French have socialized medicine. The the later eat snails and the former eat haggis. If you want to import some snails and haggis for America's poor, be my guest, just leave my cheeseburger the fuck alone.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/19/2009 @ 3:39pm

61. The status quo 150 years ago had white people owning black people.

    The status quo 200 years ago (or thereabouts) had us as English citizens unfairly taxed.

    Do I need go on?

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/19/2009 @ 3:11pm

    Actually, I think 150 years ago white people owned white people. A man's wife and chidren were his legal property. I'm not exactly sure when that stopped.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/19/2009 @ 3:48pm

62. Interesting that immediately after my post saying I've been with my girlfriend for 12 years, jones posts this:

    "Anyone who thinks what transpires between homosexuals constitutes the base of "equality" in something they call "marriage" -- which they flunked in life -- is probably a H1Ni vax defective."

    I think this shows the willful blindness of same-sex marriage opponents. It doesn't matter if a couple has been together 12 years or 50 years, they'll still describe homosexual relationships as a failure and promiscuous.

    My three heterosexual friends from high school have all been married and are divorced. One didn't even last a year. My heterosexual neighbors are divorced. It would not be an exaggeration to say I'm surrounded by divorced white heterosexuals. Yet I'm still in the same relationship I've been in since I was 20.

    If I went by what I've witnessed with my own eyes I might think heterosexuals have a privilege they don't deserve. But I don't believe that liberty and rights are to be handed out or taken away by the government based on fickle opinion without due process.

    Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are birthrights. The pursuit of happiness does not mean happiness is guaranteed. It just means we are allowed to try, and we are allowed to fail without losing our liberty.

    So even if we knew beforehand which marriages would fail, we still wouldn't have the right to deny anyone the opportunity to pursue a happy marriage.

    Posted by GrrrlRomeo at 10/19/2009 @ 4:03pm

63. I think this shows the willful blindness of same-sex marriage opponents.

    Posted by GrrrlRomeo at 10/19/2009 @ 4:03pm

    Your resistance to same sex marriage is rooted in bigotry and hatred

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/19/2009 @ 3:11pm

    So does this mean the President of the United States is a bigot and hater afflicted with willful blindness?

    Posted by Mistral at 10/19/2009 @ 4:22pm

64. "So does this mean the President of the United States is a bigot and hater afflicted with willful blindness?"

    Posted by Mistral at 10/19/2009 @ 4:22pm

    No, what this means is that you combined the opinions of two different individuals because you're incapable of understanding nuances and anything more complicated than black and white, yes and no, for and against.

    Posted by GrrrlRomeo at 10/19/2009 @ 4:33pm

65. Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/19/2009 @ 12:29pm

    Stephen, you can keep repeating this lie of yours about the history of marriage, but it won't make it any less false.

    The institution of marriage brought to the US is over 10,000 years old according to Jesus and is always between a man and a woman.

    As I've said before, the states can license any kind of relationships they want into civil contracts, but that doesn't make them a marriage.

    Until sometime around 1830 few if any states conducted civil marriages. The term marriage was meant by the states to incorporate the religious term and was implemented to separate white marriages from those of Blacks (another sad commentary on our country's history).

    State licensed marriage was not fully implemented in all states until the early 20th century.

    As to divorce, you can thank liberalism (both secular and religious), no fault divorces, easy birth control, legalized abortion, feminism, and homosexuality for the breakdown of the institution of marriage.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/19/2009 @ 4:42pm

66. "As I've said before, the states can license any kind of relationships they want into civil contracts, but that doesn't make them a marriage. "

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/19/2009 @ 4:42pm

    The states can deny my partner and I a marriage license until death do us part, but we are still married. We are married whether you like it or not, whether you accept it or not, whether it's legal are not. We are married, in love and happy.

    Posted by GrrrlRomeo at 10/19/2009 @ 4:51pm

67. The states can deny my partner and I a marriage license until death do us part, but we are still married. We are married whether you like it or not, whether you accept it or not, whether it's legal are not. We are married, in love and happy.

    Posted by GrrrlRomeo at 10/19/2009 @ 4:51pm

    You may be a couple, you may be very happy; but you are not married and that does not matter whether I like it or not. What you are engaged in is an abomination to G-d; now worse than the condition of an adulterer, a liar, or a thief, but your lifestyle is acceptable to some of mankind, but rejected by G-d.

    pastor larry robinson

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/19/2009 @ 5:01pm

68. "You may be a couple, you may be very happy; but you are not married and that does not matter whether I like it or not. What you are engaged in is an abomination to G-d; now worse than the condition of an adulterer, a liar, or a thief, but your lifestyle is acceptable to some of mankind, but rejected by G-d."

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/19/2009 @ 5:01pm

    That is what you believe. I am as God made me. Gay. And Jesus loves and accepts me and I have this wonderful gift in the ability to love and commit to another person. That is my faith which is every bit as valid as your faith because this country has a thing called Freedom of Religion.

    My Aunt is also gay and she and her partner were married by a Methodist Minister. And the fact that the government doesn't treat their marriage exactly the same as my sister in-law who was married to her husband by a Universalist Unitarian is a very clear violation of the First Amendment.

