Erie Residents Rally Against Proposition 8

13Nov2008 Filed under: Erie, Pa. Author: Peter Panepento

Gay-rights supporters in Erie are planning a rally this Saturday at the Erie County Courthouse in opposition to the passage of Proposition 8 in California.

The rally is part of a national effort to bring attention to efforts by members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender population to gain the right to legal marriage.

While such a measure hasn’t gotten much traction in Pennsylvania, gay marriage has become a huge issue in many other states.

On Election Day, voters in California passed Proposition 8, which essentially prohibits gay marriage in that state.

Saturday’s event will protest that decision — as well as similar ballot measures in Arkansas, Arizona, and Florida.

The event takes place at 1:30 p.m.

Whichever side of the debate you fall on, I’d like to encourage folks to take a closer look at this issue and to support the efforts raise awareness.

If Erie wants to shed its reputation as being too rooted in the past, it needs to encourage and support inclusiveness.

Tags: Erie Gay News, Erie, Pa., gay rights, Proposition 8

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

56 Responses to “Erie Residents Rally Against Proposition 8”

TonyF
November 13th, 2008 at 2:36 pm

This is a ballot issue. The courts ruled one way - “for” gay marriage. The ballot overruled the courts. It’s the will of the people. Protesting seems illogical. UnAmerican, actually.

Obama was elected by the people. I could protest but it doesn’t make sense. The people chose Obama and I am willing to work with him.

Seriously, marriage is a union between a man and a woman with procreation as a major part of that union. That’s the way I feel. Same-sex marriage doesn’t fit that pattern. Should we change the way we think? No.
Michael Mahler
November 13th, 2008 at 3:24 pm

This issue should not have been on the ballot to begin with. If a simple majority of California voters had decided that because of concerns of terrorism that only persons who are part of the Judeo-Christian heritage should be allowed to hold office or have other rights, then that would not be fair. In California, changes to the state constitution that fundamentally change the document/remove the rights of a class of people are a revision, which needs to receive a 2/3 vote of the legislature before it can go to the people, as opposed to an amendment. This is one of the points being brought up in the lawsuit. One of the purposes of a demography is to protect the rights of minorities from the tyranny of the majority. In the year that President-Elect Obama (1961) was born, 1/3 of the states in the US would not have recognized his parents’ marriage laws that were on the books in some states until Loving v. Virginia in 1967. The will of many of the people at that time was that interracial marriage was wrong and should not be allowed.

If someone doesn’t believe in interfaith, interracial or same-sex marriages, that is perfectly fine. They are not obligated to be in one. But they do NOT have the right to make that decision for EVERYONE.

In terms of procreation, my grandmother remarried at the age of 88, 3 years ago. My mother married my stepfather when she was no longer capable of having children. My sister and her husband have chosen not to have kids. I have a very good friend who probably can’t conceive. Should her husband have to divorce her to find someone else to procreate with? Are unmarried women who have had hysterectormies barred from marrying?

Furthermore, many same-sex couples are raising children. Those children deserve the same protections that all children do. I know a couple that adopted 2 children from very difficult circumstances who are thriving and doing better on any objective scale than they would with their birth families.

You don’t have to change the way that you think. You simply have to realize that it is not the way that everyone else thinks and that you do not have the right to make intimate decisions about other peoples’ lives.
TJ
November 13th, 2008 at 5:35 pm

I think to myself, why would a man ever want to marry a man? I certainly think it is weird. I would never condone it and hope that my children never take that path.

HOWEVER, what right do we have for stripping someone else of their beliefs? To put a perspective on things, the civil rights act NEVER would have been passed by a citizens vote in the 1940’s, 50’s 60’s and definitely not any earlier and wasn’t even considered an option until later.

As a matter of fact, I would bet any money that certain areas of the nation (perhaps at the county level) would vote to restrict certain people’s rights. But just because the majority thinks one way doesn’t make their thinking “right”. I think abortion is the same type of issue.

