Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe

God bless New Jersy too!


cheranne
 Share

Recommended Posts

Nation / World Section

Gay? Just Don't Say the M Word in NJ

February 19th, 2007

By PPN Staff

It's now the first day for civil unions for gay couples in New Jersey.

Stating today, lesbians and gay New Jersey couples will receive all the legal protections and benefits that heterosexual married couples receive upon filing an application with the state and waiting at least three days before participating in a civil union ceremony.

But shhh, you can't call it marriage. The new law permitting civil unions in the "garden state" isn't all that rosy. According to Garden State Equality's website the law falls short of equality.

When New Jersey enacted its civil unions law at the end of 2006, legislative leaders acknowledged the law is not equality and that they might revisit marriage equality soon. They even enacted a commission, proposed by Garden State Equality, to investigate how civil unions fall short of equality

According to the Associated Press, New Jersey decided to not call the legal union of lesbians and gays 'marriage' partly because some legislators objected on religious grounds.

Opponents of gay marriage say that according to the Bible, which is the foundation of Christianity, that marriage traditionally is between a man and a woman.

But conservative reinterpretists fail to shed light on the truth of biblical traditional marriage. Traditional marriage in its truest sense - by Old Testament standards - is a polygamous marriage: for King David, the King that Jesus was a descendant of, had two wives before he married a third - I Samuel 30:18 and II Samuel 12:9, respectively.

And the text that "traditional" reinterpretists use from the New Testament to claim that marriage is solely between a man and a woman is Matthew 19. This passage, however, is a condemnation of fornication and adultery, not a commandment of heterosexual marriage of any kind.

Furthermore, some "Christian leaders" would like everyone to believe that marriage is holy. If in fact that were true -- and based on the fact that Christ said he is the way, the truth and the life and therefore there is no other way to God, meaning that "religion" is merely an institution of idolatry created to serve and exalt the traditions of men -- then any marriage that is not a Christian marriage is sinful and an abomination before God.

So why then separate a group of sinners* out from all other sinners and deny them equal marriage rights? Because inequality for gays and lesbians by majority pseudo-christians and non-christians is a long-time tradition. A tradition older than Christmas and the Fourth of July.

Although the by God's definition the union of two things is a marriage (Revelation 21:9-10), the union of gay couples in New Jersey won't be called by its rightful name, at least not today.

* It is biblically incorrect to say that homosexuality is a sin, and therefore all gays are sinners. But lesbians and gays are unjustly labeled sinners solely on the basis of their sexual orientation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you mean THIS one?:

coverture

From Jone Johnson Lewis,

Your Guide to Women's History.

FREE Newsletter. Sign Up Now!

Definition:

In English and American law, coverture refers to women's legal status after marriage: legally, upon marriage, the husband and wife were treated as one entity. In essence, the wife's separate legal existence disappeared as far as property rights were concerned.

Under coverture, wives could not control their own property unless specific provisions were made before marriage, they could not file lawsuits or be sued separately, nor could they execute contracts. The husband could use, sell or dispose of her property (again, unless prior provisions were made) without her permission.

See the entry on property rights for some events in American legal history which extended women's property rights and affected coverture laws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, it wasn't all that long ago that coverture was a very real part of marriage:

In 1886, a Judge Valentine ruled that two free-love activists, Lillian Harman and Edwin Walker, did not have a valid marriage even under common-law rules because their union did not fulfill the traditional characteristics. The “essentials” of marriage which Valentine listed included: life-long commitment, a wife’s obedience to the husband, the husband’s absolute control over all property, the wife taking the husband’s last name, the right of the husband to force sexual intercourse on an unwilling wife (that would be rape, by the way), and the right of the husband to control and have custody of any children.

Valentine's decision mirrors the arguments made by opponents of gay marriage today. His sincerity and conviction were no less than the sincerity and conviction of those who claim that a valid marriage, by definition, cannot exist for same-sex couples.

That darn 'Women's agenda' messed with the deifintion since then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps some would enjoy THIS sentence:

Silly are the goddy tawdry maudlin for they shall christgeewhiz bow down before him: bedead old men, priest and prester, babeling a pitterpatternoster: no word is still the word, but, a loafward has become lord.

Ronald Suffield, "The Tenth Beatitude"

a fun article on how even some religious words have changed can be found at:

http://www.langmaker.com/ml0104.htm

Change is not all bad!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, Hap if you say that you have to follow it with the caveat that "not all change is good either" just so everyone understands.

The tradition of our founding fathers concerning marriage left married women more as property than as people. It took quite a while to get that turned around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

a fun article on how even some religious words have changed can be found at:

http://www.langmaker.com/ml0104.htm

That was a good article -Thanks HAP--I ve always been interested in the dynamism of the English Language..

Interesting article from OKC as well, Old Testament marriage many times was a "multipartner" arrangement, I dont know when these "wordchangers" decided on their own meaning ( :wink2:) i.e. that it had always meant "one man and one woman".