    To be clear, I did not mix up my religions there. Some Methodists do perform same-sex marriage ceremonies, as do UUs and many other denominations and religions.

    Additionally, the Catholic Church refused to marry my biological parents because my father had been previously married and divorced and I was already born out of wedlock. So, my parents simply went to a Baptist church to get married.

    Simply put, religion doesn't get in the way of marriage because we have freedom of religion. And so government shouldn't get in the way of it either.

    Posted by GrrrlRomeo at 10/19/2009 @ 5:25pm

69. Yes they are relevent to the subject of elections.

    I am convinced that I don't like green eggs and ham. If I ordered a cheeseburger and the waitstaff brought me green eggs and ham, I'd leave without paying and without tipping and go get a cheeseburger. That's just the way I roll.

    If a politician passed a law mandating that I experiment with green eggs and ham, I'd resist and vote him out of office the first chance I get and vote in someone to repeal the green eggs and ham bill.

    Yeah, the Brits and the French have socialized medicine. The the later eat snails and the former eat haggis. If you want to import some snails and haggis for America's poor, be my guest, just leave my cheeseburger the fuck alone.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/19/2009 @ 3:39pm

    But, as my mother used to say (and you listen to your mother don't you, being a good conservative and all?), "How do you know you don't like it if you've never tried it?"

    I would equate that to: How can you have an opinion about a continent you know nothing about? No one's taking away your cheeseburger, Fat Troll - hell they just opened a McDonald's in the Louvre for god's sake. My point is, how can a poll taken by people who are uneducated about the subject of the poll, be considered anything more than "self pleasuring?" I am sure that if the people of Europe took the exact same poll about America, you'd get similar results, but what do EITHER of them prove? Nothing.

    And your point about elections is...well...pointless. We're not in an election to become Europe, or elect them President. The people taking the polls have (probably) no first hand knowledge, so the poll more accurately reflects the opinions of the media makers towards Europe rather than the actual attitudes people have about Europe.

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/19/2009 @ 5:29pm

70. So does this mean the President of the United States is a bigot and hater afflicted with willful blindness?

    Posted by Mistral at 10/19/2009 @ 4:22pm

    First of all, I was speaking specifically about twillie specifically when I used the word bigot.

    Secondly, I would say that Obama's opinions ARE a reflection of willful blindness. If he doesn't see the connection that gays are facing in the marriage equality fight with the same equal rights fight that African Americans fought in the 50's and 60's, then yes, I would say that's "willful blindness."

    There are a lot of African Americans who believe as he does. And I STILL say that until all are free, none are free. In a land in which everyone is recognized as equal under the law, then there simply cannot be a law that recognizes and allows discrimination. Marriage is a civil right in the United States. Until it is a civil right for everyone in the United States, then no one should have the right to marry.

    Just a question for all you right wingers...why does it have to be between a man and a woman? Procreation? Child-raising? The Bible? The Quran? Why can't it be between two consenting adults?

    I bet nine out of ten of you will say some version of: "my religion says it's wrong."

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/19/2009 @ 5:36pm

71. I'm a straight supporter of marriage equality and a woman of color. And I think the emotional appeal marriage (and sometimes family) has among people of color is both the strongest leverage point against homophobia, and paradoxically helps to cement heterosexism/homophobia in place.

    What do I mean by that? To draw from the example of Prop 8 in CA: a lot of people were attracted to the yard signs consisting of stick figures of "mom, dad, two kids" and a house during Prop 8's campaign to make discrimination part of the CA constitution. The *idea* of nuclear family, even if the reality is very different, has enormous appeal among African Americans for the historical reasons you cite in your post, as well as for Latinos and Asian Pacific Americans. We can't underestimate how the actual stresses of poverty, geographic separation, and immigration make an intact nuclear family a cherished, sentimental, aspirational ideal among many people of color. (I've written about this previously here: http://momocrats.typepad.com/momocrats/2008/11/prop-8-its-afte.html)

    I know my own APA community, and the more religious and recently immigrated among us are, sadly, least likely to support marriage equality. There's so much more work to be done, and not the least of it is recognizing why and how "marriage" and "family" resonate powerfully in these communities. We can and must expand definitions of both if marriage equality is to become a reality. But reason won't be the only way to win hearts and minds among people of color on this issue.

    And lest anyone think that homophobia/heterosexism is unique to nonwhite communities, please note the largest bloc of Prop 8 supporters in multi-culti California was still older, religious whites. There's plenty of work to be done everywhere.

    Posted by CWL at 10/19/2009 @ 5:38pm

72. If the President opposed your position on marriage equality, would you change your opinion?

    Posted by Mistral at 10/19/2009 @ 3:38pm

    The President does oppose my position. So what's your point?

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/19/2009 @ 5:38pm

73. As to divorce, you can thank liberalism (both secular and religious), no fault divorces, easy birth control, legalized abortion, feminism, and homosexuality for the breakdown of the institution of marriage.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/19/2009 @ 4:42pm

    So, everybody's to blame but you, right Larry? Hope you never fall off that pedestal you're sitting on.