If we voted to limit rights of others all the time, few rights would be left intact. The rule of majority in a democracy is what makes it imperfect. To protect the rights of a minority, a compromise must be made and a fair person must lead and ensure both sides operate in society.

First of all, limiting gay rights won’t make less of them nor shove them back into a closet. I say, if they want to go through the hell of marriage, let them get what they ask for.

Some of the gay people I know have said to me “I don’t support it because the divorce courts would be overflowing–gay people seldom endure long-term commitments.” The way I see it is: we can tax it and the divorces will help the law industry.

If everyone just drew a circle around themselves and focused on what is on the inside, we wouldn’t be tied down with dumb issues like this.
Daria
November 13th, 2008 at 10:24 pm

TJ,

I quote ” First of all, limiting gay rights won’t make less of them nor shove them back into a closet. I say, if they want to go through the hell of marriage, let them get what they ask for. ”

Won’t make less of them nor shove them back into a closet?

Is it just me or do I sense the derogatory tone in your post?

We are all entitled to our opionion but we are talking about human beings. Why would we want to shove them back into a closet?

Marriage is hell? I am about to celebrate my 24th year of marriage.
Trials, yes. But hell?

If your children do decide to take ” that path” as you call it, what then?
Will you disown them? Will you love them any less?
Will it decrease their value in your eyes?

This is not a dumb issue. These couples are simply asking for the same rights that are afforded my husband and I for a Union that has provided me benefits as his partner, and vice versa.

If two people are living in such a relationship why should that right be taken away from them?

“Some of the gay people I know have said to me “I don’t support it because the divorce courts would be overflowing–gay people seldom endure long-term commitments”

My guess here is you don’t know too many ‘” gay ” couples, that have lived in long term relationships successfully. Just a thought.

Personally, I have never been a big fan of discrimination.
Kodera
November 14th, 2008 at 6:23 am

Mr. Panepento.
Interesting subject here. What you’ve done is given Mr. Mahler exactly what he wanted…another soapbox for him to spout off his gay militancy and shove his gayness in our face. I for one don’t give a hoot if a person chooses to have sex with people of the same sex, dogs, goats, or their favorite shoe. What I do object to is having it shoved down my throat and presented in such a way that I’m the abnormal one and they are normal. Marriage is between one man and one woman…no matter how much spin people like Mr. Mahler put on it. Let them get out there and have their parades, protests, and whatever else they want to do because it makes them feel better and it gets them all the attention they need to feel good about themselves. I will be surprised if you allow this to be posted.
TonyF
November 14th, 2008 at 8:04 am

Marriage - the state of being married b : the mutual relation of husband and wife : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family.

Michael, you make a good point. I would be open to discussing “civil union”. At this point, I don’t think “marriage” is necessary. If two people of the same sex want to raise children, they can. They don’t need the courts to accomplish it
Peter Panepento
November 14th, 2008 at 9:42 am

Kodera:

This site is about openness and discussion. If you don’t care about whom people choose to be with, certainly you shouldn’t have a problem with people talking about an issue that is on the political radar in several states and is on the minds of folks in Erie.

I give a lot of people soapboxes. That’s what I do. You can choose to disagree with and debate any one of them.

Just remember that everyone is entitled to his or her opinion — and just because someone disagrees with you, it doesn’t mean that either of you are abnormal.

Please feel free to debate this issue and express your opinion. But please also respect the rights of others to express their opinions in this space, too.

In the past three days alone, readers have introduced topics such as public libraries and think tanks onto this blog. We have bloggers who are ultra-conservative and libertarian. We have bloggers who are more liberal. We have submissions from business people and college students.

You should be more surprised if I didn’t allow this topic to be introduced.
Heavy D
November 14th, 2008 at 9:53 am

I believe that two people of the same sex should be able to enter into “something” that gives them the legal rights of married people: but you just can’t call it marriage, sorry but the name ‘Marriage’ is taken. This isn’t about the rights anymore they want the name.You can bet if the gays had developed something thousands of years ago and it was cherished by millions that they wouldn’t let heterosexuals come and usurp it.
TJ
November 14th, 2008 at 10:58 am

Hi Daria,

I guess I missed the derogatory tone. I was simply stating the only reasons as to why someone would ever consider limiting the right of a gay marriage. Personally, I cannot think of any other reasons other than the lines of thinking that others would have to adopt in order to feel so strongly against it.

