2009.06.26
Bamford: Allow gays to marry
Allow gays to marry in VirginiaIs global warming a myth?
Sherman Bamford
Bamford lives in Roanoke.
Several years ago, someone in a conversation told me, "someday you will be able to marry, if you choose." At the time, I didn't think that what was suggested was even remotely possible. Why? I am a gay man.
Read more.
RSS feed 
I don't think the stuff on global warming was intended to be tacked on to the end of this, was it?
Anyways...Bamford, your day will come. It has to because it just doesn't make common sense any other way.
Comment by HCS — June 26, 2009 @ 9:19 am
No, it wasn't. Thanks for pointing that out, HCS. It's been fixed.
Comment by C. Trejbal — June 26, 2009 @ 9:25 am
So well said and completely true Mr. Bamford. I know the day will come as well for no matter how far off course we may become, America is a Nation built on inherent rights of the individual and respect for humanity. Thank you for your courage and know that the support is out here in the hetero community as well. "For everything there is a season, and a time for every purpose under heaven". I am sorry that it is not today, but I will not give up hope for my fellow citizens to come to the light.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 26, 2009 @ 9:59 am
Very well written article.
Comment by Will — June 26, 2009 @ 10:55 am
I hope the day comes sooner rather than later...and I believe it's coming... If people could leave each other alone and let them be happy, this world would be a better place, IMHO.
Comment by Danny — June 26, 2009 @ 10:56 am
Amen 4, Danny!
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 26, 2009 @ 11:37 am
Several years ago, someone in a conversation told me, "someday you will be able to marry, if you choose."
You have always been able to marry if you choose.
You won't see marriage in this state as you are apparently hoping for it. Unless you have been somewhere else, this state voted overwhelmingly for an amendment to define "marriage" (this being the key word in this conversation) as between a man and a woman. Even if spineless Governor Kaine would not sign it after promising to as Candidate Kaine (soon to be citizen Kaine though). If gay people are allowed some sort of legal joining status in this state it will have to be called something other than "marriage". And, amazing as it is, Californians have discovered that state constitutional amendments are legal.
That being said, if this state wishes to create some sort of legal union status that has all of the legal restrictions and entitlements of marriage for same sex couples, I would not oppose it. In fact, it would solve a number of sticky issues with some churches debating whether they should marry same sex couples. Creation of such status would mean that such ceremonies could only occur through the judicial branch and the churches would not be empowered to do these which would resolve that issue and further clarify the separation of church vs. State.
I owuld suggest you ask the good Governor Kaine how much legislation he has introduced in his term addressing this issue.
Comment by BobH — June 26, 2009 @ 1:20 pm
Why does everyone hang on to the word "marriage." It's lost its luster considering all of the divorces that happen now anyways...
One way or another, if two people love each other, then they should be allowed under law to express that love by way of marriage. Call it what you want, if that makes you feel better, but even if the term is different, it'll still be the same thing.
Churches are not, by law, force to marry anyone that they don't want to...man/man, woman/woman, man/woman... My step-brother got married in a mosuleum (sp?) about 10 years ago.... Anybody wanna guess how long it took someone to perform the ceremony?
Comment by Danny — June 26, 2009 @ 1:52 pm
After the stumbles and mis-steps of Mr. Ensign and Mr. Sanford, I'm not quite sure why we even want to engage in the "marriage" ritual. They certainly have demonstrated the sanctity of marriage.
I applaud your stance relative to the establishment of civil unions that carry with them the same restrictions and benefits of "marriage", BobH, although for different reasons. As far as the religious impact, that is and should always be personal but the conveyance of the legal and tax entitlements should be outside the religious implications.
Comment by Will — June 26, 2009 @ 1:55 pm
Agreed Will. Perhaps churches should not even be performing "legal" marriages because it distorts the line of division between church and state. Right now churches are debating the whole issue of homosexuality with regards to the ability to minister the gospel as well as performing same sex "civil unions". Since they cannot marry 2 people of the same sex "legally" in this state by the state acting they could define that the churches do not perform this function that it has to be a JOP or clerk.
As far as the hangup on the word "marriage", this is the theme of this article written. That is the word used. Many homosexuals state that they would not be satisfied with the creation of a status that would essentially be marriage but is not named that. They see that as not "full acceptance" of their lifestyle.
I don't think full acceptance of their lifestyle will ever occur. However, I had to point out that it isn't going to be called "marriage" in the state of Virginia. And I don't see the homosexual side being ever able to muster enough support to overturn that amendment.
Peace,
Comment by BobH — June 26, 2009 @ 3:39 pm
BobH...
Speaking as one homosexual, I have never been particularly fond of the word marriage relative to the relationship that I have with my partner. I, for one, don't mind heterosexual couples having the word marriage define what their relationship is. Many times, I've seen those marriages be anything but civil. I would prefer to believe that my relationship with my partner is considerable more CIVIL in its makeup.
