[saymaListserv] RE: sayma Digest, Vol 22, Issue 3
timinathens at yahoo.com
Tue Nov 9 17:54:09 JEST 2004
Actually, there's an argument to be made that the government should not be in the marriage business at all, because marriage is essentially a religious or spiritual union before God. The government's business has to do with legal obligations -- property, inheritance, child care and support, financial obligations, etc etc -- and involves nonsectarian arrangements. Such legal obligations are the government's business. Marriage (as most folks seem to define it in distinguishing between civil unions and marriage -- regardless of their position on gender) is an issue of spirit and faith.
Bigotry is unacceptable regardless, and if two-gender couples can wed under the law then same-gender couples should also be allowed to, but I believe that it's the Meeting's (or whatever faith) purview to oversee weddings, and City Hall's to oversee civil unions.
Perry Treadwell <perryt at bellsouth.net> wrote:
Judith and I were rightly joined 13 years ago by Atlanta Meeting with no
license because our gay (F)friends could not be married. We have
explicit financial agreements and wills. As I recall Free and Janet were
also rightly joined. Perry
Peggy Bonnington wrote:
>Interestingly enough, Steve, that is EXACTLY what some disappointed
>folks in Clarksville were talking about doing - promoting the banning of
>all marriage if gay marriage couldn't be appropriately recongized and
>condoned. Yes, I know it doesn't make much sense in one sense ... But
>just goes to show that there are some strong feelings out here about our
>country refusing to give validation to loving and committed couples -
>and making stupid choices as a result!
>I understand how easy it is for the many citizens who are
>disappointed with the outcome of the elections to momentarily
>forget that we are all citizens of the same country, whichever lever
>we pulled in the voting booth. Or wherever we touched the screen,
>as the case may be.
>Once the dust settles, we citizens may return to our primary task of
>good stewardship of our Ship of State, care and concern for the
>welfare of our neighbors from community to global, and we Friends
>may return to our calling to cheerfully walk upon the Earth,
>answering to that of G*d in every one.
>I think we will find that last particularly daunting if we regard our
>fellow citizens as collectively ignorant, and view their deeply-held
>spirituality as "Christian Taliban". I doubt we can be helpful to them
>unless we are more open to connect on both a spiritual and an
>It's important to remember that even among us Liberal Friends,
>there is not universal acceptance of "gay marriage". Some Friends,
>including some I know personally and do not consider to be
>ignorant, find that they are unable to unite with the term "marriage"
>being applied to couples of the same gender.
>How long has it been since we Quakers have been united in our
>acceptance of homosexuality as natural and Divinely sanctified?
>Was this a revelation given to George Fox? or did it take us
>hundreds of years to get to this point? Do we dismiss our
>forebearers as ignorant because the way had not yet opened for
>them to be so enlightened?
>I wonder how many of us would unite in refraining from marriage of
>heterosexual couples because we oppose discrimination against
>homosexual couples. Which of us who are already enjoying the
>rights and privileges of legal matrimony would willingly give up
>those rights until such time as they are afforded to all couples?
>Southern Appalachian Yearly Meeting and Association mailing list
>posting address: sayma at kitenet.net
Southern Appalachian Yearly Meeting and Association mailing list
posting address: sayma at kitenet.net
Love & truth, agape & satyagraha, Tim
Tim Johnson, e-mail: timinathens at yahoo.com
"Love is a verb." -- Stephen Covey
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the sayma