You are right that I do not know many gay people that have been in long term relationships, but I do know MANY. I am comfortable with my sexuality so I do not feel threatened as some other people may.

Something may have a better understanding of is gay culture. Trust me, marriage to most would be hell. Divorces will be litigious nightmares.

As you said, they cannot be treated as less deserving. I support all individual rights.

The other issues of disowning my children…..I don’t know how you ever came up to that conclusion.

What they call the union is up to the public and that should be voted on because of the historical value of the word “marriage”. (As Heavy D points it out)
TJ
November 14th, 2008 at 11:04 am

And yes, it is a dumb issue since lawmakers should be dealing with issues that matter more–taxes, business, infrastructure, etc.. They have no right debating the limitation of individual rights. This type of debate is just something I as a tax payer should not be paying for–nor should rights should be negotiated.
Michael Mahler
November 14th, 2008 at 11:20 am

When women were included in the pool of voters, we didn’t have to come up with a new term, nor did we come up with a new term when racial minorities were included before that. We didn’t need a new term for marriage when interracial couples were finally included some 40 years ago. White males didn’t “own” the term “voting”, nor did same-racial couples “own” the term “marriage”

Again, to clarify, this is NOT about changing any religious traditions. Right now, churches are perfectly free to not officiate weddings that include non-members of their faith, or people who don’t meet the criteria for that faith. I.e. If a catholic man who had gotten a civil divorce previously who wants to marry a woman who is Jewish, the local Roman Catholic church and also the synogogue are both completed entitled to refuse to perform the ceremony, BUT the couple is allowed equal access to civil marriage, which can be performed by a different religious institution, or a Justice of the Peace. Right now, opposite sex couples that might be atheist/agnostic or no particular religious tradition are allowed to be married in a civil marriage. We are ONLY talking about equal civil marriage rights, NOT religious wedding ceremonies, although some traditions and houses of worship are perfectly okay with equal marriage rights. Actually, when I was at the planning meeting for Saturday’s rally, 2 women who have been together for 11 years were quite vehement that they would NOT WANT to be married at any church which didn’t accept them. (Think about it, how many non-Catholics beg to have a wedding ceremony at a Catholic church??)

Furthermore, there are 1,135 special rights at the Federal level that ONLY are extended to married couples, many of which can NOT be reproduced even with a really good lawyer. Surviving partners of a relationship are taxed differently on the death of their partner. This is an issue of economic justice as well. Civil unions and domestic partnerships do NOT get these rights. Separate but equal didn’t work out for drinking fountains, washrooms and etc, and it is NOT equal here either.
Daria
November 14th, 2008 at 1:06 pm

TJ,

The statement regarding your children came from my interpretation of your own post. ” I think to myself, why would a man ever want to marry a man? I certainly think it is weird. I would never condone it and hope that my children never take that path.”

When you are reading what some one has typed with out eye contact, and voice inflection, there can often be a misunderstanding to the way one interprets what the other is saying.

I hope that my reply to you was not offensive. It certainly was not meant to be. It was just an expression of my own opinion. Again, without the eye contact and the sound of someone’s voice we can take issues out of context.

After reading your original post again, I see that you are basically defending the rights of others, you just don’t feel it should be an issue left up to government? Is that correct?