    Personally, I think we should blame PETA, the ACLU, Greenpeace, small children in African countries, the Chinese, the French (we can blame them for everything), and Hugo Chavez.

    As a "libertarian," I would expect you, of all people to place the blame for divorce where it actually lies: the personal responsibility of the people getting married.

    But no...like a true neocon, you blame everyone else. How Cheneyan of you.

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/19/2009 @ 5:47pm

74. Just a question for all you right wingers...why does it have to be between a man and a woman? Procreation? Child-raising? The Bible? The Quran? Why can't it be between two consenting adults?

    I bet nine out of ten of you will say some version of: "my religion says it's wrong."

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/19/2009 @ 5:36pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    God's word revealed in the books of the Holy Bible supports only hetrosexual marriage and that is good enough for me reguardless of what any other denomination decides through the "failed wisdom of men" to follow!

    Any denomination that has turned away from the truth of God's revealed word will also be judged for it!

    Posted by BigPasture at 10/19/2009 @ 6:10pm

75. "Any denomination that has turned away from the truth of God's revealed word will also be judged for it!"

    Posted by BigPasture at 10/19/2009 @ 6:10pm

    Then that is for God to judge, not you or the government. The bible also says you will be judged by God in the same way you have judged others. He who exalts himself shall be made humble and he who humbles himself shall be exalted. The meek shall inherit the earth and the persecutors shall become the persecuted. Those who show mercy shall be shown mercy. Those who love shall be loved. We are all the oppressed and we are all the oppressors.

    Posted by GrrrlRomeo at 10/19/2009 @ 6:31pm

76. "We must do more than simply integrate new groups into an old system. Let's use this moment to re-imagine marriage and marriage-free options for building families, rearing children, crafting communities, and distributing public goods. "

    Absolutely!! Thank you so much for this thoughtful and nuanced piece!

    Posted by jlatcheson at 10/19/2009 @ 6:51pm

77. Posted by GrrrlRomeo at 10/19/2009 @ 6:31pm

    You obviously haven't read the new Conservative Bible that takes out all that "love thy neighbor as thyself" stuff. :)

    It's a whole new interpretation of the Bible that I think pastor Larry is writing, in which Jesus believes that war is OK, socialism (or caring about others) is really unnecessary and not REALLY part of Christ's teachings, the rich shall inherit the earth, and the persecutors (those who believe in pre-emptive war) are right.

    You know, the Neocon Bible.

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/19/2009 @ 6:53pm

78. Posted by GrrrlRomeo at 10/19/2009 @ 6:31pm

    As Christians we have a duty to judge people, whether people in the world, in the church or in the family. We believe in the principle of sola scriptura. Because Scripture alone is God's word, it is infallible and inerrant and we are to judge all things on the basis of it. In 1 Corinthians 2:15-16 Paul speaks about the spiritual man, pneumatikos, meaning one in whom the Holy Spirit dwells, a Holy Spirit-controlled person: "The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment: ‘For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him?' But we have the mind of Christ." Thus, a Christian is competent to judge all things because he is one in whom the Holy Spirit dwells and he has the mind of Christ.

    In 1 John 4:1 the apostle John commands us not to believe every spirit. Instead, he says, "test the spirits to see whether they are from God." In other words, Christians are not to be gullible, credulous, ignorant, naive, lazy, or anti-theological in their assessment of people. Judging people before trusting them is a spiritual activity which we are commanded by Scripture to perform.

    In 2 Corinthians 11:4 Paul said, "For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough." That is what happens to naive, lazy, undiscerning, undiscriminating, subjective, feeling-centered, blind Christians.

    continued

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/19/2009 @ 7:08pm

79. Dear antisocialist,

    I forgive you.

    Posted by GrrrlRomeo at 10/19/2009 @ 7:18pm

80. You obviously haven't read the new Conservative Bible that takes out all that "love thy neighbor as thyself" stuff. :)

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/19/2009 @ 6:53pm

    Well no... I was raised Catholic after all. Adding to or taking away from the bible is prohibited. That's why the Catholic bible is longer than the Protestant bible. And sadly, much blood has been shed over what should be considered bliblical canon. That's why freedom of religion is so necessary for peace.

    Posted by GrrrlRomeo at 10/19/2009 @ 7:30pm

81. Posted by GrrrlRomeo at 10/19/2009 @ 6:31pm

    continued on the Christian duty to judge

    The world tells us not to judge anyone, that every religion is equally true, and that no one has done anything wrong. All of these ideas come from the devil itself. There is absolute truth, and it is found in the pages of the Bible.

    Either the Bible is authored by the devil or by man or by God. If it is authored by man, we can forget about it. If it is authored by the devil, we can also forget about it. But if it is authored by God himself, which it is, we must judge all things, including people, according to the Bible. We are to judge, not based on our subjectivity and good feelings, but according to the Book.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/19/2009 @ 7:35pm

82. You obviously haven't read the new Conservative Bible that takes out all that "love thy neighbor as thyself" stuff. :)

    It's a whole new interpretation of the Bible that I think pastor Larry is writing, in which Jesus believes that war is OK, socialism (or caring about others) is really unnecessary and not REALLY part of Christ's teachings, the rich shall inherit the earth, and the persecutors (those who believe in pre-emptive war) are right.