Where exactly is it defined that way except in "the traditions of men"

Another interesting point on the definition from a biblical standpoint here:

Although by God's definition the union of two things is a marriage (Revelation 21:9-10), the union of gay couples in New Jersey won't be called by its rightful name, at least not today.

Maybe if some decide to follow the constitutional amendment route, while they are at it they could also vote on a biblical amendment and petition God to outlaw the marriage of the lamb and the bride based on their own decided definition of what a marriage really should be.

Edited by mstar1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OCW,

i'm not sure where you got this article,

but do i understand correctly that the author of the article is giving biblical commentary?!? =:~o

what qualifications do they have for this?

i'm guessing none...

otherwise, they wouldn't make such a ridiculous assumption that homosexuals are being singled out for the label of "sinners"... ALL of us are sinners... this is not some special label reserved only for homosexuals... this label applies to the whole of mankind... for ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God... none doeth good, no, NOT ONE...

peace,

jen-o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

whitedove,

do you see what a tangled mess you get yourself into by not confronting the issue head on?

peace,

jen-o

p.s. i may live to regret that statement... LOL

Not at all Jeno . I see two words marriage and coverture two distinct words with distinct meanings. not the one in the same. Eating is a part of marriage as well So? it has nothing to do with the definition. Association with marriage does not define it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OCW,

i'm not sure where you got this article,

but do i understand correctly that the author of the article is giving biblical commentary?!? =:~o

what qualifications do they have for this?

i'm guessing none...

otherwise, they wouldn't make such a ridiculous assumption that homosexuals are being singled out for the label of "sinners"... ALL of us are sinners... this is not some special label reserved only for homosexuals... this label applies to the whole of mankind... for ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God... none doeth good, no, NOT ONE...

peace,

jen-o

The Purple Pew, an online Christ-led organization, news source, and community for straight and gay Christians who believe that serving God through faith in Christ undoubtly involves the active pursuit of truth, equality and justice for all.

Mission

The Purple Pew's purpose is to stand up for the truth regarding what the Bible really says about homosexuality, marriage, justice and the Christian faith, holding firm to Holy Scripture and the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Declaration Of Equality

We declare that with God there is no respect of persons, partiality or variance regardless of sexual orientation. Marriage is honorable in all and for all, especially those who live by faith in Christ. Therefore, all persons who profess the name of Jesus as Lord and Savior are heirs to the throne of God by faith in Christ, His only begotten Son, who died for all, especially those who believe, without partiality or hypocrisy.

Responsibility

It is our responsibility and duty as Christ’s chosen servants to speak, live, and teach the truth according to God’s Word with passion and perseverance. Anything less is an injustice to humanity and a disgrace to God.

Statement of Faith

About the Founder

VL Carey is the Founding Executive Director of The Purple Pew. She is also the author of Connecting the Biblical Dots, the foundation on which The Purple Pew is built.

V.L. Carey has a Bachelor of Arts degree in Psychology. She served in the United States Army’s Signal Corps for five years, achieved the rank of Sergeant, and received an honorable discharge. Carey was born and raised Southern Baptist but is now a non-denominational Bible-based Christian (who also happens to be gay). She has two college-age daughters and currently resides in Evansville, Indiana.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thanks for the info, ocw...

just 2 quick comments...

We declare that with God there is no respect of persons, partiality or variance regardless of sexual orientation
of course, God is not a respecter of persons...

but there is respect with regard to actions...

The Purple Pew's purpose is to stand up for the truth regarding what the Bible really says about homosexuality
i'm still waiting for someone to succinctly state how the bible supports homosexuality... (and tell me what they think it "really says")

p.s. if this is a christian organization, don't they realize that everybody is a sinner? (where's the head scratching icon... LOL)

peace,

jen-o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jen-o...i do not have the answers to any of your questions.....buti do have many gay friends and i support

them and do not judge them,and ofcourse we are all sinners even the person who eats too much chocholate

cake!

But..I do believe God is love even if you eat too much chocolate cake!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ocw,

i wasn't really asking you that question...

i was just wondering aloud...

i did check out "the purple pew" website...

but still could not find the answer to my question...

i also went to the "connecting the dots" website...

but the best i could find was an argument that says:

it is not homosexuality that is a sin; but rather it is sodomy that is the sin...

i'm a little confused by this and i don't want to get graphic here,

but don't male homosexuals engage in sodomy?

anyway, i'm just trying to find the argument in favor of the bible supporting homosexuality...

yes, of course, God loves homosexuals...

i have never questioned that...

God loves all sinners; that is why Jesus came to earth...

but the debate is really not about God loving people; it is about whether God approves of certain behavior...

peace,

jen-o

Edited by jen-o
Link to comment
Share on other sites

but the debate is really not about God loving people; it is about whether God approves of certain behavior...

I wonder. The issue seems to be taking turns as a semantic question and as a religious question. There are arguments to establish how to use the word "marriage" to limit it to one man and one woman, or to include same-sex couples. There are also arguments that use passages from the bible to establish that there is no way that same-sex marriage can be legitimate, while others argue that there are no absolute textual grounds for any such claim.