Thanks for your reply!
Dan
November 14th, 2008 at 1:27 pm

Old school Dan says he liked the way it was in the 60’s. They were always there but they stayed to themselves. Everyone knew where the gay bar was and you left them be. … If a white person uses the N-word or calls a black, “boy” that is justifiable means to get fired at many large corporations. Although I do not condone such actions, it does limit my right to free speech. Likewise a couple of male liplockers disgusts me but I’m a regular white guy married to a regular white female who rasied two normal drug free, jail free children and I have no rights. I pay my taxes on time and have 2 paid off houses so I won’t even get any help there, from the mrtge bailout . I’m being punished because I was prudent and worked to pay off my homes. I never took a penny from the fed or charity, Not even when I had a family and was out of work for 3 mos. I paid taxes for over 45yrs and now I’m being told what not to say and what I must accept. This is BS. I glad they can not control my mind.
Just the way I see it.
TonyF
November 14th, 2008 at 2:01 pm

I want to marry my truck
Dan
November 14th, 2008 at 2:05 pm

I should clarify that I do not condone such talk as N-word or “boy”. I use that particular word because a few yrs ago I innocently and jokingly called a new hire black guy that (boy). I was the supervisor and said it amoung a bunch of black freinds that were in my dept. It was meant that he was young and not attuned to the full workings of the dept and we always jokingly ragged on the new guy. Nothing wrong with that. Whoa Nellie! you could just see the eyes light up with these guys. They took it like a boy as in “plantation boy” when all I realy meant was a comment to his youth. Well it all worked out as they knew me not to be a racist type guy and respected them for their abilities and not color. It was a lesson in speech control bec it could have earned me a trip to HR with charges being filrd. So much for free speech in America. White people must avoid certain words that blacks can use freely.
Dan
November 14th, 2008 at 2:08 pm

TonyF

The important thing here is, does your truck love you?
TJ
November 14th, 2008 at 2:36 pm

Tony,

We now pronounce you man and truck.

The question I want to ask is: who is the dominant one in the relationship

Dan,

I can’t wait until I am a minority and special programs are created for us. To this day–something that BAFFLED me in school was the “Society of Black Engineers”. What would happen if we created the “Honky society of engineers”. I don’t think it would stand up in a court for a minute. Don’t get me wrong: I would never create something like that but the point is, in order for people to become less sensitive, black people have to stop segregating themselves. White people stopped, now they have to.
Peter Panepento
November 14th, 2008 at 3:22 pm

Let’s keep it on topic, folks.
Paige
November 14th, 2008 at 3:54 pm

Scott Eckern, Artistic Director of the California Musical Theatre, resigned this week after it was released that he donated to Yes on 8. It’s been a complete witch hunt out here. It’s escalated to violence and property destruction. So much for tolerance of others.
Kodera
November 15th, 2008 at 3:55 am

Peter…
In all due respect, you’re sounding a bit like Mahler. Hmmmmm.
Heavy D
November 15th, 2008 at 8:50 am

Michael Mahler: why is the name so important to them? Every major religion in the world proscribes this kind of activity. So have have some one rejoicing in an activity that religion says is bad is one thing, having them do this proscribed activity in the Sacred Covenant of Marriage is another.
john morris
November 15th, 2008 at 2:53 pm

Rationally, the thing to do is just drop the title– “marriage” from all civil unions. The state has the right to do nothing more than confirm the fact that two people of legal age ,acting without coercion of any kind have decided to enter a long time partnership. The constitution really rejects the concept of the state making any further endorsments or judgements in the matter. It’s providing a legal document– period– end of story.
john morris
November 15th, 2008 at 2:55 pm

OMG, I love my truck!
MGR
November 15th, 2008 at 10:37 pm

Marriage as an institution is a mess in the U.S. It is not taken with enough seriousness causing our divorce rates and the amount of children from broken homes to become unacceptably high. The failure of the family is directly dropping the quality of our society by producing under-parented kids. The point of this is that marriage was established to cement the care and upbringing of children. Therein lies the real core of this debate - do we as a society want to increase the expansion rate of the gay subculture when we openly establish a platform for gay couples to raise children? I can argue both sides having known gay people who would have made some of the best parents imaginable and recognizing the high likelihood that this arrangement would create sexual confusion for kids during their childhood, given that the biological rate of homosexuality seems to be somewhere between 5-10% of the natural population. Due to our country’s propensity to overempower anyone we see as a “minority” or disadvantaged subculture, my sense is that wide spread gay marriage rights may turn out badly. Having said that, some form of civil union could probably address the legitimate arguments that are presented such as hospital priveleges and avoiding inheritance tax, etc.
chuck
November 16th, 2008 at 12:05 am