    You know, the Neocon Bible.

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/19/2009 @ 6:53pm

    Stephen, don't you get tired of lying?

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/19/2009 @ 7:49pm

83. Dear antisocialist,

    I forgive you.

    Posted by GrrrlRomeo at 10/19/2009 @ 7:18pm

    There's nothing to forgive.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/19/2009 @ 7:50pm

84. There's nothing to forgive.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/19/2009 @ 7:50pm

    Nothing at all? Then by all means, commence the stoning.

    I still forgive you.

    Posted by GrrrlRomeo at 10/19/2009 @ 8:03pm

85. I really want to read that book about slave marriages because that is a remarkable subject to me. I have seen photos of Black men coming out of the slavery era with their wives and children clearly not their own yet loving an embracing them as their own. Knowing the circumstances that is remarkable to me.

    Posted by Lalareina at 10/19/2009 @ 8:17pm

86. "There are a lot of African Americans who believe as he does. And I STILL say that until all are free, none are free. In a land in which everyone is recognized as equal under the law, then there simply cannot be a law that recognizes and allows discrimination. Marriage is a civil right in the United States. Until it is a civil right for everyone in the United States, then no one should have the right to marry."

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/19/2009 @ 5:36pm

    Wow. So, everyone is equal under law in this country? I did not know 10 year olds could marry, vote, and drink alcohol like me. I thought felons were not allowed to vote. I hear some adults are not allowed to drive cars. It does'nt sound like we're all free to me.

    Can you point out the clause in the constitution that identifies marriage as a civil right? I don't remember that one.

    Posted by twillie at 10/19/2009 @ 8:31pm

87. "What is marriage's "specific" meaning?" Just because YOU say a thing has a specific meaning, that only means it has a specific meaning TO YOU. I am curious to know what it's specific meaning is to everyone. Bet you can't answer that, probably because every person's answer would be different, thus making it pretty non-specific, wouldn't it?"

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/19/2009 @ 2:42pm

    Here it is: A union between a man and a woman. And Stephen, it's not just me. It's most people in this country. Not everyone. Just most people. And I couldn't begin to explain "every person's" answer. When a majority of people decide to change it to mean something else, they will.

    Posted by twillie at 10/19/2009 @ 8:38pm

88. "What an ignorant wanker question. Because the status quo, as it currently exists in this country, denies people basic freedoms of which we are guaranteed in the greatest document the planet has ever known, the Constitution. The status quo 50 years ago stopped black and white people from marrying. The status quo 100 years ago meant that women couldn't vote. The status quo 150 years ago had white people owning black people. The status quo 200 years ago (or thereabouts) had us as English citizens unfairly taxed. Do I need go on? The Constitution, in its wisdom, does NOT mention god once. Your resistance to same sex marriage is rooted in bigotry and hatred of things you can't possibly understand and obviousl even trying. It's not about the "slippery slope" of "where do marriages end?" "Are the bisexuals happy with that?" Please. To you, it's about making sure there are still people you and your kind can continue to discriminate against. Until there is freedom for all, there is freedom for none." Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/19/2009 @ 3:11pm

    Wow. I'm both a bigot (still unsubstantiated) and a wanker.

    Change 100 years ago meant an interwoven set of treaties in Europe that led to war.

    Hey, that Constitution is more than 200 YEARS old. Don't you think some change is needed? Shouldn't we just toss it out and start over? It's SO status quo. But, please go on. Before you do, though, read David Mamet's essay, "Why I'm no longer a brain-dead liberal".

    My resistance to same sex marriage is rooted in a distaste for the liberal need for constant social engineering, with no regard for the consequences, and abdication of responsibility for those changes.

    For you, it's about change, just for the sake of change. Maybe self-hatred, maybe a congenital inability to be happy.

    Posted by twillie at 10/19/2009 @ 8:52pm

89. slave marriages? were there any?

    Posted by emile duBois at 10/19/2009 @ 9:56pm

90. Mellissa- You are one wonderful thinker. I've seen you on MSNBC, on Rachel Maddow's show, and on Keith Olberman, and have been in love with your mind and ideas for about three years. I hope you've been on that long, but that's the nature of admiration: exaggeration. I'm the kind of guy that thinks you ought to meet my New Orleans-loving son, the philosophe, but he's decided to go to New York and make his way via Hunter College.

    So-back to reality. Thanks for your comments on this. I'll share with my daughter, who right now, is probably getting some pressure to marry from others not in the family, and has no frame of reference against which to measure the offers. Thanks so much for your thoughtful writing, and your intelligence and courage to write about the whole picture, from the slavery of blacks to the slavery of women. I want to send my daughter to Princeton, but alas, we simply can't afford it.

    All the best, and thanks for your wonderful mind,

    Mike Fender Arlington. MA

    Posted by mfender at 10/19/2009 @ 10:02pm

91. <i>As to divorce, you can thank liberalism (both secular and religious), no fault divorces, easy birth control, legalized abortion, feminism, and homosexuality for the breakdown of the institution of marriage.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/19/2009 @ 4:42pm </i>

    Let's go down that list.