As for the power of the Gay Community, be careful that you don't under estimate its size, scope, power and financial wherewithal. We can be very passionate about issues that are at the core of what we are about and can wield a fairly significant "club" if need be. I think we are very close to seeing a more vocal and outspoken group of gay people because the younger generation isn't as opposed to it as those of my generation (50's) have been.
If anything, I see a "Stonewall Event" on a more grand scale with considerably more support than the first one. And you know, I'll probably be right there in the middle of it. Sometimes, you have to believe in your heart...or so I've been told...and I believe it's the right thing to do in my heart. While it may not occur in my liftime, I think we are much closer now than we've ever been before.
Comment by Will — June 26, 2009 @ 3:57 pm
Since churches are not remotely required to perform "legal" marriages and are not compelled to perform a marriage of any kind now, I fail to see how the issue of "gay marriage" has any bearing whatsoever on religion or the actions of a church.
The church is trying desperately to insert itself into an argument it does not belong in. The issue of discrimination towards gays not being allowed to marry is purely a legal matter. The marriage license, which IS absolutely required to become married, is a government contract that conveys and covenants certain rights and legal protections to the newly formed couple. The American people, the courts and the world in general have affirmed time and time again that we do not like discrimination in such legal contracts and transactions.
As more and more educated, enlightened and fair-minded people come to accept that gay people are just like us only have a separate inclination in the most private (for the majority) part of their sexuality, the walls are coming down. The discrimination and hate are being seen for what they are in the world at large and America in particular. We see and enjoy the love, decency, gifts and contributions of the gay community. They are our friends, family, neighbors, co-workers and fellow citizens. We get it, we realize the error of our judgments on this issue like many others before it and we are working to rectify the mistakes made. I see gay marriage as something that will happen in the not distant future and not surprisingly the North will lead us again.
This kind of sanctioned and continuing discrimination by 'the church' is causing friction and dissension within churches and denominations across the world as well. Friction produces heat and heat can and does change things.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 26, 2009 @ 8:08 pm
I believe your argument is a little short-sighted Sandi. Churches are weighing in at this point for pragmatic reasons in addition to theology. Making gay marriage legal is just the first step. Shortly after that, it will be declared a hollow victory by gay rights activists because, even though the state recognizes gay marriage, the availability will be limited because many churches won't perform same sex ceremonies. This will in turn lead to claims that same sex couples rights are being violated because they don't have the same options and locations available for wedding ceremonies. The next step will be law suits claiming churches are obligated to perform same sex marriages. The author of this column summed the position up nicely when he said separate is not equal.
It's analagous to the law suits claiming private pharmacies are obligated to sell the morning after pill. People say they have a right to obtain any legally prescribed medication and that their right outweighs the pharmacists conscientious objections against selling certain medications. Legally, this will be the same argument. People will say they have a right to marry, and that since churches provide the service tied to this right, the church is legally obligated to perform same sex marriages. It is really not that big of a jump legally.
And please, before the attacks on me as a conspiracy theorist or a bigot begin, please recall that I am already on record here as saying I don't care if gays marry. I don't, however, think churches whose faith proscribes homosexuality should be forced to perform ceremonies contrary to that faith.
Comment by C Ramsey — June 26, 2009 @ 10:37 pm
C,
I agree completely with your last sentence, but do indeed think the rest of your post is fallacious slippery slope argumentation.
Can non-Catholics sue the Catholic church to demand to be married now? The reasoning is identical.
The fact is that there are plenty of churches that welcome homosexuals and are willing to perform same-sex marriages - though such ceremonies currently infer no legal benefit.
The hold-up is the civil government, which should not be able to discriminate in approving legal contracts based on the gender of the parties involved, is the hold up.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — June 26, 2009 @ 11:37 pm
C Ramsey...
Without trying, I think you have most clearly demonstrated the validity of the need to keep church (religion) and state (tax and other benefits granted by government) completely seperate. You are absolutly correct in that if a church (religious body) does not feel comfortable performing a marriage for a gay couple...then don't. As Dan points out, there are other religious bodies (churches) that do support the marriage.
Comment by Will — June 26, 2009 @ 11:48 pm
C. Ramsey please do not take this as an attack and I do not, in any event think you are a bigot. Your argument would hold more water if churches were already obligated to "perform" marriages for heterosexual couples. The truth is and always has been that no church has ever been compelled to do any such service for heterosexual couples and to think that doing the right thing will be the slippery slope to forcing equality in churches for gays that does not even exist for heterosexuals sure seems counter to the history of the church and the law and ergo a false argument.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 27, 2009 @ 12:13 am
Post #10 makes a reference to people needing to show "full acceptance" of the gay lifestyle. Isn't the idea that everyone should be forced to show "full acceptance" to the gay lifestyle a bit hypocritical? Why should a group of people be allowed to say that other groups are not allowed to disagree with them?
Please understand what I'm saying, I'm certainly not saying it should be ok for anyone to condemn gays for their lifestyle. But on the same token, you can't expect to be able to force those people who don't agree with a gay lifestyle to suddenly accept it either.
As far as churches and religion are involved... the bible that I read says that we are not supposed to judge others. So while I can decide that being gay is not for me, it's not my job to condemn or judge anyone else if they feel differently.