Who cares if a Man wants to Marry a Man or a Woman wants to Marry a Woman. They have just as much of a right to Marry as anyone else. There are a lot of closed minded and narrow minded people who do not agree with Gays having the right to just be the way they are. There is nothing wrong with them just because they are different and attracted to the same sex. You be glad there are Gay people out there because if not you would have a lot less people in the Health and mental care units. Look at how many Gays are in the Health Care system and in positions of caring for the people that are mentally challenged, but Oh’’ that’s different is it not!! Hey manly man look at your Gladiators of old Rome and the Roman army!! There was a lot of homosexual behavior going on! I believe the only people that are against the Gays and their rights are really afraid of or threatened by their own feelings about Homosexuality. No I am not Gay but I do know several who are and I and not threatened by what they represent or who they are!! They also have rights!! Believe!!
James A
November 17th, 2008 at 1:32 pm

I honestly think that “marriage” is a religious term. It means that there’s a union, and that God approves of it. Deciding what God likes or doesn’t like is not within the competence of the Congress, the President, or the courts. I’m against federal recognition of homosexual marriage - as well as heterosexual marriage. The only unions we ought to be certifying are civil unions.

However, if we’re going to protect any religion’s definition of marriage, we ought to protect every religion’s definition of marriage. That includes the Unitarians and Reform Jews who bless same-sex marriages.
Bill
November 17th, 2008 at 2:39 pm

Let’s remember that it wasn’t too long ago that it was illegal for an African American person to marry a white person. The “definition” of marriage HAS changed over time and will continue to change. This IS a civil rights issue.
Josh
November 17th, 2008 at 4:26 pm

My best friend just got married…he is a homosexual…maybe if we let them get “married’ our horrific divorce rate may go down. Marriage in this day and age is not what it use to be…if you are use to the 60’s or whenever you grew up…then stay in your house and reminisce…this is 2008 and things are changing with this generation.
Josh
November 17th, 2008 at 4:27 pm

and what is all this BS about paying taxes? homosexuals dont pay taxes????!!!! please enlighten me!
RaggedGlory
November 17th, 2008 at 6:10 pm

Voting on a social issue such as this is unconstitutional. It will be overturned.

Liberty and justice for all. FOR ALL.

To all of you who support this ban on gay marriage: what is so wrong with your mind that you feel it is proper to deny two people the right to bring stability, order, and love into their lives because of your own personal religious beliefs, insecurities, or childish and ignorant hang-ups?
MGR
November 17th, 2008 at 6:44 pm

Voting on an issue is unconstitutional?? Theoretically, politicians and legislators are supposed to act in the interests of the electorate. Most people cry foul when lawmakers serve special interests instead of executing the will of the people. A direct vote on an issue is probably the cleanest and most effective way to execute the people’s demands. If a court overturns prop 8, then CA is less of a democracy. I wonder if we wouldn’t have gotten a better result if we had put the Iraq war to a direct vote.
RaggedGlory
November 17th, 2008 at 10:00 pm

Not on any issue, but this issue specifically. This proposition is a threat to religious liberty: a tenet of our nation to separate church and state. We, as a nation, do not believe in second-class citizenship. I thought we learned the lesson that “Separate, but Equal” is not equal 40 years ago. It wasn’t right when we treated women as less than men. It wasn’t right when we treated black people as less than whites. And it is not right to treat gay and lesbian people as less than straight people. This is discrimination.

Voting on how others are able or not able to live their lives because of their differences is a blatant attack on our tenets of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. There is no denying that.
Dale
November 18th, 2008 at 8:59 am

So RG, do you also feel that pedophilia, beastiality, and other disordered personality traits should also be legitimized? Should a man be permitted to have several wives? Can you honestly say that there should be no constraints whatever on sexual activity with children? As I interpret your thought processes, those preferences should also be acceptable.