    First, I think we're actually agreed on no-fault divorce, and to some extent, religious liberalism. Other than that, though...the links are pretty weak.

    One, tell me how easy birth control destroyed marriage. Two, define feminism. Three, and this is the juicy one...how has homosexuality made the divorce rate go up? Or is your definition of destroying marriage that one that begs the question?

    Explain how homosexuality in any form impacts the integrity of heterosexual marriages. And please don't make bad slippery slope arguments.

    Posted by Thrawn at 10/19/2009 @ 10:14pm

92. <i>My resistance to same sex marriage is rooted in a distaste for the liberal need for constant social engineering, with no regard for the consequences, and abdication of responsibility for those changes.

    For you, it's about change, just for the sake of change. Maybe self-hatred, maybe a congenital inability to be happy.

    Posted by twillie at 10/19/2009 @ 8:52pm </i>

    This is a really, REALLY bad argument. It's literally "I'm not sure I trust social engineering...so anything anyone proposes that's different from the status quo is bad." Seriously?

    <i>Posted by antisocialist at 10/19/2009 @ 7:08pm </i>

    I hardly know where to start with this one.

    First off, two really easy responses. Ten points if you can tell me who said the following:

    1) Judge not, lest ye be judged 2) Let he who has no sin cast the first stone. (and just in case you think "but wait, Christians are effectively sinless now! Did Jesus condemn her? Nope. Did she repent first? Nope

    Also, the "spiritual man" sounds oddly like Satan in this respect: he can judge all, but is subject to no one's judgment...that sounds like a classic formula for pride...and for divine right.

    Am I saying that no one has done anything wrong? Of course not; the very notion is ridiculous.

    But I wonder...we put an awful lot of stock in last words, and I wonder if you remember what some of Jesus' were, to people who never asked him forgiveness and had never up to that point even suggested they were sorry for what they did:

    "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."

    Oh, and on the Prodigal Son from before...the father ran up to him BEFORE the son made any apology. So my point stands...grace intercepts judgment.

    Posted by Thrawn at 10/19/2009 @ 10:32pm

93. "Any denomination that has turned away from the truth of God's revealed word will also be judged for it!"

    Posted by BigPasture at 10/19/2009 @ 6:10pm

    Then that is for God to judge, not you or the government. The bible also says you will be judged by God in the same way you have judged others. He who exalts himself shall be made humble and he who humbles himself shall be exalted. The meek shall inherit the earth and the persecutors shall become the persecuted. Those who show mercy shall be shown mercy. Those who love shall be loved. We are all the oppressed and we are all the oppressors.

    Posted by GrrrlRomeo at 10/19/2009 @ 6:31pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Stringing together "out of context" biblical quotes deprived of their true meaning and non-biblical quotes is a well practiced form of rationalization that serves no purpose other than to justify personal choices or self-justification of your sins or perversions and nothing else! You may feel good , but that does not change your status.

    Posted by BigPasture at 10/19/2009 @ 11:14pm

94. Posted by BigPasture at 10/19/2009 @ 11:14pm |

    Believing that its okay to sin because your 'forgiven' is an even bigger rationalization.

    Posted by snowball777 at 10/20/2009 @ 07:40am

95. As to divorce, you can thank liberalism (both secular and religious), no fault divorces, easy birth control, legalized abortion, feminism, and homosexuality for the breakdown of the institution of marriage. Posted by antisocialist at 10/19/2009 @ 4:42pm

    Hmmm...who has the highest rate of marriage in the union....Utah!

    So we can thank liberalism for:

    - Fewer unwanted children (and subsequent 'forced' marriages) - Fewer unsafe abortions - Fewer abused women (who can't get a divorce) - Women's rights

    You're really losing your mind (wrong tense?) if you think homosexuality has anything to do with YOUR marriage.

    Posted by snowball777 at 10/20/2009 @ 08:13am

96. No, what this means is that you combined the opinions of two different individuals because you're incapable of understanding nuances and anything more complicated than black and white, yes and no, for and against.

    Posted by GrrrlRomeo at 10/19/2009 @ 4:33pm

    But you referred to "willful blindness" of marriage equality opponents and Stephen_Carver1 said their opposition is rooted in "bigotry and hatred." Do these epithets apply to the President of the United States as well, or is it possible that some opponents of marriage equality are not bigots?

    Posted by Mistral at 10/20/2009 @ 08:56am

97. Then came nationalism, the ZeitGeist of 1933 with Hitler militarily and existentially polarized vs. Stalin. Hardly women's lib stuff, really, but J's and H's were hotly involved on a sort of there-but-unspoken-in-polite-society preparation. (Did I say I did my thesis on BR's early work? I am the legacy of both his reasonableness and, when it comes to sign-uses (inclusive of propositions in any object language) systematic rigor (basis not revealed here -- it takes 1000 pages to get to 'as if'-- but then that will apply everywhere).