I think that marriage is a cultural entity, not one that exists or is represented solely by either the civic or the religious. It occupies a shared space, and as such, it expresses itself in a variety of combinations in various locations and at various points in history. What it always represents, though, is the formation of a legal entity and the establishment of legal protection by way of a legally binding contract. That is a key element of the argument, but one that consistently gets overlooked.

My reply to the second argument is that I wouldn't start quoting an historical religious text to bolster arguments for, say, the right for women to vote, or, even more of a stretch, to write tax laws. Can you imagine?

What got me to thinking about this was a post by WhiteDove that I saw in another thread that read as follows:

...Why can't gays be happy with equal presentation, it seems that is never good enough... they want what has stood the test of time to change for them.
This, I think, is the heart of the question. I think it's a culturally valid question, and it's one that I feel I can answer: lesbian and gay folks aren't happy with "equal presentation" because it isn't equal: Marriage-Substitute is an Equivalency rather than an Equality.

Establishing a facsimile like a "civic union" or whatever doesn't bestow the same universal legal protections to persons who wish to enter into the same contract, assuming the same legal rights and responsibilities, as heterosexuals routinely enjoy when they marry.

Which would YOU want?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very good points, cake.

I think "marriage" may occupy a "shared space" in our culture as you said, but just not in the same space at the same time necessarily. The Catholic church has the right to deny people who have been divorced, or who are gay, or who are not catholic, but all of those same people can go get married somewhere else. In a Catholic church one might consider the marriage of a divorced person to another a violation of the sacred institution of marriage. In the civil arena it is common practice. It should be the same for gay couples. No one should "force acceptance" of homosexuality "down the throat" of any religious institution and no one is shoving acceptance down the throat of an individual.

"They are looking for equality not equivalency" is exactly the way to put it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder. The issue seems to be taking turns as a semantic question and as a religious question. There are arguments to establish how to use the word "marriage" to limit it to one man and one woman, or to include same-sex couples. There are also arguments that use passages from the bible to establish that there is no way that same-sex marriage can be legitimate, while others argue that there are no absolute textual grounds for any such claim.

I think that marriage is a cultural entity, not one that exists or is represented solely by either the civic or the religious. It occupies a shared space, and as such, it expresses itself in a variety of combinations in various locations and at various points in history. What it always represents, though, is the formation of a legal entity and the establishment of legal protection by way of a legally binding contract. That is a key element of the argument, but one that consistently gets overlooked.

My reply to the second argument is that I wouldn't start quoting an historical religious text to bolster arguments for, say, the right for women to vote, or, even more of a stretch, to write tax laws. Can you imagine?

What got me to thinking about this was a post by WhiteDove that I saw in another thread that read as follows:

This, I think, is the heart of the question. I think it's a culturally valid question, and it's one that I feel I can answer: lesbian and gay folks aren't happy with "equal presentation" because it isn't equal: Marriage-Substitute is an Equivalency rather than an Equality.

Establishing a facsimile like a "civic union" or whatever doesn't bestow the same universal legal protections to persons who wish to enter into the same contract, assuming the same legal rights and responsibilities, as heterosexuals routinely enjoy when they marry.

Which would YOU want?

I believe we covered this point fix the terminology not change the definition of a word.

We have men's bathrooms and woman's bathrooms, there is a reason for each. Just because someone decides that they think one or the other should admit both we don't change the words. Both have however equal rights ,one can use the toilet wash hands ect. and yet they have different words to describe what they are. It is a misnomer to claim that a civil union is not equal rights any laws that are unequal can easily be changed to include in their reading marriage and or civil union as both qualifying for the same benefits. Many of the benefits have already been changed. Going back to the bathroom analogy if some benefit is lacking in the men's room that the ladies has we don't need to change the name, we just correct the situation so that both have the same benefit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not, I think, strictly speaking, a misnomer. Again, I don't see this as a lexicographical or semantic issue.

To begin with, consider DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act. By that piece of legistlation, it is impossible for same-sex couples to enjoy the same legal rights, priveleges, and protections afforded automatically to their heterosexual counterparts when they marry. Marriage offers those legal rights, priveleges, and protections. Deliberately and explicitly excluding a segment of the population from enjoying those legal entitlements could easily be viewed as legislated discrimination. That is not a mere semantic difference. It's a real, legal difference. As for just changing things to be more inclusive... I don't know how easily that can be changed, and besides which, there already exists a mechanism to afford people those rights.

In the second place, a bathroom analogy is both semiotically unfortunate and, I think, inaccurate. One isn't arguing for unisex washrooms, but equal representation under the law. Equal, not special, protections.

I've got a slightly different analogy. One could just as easily say everybody should be able to live in a House, but a lot of people who live in a House don't want to allow some certain folks to live in the House with them. But they can live in a Hovel. So why should these folks have to accept being happy with having to live in a Hovel, kept out of the House? Why wait for the day that Hovel is upgraded, board by hard-won board, until it finally can be considered a House? And if enough changes are made to the Hovel... wouldn't it eventually end up being a House? I seriously don't get the whole semantic argument here.

A rose by any other name could be a petunia, you might say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...