Every great civilization that has devolved into the pattern of glorifing self-indulgent behaviors, whether greed, corruption, free sex, et al, has destroyed itself. And the United States is well underway to doing just that..

As for homosexual relationships being normal, even in the animal world, only one or two spiecies indulge in sexual activity for social reasons. The vast majority only mate when the timing is right in order to procreate, and then only with a member of the opposite sex. Nature has a plan that it has followed since Creation. Deviation from the normal has always resulted in the death of society.

When you bring religion into the equation, you are fighting a losing battle. Man and Woman were created to complement each other. Their bodies are created so that both man and woman are needed to produce offspring. It is thus in nature. Only when man considers himself equal to God does he resort to abnormal relationships.

Sorry, RG, I can and will deny your reasoning.
chuck
November 18th, 2008 at 9:44 am

Without pointing out anyone person; I am not sure what you consider normal (in the eyes of God) and it sounds like you have under tones of what you do not consider normal in not right.. How do you view those with handicapped or challenged individuals? What about the ones born with deformities, Autism, homosexual tendencies, ect.. are they actually deformed or as you would say “not normal” or maybe they are normal. Believe it or not we are all created equal in Gods eyes and God had a hand in their creation!! Religion, a funny thing is more wars have been started in the name of religion and the interpretations of Religion!! It seems no matter what people want others to see as being wrong or right they always start quoting the Bible or some type of religion.. Now do not miss interpret what I am saying; I believe what two consenting Adults do no matter what sex or same sex they are is absolutely none of my business. I also believe if two men or two women want to be together and want to be married and commit to each other so it shall be, it does not hurt me in any way. I also feel that those that feel threatened by two men or two women who want to be together should maybe seek counseling about their Homosexuality tendencies and feelings. Now riddle me this in the name of Religion; If all men/women are created equal, how come homosexuals are not??
James A
November 18th, 2008 at 10:50 am

“So RG, do you also feel that pedophilia, beastiality, and other disordered personality traits should also be legitimized? Should a man be permitted to have several wives? Can you honestly say that there should be no constraints whatever on sexual activity with children?”

Show me the dog, corpse, or six-year-old child that is capable of giving informed consent, and I’ll say go ahead.
Dale
November 18th, 2008 at 11:14 am

The point is, Chuck, as you say, what two people want to do in private is their own business. Then why try to force your thinking on the voting public? Heterosexuals do not need your permission or a court order to have a relationship, why do gays need such a ruling?

In the name of religion, you should check it out. Sin is the turning away from God. For those with a faith life, it is no less immoral for a heterosexual to have extra-marital or unmarried sex than it is for a gay person to indulge in their practice, so yes, all are created equal in God’s eyes.
That all are equal does not give any sanction to sinful behavior.

People of all ilks are called to live a chaste life, based on the lives they have chosen.

It is not God that has created inequality, but man’s meddling in areas where he has no business.
chuck
November 18th, 2008 at 11:39 am

Because of close minded people such as you saying they cannot be married!! It is simple minded that keeps simple things from happening!
James A
November 18th, 2008 at 11:51 am

“The point is, Chuck, as you say, what two people want to do in private is their own business. Then why try to force your thinking on the voting public? Heterosexuals do not need your permission or a court order to have a relationship, why do gays need such a ruling?”

Actually, heterosexuals do need the government’s permission to enter into a legal marriage. (They don’t need the government’s permission to have sex, nor do homosexual couples). If you don’t think that’s the case, try filing your taxes as a married couple without having filled out the required paperwork.
Dale
November 18th, 2008 at 1:14 pm

James, read it again-I said nothing about marriage.
RaggedGlory
November 18th, 2008 at 1:34 pm

Dale,

Equating those “disordered personality traits” with homosexuality among two consenting, loving adults looking to bring stabillity into their lives is shameful.

And as an obviously Christian man, you should be ashamed of yourself for that sort of judgment.
Dale
November 18th, 2008 at 1:37 pm

Come on, Chuck Because I disagree with some of your points, that makes me simple-minded and closed-minded??