    Then I remember those powerful, flowing, beautiful SHe Who Must Be Obeyed women like Gloria Steinheim, emerging -- after Reagan/s 80's had sort of held them back, following the 60's, where it all started). But behind the scenes -- Tom Dine is doin' fine w/ the arms sales & all, and closeted Patrick Fitzgerald, it's rumored (scrolling ahead), never brings criminal charges against Libby. Aspen rootsuck --timeless connections!

    Personaly, I would think women in general owe something to these stalwarts -- take a canary-in-the-coal-mine stance with blacks. Lets see... DECLARE A YEAR FOR YOURSELF! -- LET THE HATERS GO UP AGAINST THAT! Get some Whoopie Goldberg in there; toss Arianna a big cuhana, and give KvH a private padded room where she can channel Bernadine Dohrn. And quietly take over. --the one's Limbaugh feared from the start.

    But there is another male emerging, a younger animus of this (generally) horrid anima saturating Neverland culture. I do not agitate; but I think a hard rain's a gonna fall. Please tell no one I said it, though. There's something else going on.

    Posted by jones at 10/20/2009 @ 09:07am

98. we have ONE religious nut here, and every conversation degenerates into a god discussion.

    what is this?

    a religious state, like Israel or Italy in the 50s? I hear the Vatican has a lovely blog and I sincerely wish that the constant religious prattle move there.

    even though I have the nutcase on ignore, quoting him constantly is a disservice to me. yech.

    Posted by emile duBois at 10/20/2009 @ 09:16am

99. 'is it possible that some opponents of marriage equality are not bigots?' -- Mistral

    But you have to grant that some of the opponents are bigots, just look at their rhetoric.

    Posted by HonestLiberal at 10/20/2009 @ 09:20am

100. But you have to grant that some of the opponents are bigots, just look at their rhetoric.

     Posted by HonestLiberal at 10/20/2009 @ 09:20am

     Well, yes, of course, but simply tarring all of them as bigots is an improper argument in this discussion. The President himself opposes marriage equality. Is the President a bigot, or just someone with whom one can have an honest disagreement? Is one a bigot if one says marriage is between any two (but only two) people? How do the polyamorous (not to mention the Muslims) feel about that?

     In fact, does being a bigot prevent one from being correct otherwise?

     If a bigot says the sky is blue, does that mean that it isn't just because a bigot said it is?

     Posted by Mistral at 10/20/2009 @ 09:42am

101. Posted by Mistral at 10/20/2009 @ 08:56am |

     Some folks oppose marriage equality because they don't want other people to receive benefits that they do...no religious lunacy or bigotry required, but just as wrong.

     Posted by snowball777 at 10/20/2009 @ 09:46am

102. but just as wrong.

     Posted by snowball777 at 10/20/2009 @ 09:46am

     Let's take a Diogenes approach to the argument. Of the people in California who voted against marriage equality in their referendum, do you think there is one person who is not bigoted (or in some other way meanspirited), but who just honestly disagrees with the other side? Is the President of the United States one such honorable person?

     Posted by Mistral at 10/20/2009 @ 10:39am

103. "This is a really, REALLY bad argument. It's literally "I'm not sure I trust social engineering...so anything anyone proposes that's different from the status quo is bad." Seriously?"

     Posted by Thrawn at 10/19/2009 @ 10:32pm

     "Seriously", what? Your interpretation of my statement? No. Incorrect interpretation. Do I oppose "anything anyone proposes that's different from the status quo"? Of course not. What a silly statement.

     I oppose poorly constructed, poorly carried out social engineering, like say, The Great Society, which essentially destroyed the African American two-parent family.

     http://tinyurl.com/b25yv

     Posted by twillie at 10/20/2009 @ 10:43am

104. "Is one a bigot if one says marriage is between any two (but only two) people? How do the polyamorous (not to mention the Muslims) feel about that? In fact, does being a bigot prevent one from being correct otherwise? If a bigot says the sky is blue, does that mean that it isn't just because a bigot said it is?"

     Posted by Mistral at 10/20/2009 @ 09:42am

     Good points. How about it, Stephen Carver? Are you opposed to laws that deny the rights of polygamists? How about those laws that deny pedophiles the right to marry the object of their affection?

     Posted by twillie at 10/20/2009 @ 10:55am

105. Posted by Thrawn at 10/19/2009 @ 10:32pm |

     1. I already responded to the judge not in a previous post. You may read it if you want my answer

     Posted by antisocialist at 10/19/2009 @ 7:08pm

     Posted by antisocialist at 10/19/2009 @ 7:35pm

     2.Telling her to go and sin no more is part of repentance. So, it is logical to assume that she did repent but the words are not recorded.

     3.You should know that your response to the spiritual man verse is blasphemy. You have labelled the work of the Holy Spirit in believers as actually being Satan.

     Matthew 12:31,32 "Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come."

     You remain wrong on the prodigal. The Son declared his need for repentance before returning to the father. The fact that the father approached the son before the son's declaration doesn't indicate forgiveness. That is pure invention on your part and is not recognized as such by Biblical scholars. The parable is prefaced by Jesus in Luke 15:10 by stating the joy over one who repents.