Comment by hokie24 — June 27, 2009 @ 1:41 am
C Ramsey, I doubt the gay community as a whole would suddenly start demanding that all churches perform same-sex ceremonies, but you may be right that some in the community would think they should be allowed to. Every community has its share of jerks and idiots, and I don't think the gay community is any different.
As Dan pointed out, that argument wouldn't go far anyway; churches today can't be forced to perform ceremonies outside of their beliefs. I can't demand that a synagogue perform a marriage ceremony for me. I don't think there has ever been a case where an interracial couple has forced a church to perform a marriage ceremony against the church's wishes.
But I tell you what: when same-sex marriages (or civil unions, if you prefer) do become legal (and I believe they will, nation wide, within the next 10 years), if "teh gays" start getting uppity and demanding ceremonies in churches that don't want to perform them, I'll stand with you against them.
Comment by Rob Miles — June 27, 2009 @ 7:15 am
I'm simply pointing out the potential unintended consequences of this type of issue. Back when the morning after pill came out, the debate focused on moral implications, safety, etc. No one foresaw the push to require pharmacists to provide it even if they didn't want to.
I'm sure the argument is easy to dismiss, particularly if it serves as a roadblock to a position you wish to see advanced. But to Dan, Sandi et al, there is a difference you have omitted. Sure churches can refuse heterosexual marriages, but heterosexuals aren't members of a protected class. Legally it's a different ballgame. If a church has a moral objection to performing a hetero marriage, it is a religious issue and typically doesn't involve civil law. However, if the church refuses to marry someone because of their membership in a protected class, it could be argued that it would be unlawful discrimination, and the separation of church and state would not protect the church from that type of claim.
Dan, you like to throw the Loving case around in regard to this issue. Do you not see the similarity of the issues? Call it fallacious if you like, but it is not a huge leap from a legal perspective.
Comment by C Ramsey — June 27, 2009 @ 11:49 am
Funny, C, but I can't think of a single instance where a church has been sued because it refused to marry an interracial couple. Can you? If not, I'm not sure I see the relevance of Loving to this argument.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — June 27, 2009 @ 11:53 am
Have you looked into it, or are you just assuming it has never happened because you haven't heard of it?
Comment by C Ramsey — June 27, 2009 @ 12:17 pm
BTW, care to address how this is different from the pharmacy issue? Care to address the obvious similarities? Or would you prefer to ignore yet another argument that is uncomfortable to your position.
Comment by C Ramsey — June 27, 2009 @ 12:18 pm
C Ramsey...
I'm beginning to find your tone more confrontational in this discussion than beneficial. From the sound of your words, you appear (even though you say you don't care if gays have the same legal benefits of married couples) to harbor some kind of resentment.
Your issue with the church is narrow in focus. Frankly, I could care less what a "church" sanctions and what it doesn't. As I've stated many times before, I am indiffernt to the opinions of the "church". They are as entitled to their opinions as I am mine. The key point is that they have no obligation to perform ANY marriage if it appears to go against their beliefs...whether the marriage be gay or straight.
As far as homosexuals being a protected class...we're not, I can assure you. All we're asking for is equal treatment...no more and no less.
On the topic of pharmacies and pharmacists and their particular beliefs relative to birth control measures...if you don't like the activity that must be performed, then get out of the profession. Pure and simple.
Comment by Will — June 27, 2009 @ 12:58 pm
Are you saying that if homosexuals are allowed to marry like heterosexual couples they will suddenly become a "protected class"? And sorry, churches can refuse to marry you simply for not being a member and I think the church is the one with the history of using it's power against citizens and the government NOT the other way around (unless you want to count bombing black churches and I think you don't). I get where you are coming from with the church and the pharmacy, didn't the citizens lose that one too?
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 27, 2009 @ 4:15 pm
Sorry to have offended Will. You actually sound quite confrontational yourself, particularly with the last remark. Couldn't that logic also be applied to people unhappy with the State Constitution. If you don't like it, get out of the state, pure and simple. And after all, we are all just asking for equal treatment, so if someone unhappy with a rule or mandate should simply forgo their chosen profession, why not require citizens unhappy with the law to simply move? Now before you react, I don't feel that way, but it is the course you seem to advocate for anyone who disagrees with you.
As far as the protected class goes, I can assure you, you are mistaken. The protected status is not consistent from state to state because the Supreme Court hasn't ruled on the issue yet, but many states do recognize homosexuality as a protected class. It is only a matter of time before the Court resolves the discrepancies.
Comment by C Ramsey — June 27, 2009 @ 4:24 pm
CRamsey...
Unless you've walked a mile in my shoes, I don't believe you quite know that of which you speak with regard to homosexuals being a protected class. I can assure you, since I am one...I know from whence I speak.
If a state Constitution or for that matter, even the Constitution of the United States proclaims fair and equal treatment for all citizens...then it is indeed up to people like me to work tirelessly until that actually happens.
Comment by Will — June 27, 2009 @ 8:01 pm