     Posted by antisocialist at 10/20/2009 @ 2:07pm

106. I will continue to consider the civil union argument a joke so long as the IRS tables my wife and I use continue to read "Married Filing Jointly" and not "Married or Civilly Unionized Filing Jointly." Has this changed taken place while I wasn't looking?

     Posted by gamphd at 10/20/2009 @ 3:08pm

107. <i>Posted by twillie at 10/20/2009 @ 10:43am</i>

     Your post was entirely based around the rhetoric of social engineering being bad, and followed by juxtaposing gay marriage to the status quo. My deduction seemed to follow from the structure of your post. If your argument is that it's BAD social engineering, I'm waiting for reasons why this particular form of "social engineering" (which it isn't, by the way) is specifically bad.

     <i>Posted by antisocialist at 10/20/2009 @ 2:07pm </i>

     I'll respond briefly to the Prodigal part and move on because I think this is getting muddled. The son did not declare any need for repentance to the father. The father only saw him, he heard nothing. The father did not wait for any declaration.

     On the "spiritual man" part. First, responding to your response (i.e. based on the adulteress who Jesus refused to stone or let anyone else stone). Note the common theme: repentance is not a precondition to avoid condemnation. The narrative sequence matters.

     Second, on the verse itself. What I meant to highlight, perhaps with unnecessary drama, is that Christianity in the full sense does not bestow its members with infallible logic or an inerrant conscience. It just doesn't. You remain human, fallible and corruptible, just as everyone else is. The idea that Christians are somehow given a special privilege to judge that non-Christians do not have is absurd.

     In fact, unless I'm mistaken...most of the harsh words in the Gospels...go to those who judge and condemn (such as the Pharisees), and NOT to people like, say, the woman at the well.

     To emile...why does these ideas matter? Even if you disagree with them, their impact on public discourse is undeniable. Why should a democracy be afraid of full discussion of ideas?

     Posted by Thrawn at 10/20/2009 @ 3:27pm

108. So my partner of 38 years and I are among the 18,000 same sex couples who are still legally married in California. Has this disrupted any of the lives of the people who are complaining that this isn't "traditional" marriage? I hope you'll let us know exactly how it has, if it really has.

     Posted by DaveinNorthridge at 10/20/2009 @ 3:29pm

109. 'In fact, does being a bigot prevent one from being correct otherwise?

     If a bigot says the sky is blue, does that mean that it isn't just because a bigot said it is?' -- Mistral

     But this isn't an issue like tariffs or taxation. This is an issue where bigotry is something to worry about. It's true that we have to draw the line somewhere (age limits, consanguinity, two people or more than two people) but where the line is drawn should take into account the negative history of discrimination.

     Posted by HonestLiberal at 10/20/2009 @ 3:38pm

110. Second, on the verse itself. What I meant to highlight, perhaps with unnecessary drama, is that Christianity in the full sense does not bestow its members with infallible logic or an inerrant conscience. It just doesn't. You remain human, fallible and corruptible, just as everyone else is. The idea that Christians are somehow given a special privilege to judge that non-Christians do not have is absurd.

     In fact, unless I'm mistaken...most of the harsh words in the Gospels...go to those who judge and condemn (such as the Pharisees), and NOT to people like, say, the woman at the well.

     Posted by Thrawn at 10/20/2009 @ 3:27pm

     you may think it absurd, but that just places you as someone who disagrees with G-d.

     the difference between the pharisees and the Christian call to judge is that we do not judge according to our standards, but we judge according to Christ. For the believer, Christ is in us through the Holy Spirit and we judge by His judgment. We also recognize that we will be judged by HOW we judged, not that we judged. That is the critical point you cannot seem to move past, as is common with non Christians who see that as a condemning word against Christians, rather then understanding the context.

     Posted by antisocialist at 10/20/2009 @ 3:52pm

111. I'm waiting for reasons why this particular form of "social engineering" (which it isn't, by the way) is specifically bad.

     Posted by Thrawn at 10/20/2009 @ 3:27pm

     Because it irrevocably and irreversibly changes the structure of marriage, which up until now has had the same basic meaning for a few thousand years. Marriage ain't broke.

     Posted by twillie at 10/20/2009 @ 6:58pm

112. <i>Posted by antisocialist at 10/20/2009 @ 3:52pm</i>

     Larry...you sometimes have an amazing talent for begging the question. "Disagreement with God" presupposes that you're right to begin with.

     Your distinction between the Pharisee and the judging Christian also doesn't work. First, the Pharisees believed they were judging according to God's standards, and unless I'm mistaken, judging according to Christ's standards IS judging according to God's standards. Second, nowhere does Jesus say that we will be judged by how we judged. Third, you completely miss the argument about fallibility. The only way Christians can claim a "special privilege" to judge is if our minds and hearts develop a kind of infallibility that non-Christians do not possess.

     So, let me put the question to you this way: are Christians still fallible in both mind and heart?

     Finally, I want to go to adulteress story. When Jesus said "let he who has not sinned cast the first stone," the implication wasn't that IF you haven't sinned, it's completely OK to throw the stone. How do we know this? Because HE didn't throw it and no stone descended from heaven. Jesus did not judge the woman.

     More importantly, note how the sequence of events worked. At no point in the story does she repent. At no point in the story is Jesus' lack of condemnation made conditional on her repentance. He never says "Neither do I condemn you...as long as you sin no more."

     Are bad things bad? Yes. Do I take the Gospel seriously when it says that God is at work reconciling the world to himself, AND that he will ultimately be victorious (i.e. that he will reconcile the world to himself)? Yes.

     Posted by Thrawn at 10/20/2009 @ 8:06pm

113. <i>Posted by twillie at 10/20/2009 @ 6:58pm </i>

     I see. So something should only be changed from bad to good, not good to better?

     Posted by Thrawn at 10/20/2009 @ 9:39pm

114. Posted by Thrawn at 10/20/2009 @ 8:06pm

     Thrawn, I'm speechless. I don't even know where to begin with such poor theology. Your twisting of scripture frankly is unlike anything I've ever come across. Perhaps I've not read enough of the far left theologians, but your interpretations are beyond anything I've encountered in all my years of ministry and study. I don't even know what possible theological category to put them into.

     Posted by antisocialist at 10/20/2009 @ 10:57pm

115. <i>Posted by antisocialist at 10/20/2009 @ 10:57pm </i>

     If you don't know where to begin, how about we start with the basics? The question we should be asking is: are the arguments I've made both valid and sound? If you're looking for a category, you might consider this one: I'm someone who believes that the grace of God exceeds all artificial boundaries which we have tended repeatedly to construct.

     So let me pose a few questions to you and distill the areas of clash:

     1) Scriptural text clearly says that God is at work reconciling the world to himself. It clearly says that, meaning that God's triumph means that the world is reconciled to him. It also clearly says that when all is said and done, God will be triumphant (i.e. that which he seeks will be accomplished). Do you believe that?

     2) Can you tell me where I've misstated the chronology of the adulteress story? Does Jesus ever condemn the woman? Does his refusal to condemn come before or after she repents? If his refusal comes before...how does your position explain that?

     3) Leaving aside the fact that Paul himself was once a Pharisee, can you explain to me how the Pharisees did not believe they were acting out God's commandments and were given superior license to judge?

     4) Can you tell me where Jesus gives Christians unique license to judge? And for that matter (since I still haven't seen a response that can contest THIS issue), can you explain how "judge not," followed up with the clear statement that human judgment implies hypocrisy (see speck v. mote), is compatible with your position?

     I am hardly the first to raise these questions, but I have yet to see a compelling answer. I am, nonetheless, more than willing to hear your perspective. After all, truth matters.

     Posted by Thrawn at 10/21/2009 @ 12:14am

116. By the way, anti, before you get to responding to those, let me address a concern I'm sure has come to your mind. You may believe I hold the position I do because it's the easy way out. After all, one might say, wouldn't things be easier if there was no judgment, no accountability, no nothing?

     Though I can see where this response might come from, I think it's mistaken. I don't think that grace gives one free reign to do bad things, and I certainly don't think it entitles me to just go out and do whatever I please. I certainly don't think it's a posture of moral weakness. In fact, I'd argue that grace is about the most challenging thing in the world to live out. When someone inconveniences you, or is unfair to you, striking out is a very natural response. Grace, however, is a whole lot harder.

     The most challenging part, and the reason I think we find each other simply on different points on a continuum, is that grace has to exist side-by-side with truth. I think we're called to be people who speak truth to power and live truth in community with one another. That also means calling individual and organized corruption by its name. If I had to take a stab at it, I'd suggest that grace means calling an action wrong but never condemning the person themselves. In fact, one might argue that that's precisely what the following statement means:

     "Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more."

     The more I think about it, the more interesting those statements are together. The second says that the woman's actions were wrong, and should not be repeated. The first, nonetheless, refuses to condemn the woman herself.

     If you can find substantial flaws with that reading, I would be eager to hear them.

     Posted by Thrawn at 10/21/2009 @ 12:24am

117. Posted by Thrawn at 10/21/2009 @ 12:14am

     Posted by Thrawn at 10/21/2009 @ 12:24am

     Just checked back here. I'm up past my bedtime..I saved your posts to a file so I can answer tomorrow.

     Posted by antisocialist at 10/21/2009 @ 12:52am

118. I see. So something should only be changed from bad to good, not good to better? Posted by Thrawn at 10/20/2009 @ 9:39pm

     I guess "better" depends on your point of view, Eh?

     Posted by twillie at 10/21/2009 @ 11:48am

119. <i>Posted by antisocialist at 10/21/2009 @ 12:52am </i>

     Sounds good...though wasn't it about 10 PM where you are when you posted this? I guess you take the "early to bed, early to rise" quite seriously.

     <i>Posted by twillie at 10/21/2009 @ 11:48am </i>

     Right, which is why I feel like your statement is either bizarre or self-evident. It's either that all change is bad (bizarre) or that bad change is bad (just true). It begs the question of whether the change in question is good.

     Posted by Thrawn at 10/21/2009 @ 7:20pm

120. <i>Posted by antisocialist at 10/21/2009 @ 12:52am</i>

     No response?

     Posted by Thrawn at 10/23/2009 @ 5:02pm