Does that analogy also not apply to you, since you don’t agree with me?
Dale
November 18th, 2008 at 1:55 pm

Old man? Now you’ve really hurt my feelings. and what does age have to do with anything? And RG, I am not judging the person but the deed.
What I said was that homosexual sex is no more immoral that extra-marital heterosexual relationships. I believe both are equally wrong, but then I’m just a simple, closed-minded old man.

Kind of like the 80% of California voters and the majority of voters everywhere else this has been on the ballot, no?
RaggedGlory
November 18th, 2008 at 2:07 pm

Wasn’t trying to hurt your feelings at all. It has to do with the fact that your manner of “thinking” is getting up in years, shall we say.
RaggedGlory
November 18th, 2008 at 2:09 pm

Why was that part deleted from my post anyway? It was not a personal attack.

This site is a joke. Same old posters spouting what they think are knowledgeable viewpoints.
Peter Panepento
November 18th, 2008 at 2:14 pm

RG — You made your point without having to call Dale an old man. I think you’ve added a lot to this discussion, so please don’t take it personally.

Because of this topic — and the propensity for folks to get personal as a result of what others are saying — I’m a little quicker with the “edit” button than normal.
RaggedGlory
November 18th, 2008 at 3:44 pm

Peter,

You’re right. I should not have called him an old man. I wasn’t meaning it as an insult or personal attack, because there is nothing wrong with being old. But I was equating his being an old man with not being around too much longer, and thus his (what I feel are closed-minded/religiously-slanted) feelings on the topic would also hopefully not be around too much longer. And that was cruel and wrong to say.

I just get a bit exasperated sometimes and find it difficult to keep it completely civil when others use their OWN religious ideals/interpretations to deny others their rights as citizens of the United States. In fact, some of the comments made by certain posters on this very thread are far more offensive and subversive than me saying someone is an old man, in my opinion. I simply believe that all Americans are endowed with certain inalienable rights and that those common rights are not up for interpretation based on personal religious bias.
James A
November 18th, 2008 at 3:54 pm

“James, read it again-I said nothing about marriage.”

You didn’t say it in so many words, but that’s where the argument logically leads. Nobody needs government permission to start any sort of relationship. Which is great! I’d hate to live in a country where you had to have that. But starting a relationship isn’t the issue here - it’s the official governmental recognition of such a relationship that’s the problem. There are heterosexual relationships (marriages) that the government does recognize. There are no homosexual relationships that the government recognizes. If the government didn’t recognize any religious marriage as legally effective - and didn’t grant any rights and responsibilities to any married individuals based on the fact that they’re “married” - then there would be no debate. Everybody would be treated equally. People would get married in their church, which would be free to accept or reject anybody else’s marriage. Some gays would get married, some straights would say, “No, you’re not married,” but nobody outside of the religious sphere would care all that much. It would be an exclusively theological debate, with no business for the government to be there.

The whole reason there is a public policy (rather than a theological) debate about it, is that the government has granted official status, rights, and responsibilities to a relationship based on religious (rather than legal) reasoning. My position is that we shouldn’t be doing that at all. Marriage is a responsibility for the churches, not for the government. But if we are recognizing any religion’s marriage ceremony, we ought to recognize all religions’ marriage ceremonies. Unitarians and Reform Jews perform homosexual marriages. By refusing to recognize the legal validity of those ceremonies, we’re basically saying that those religions are incorrect. And that is most certainly not a situation that I approve of, no matter how weird I might consider the religion.

Now it’s possible to say that, all right, the government won’t be recognizing “marriage” as a specifically religious institution. As far as the government is concerned, it’s just a contract. That’s how civil marriages already work. The problem is that this contract can only be entered into by one man and one woman. But on what basis should it be limited to that? Is there any reason (based in law, not in any religion or in tradition) that this particular contract - alone among all of the other types of contracts - should discriminate among its entrants based on gender? If there is, I haven’t been able to find it.

But what I can find, is this: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people,” and, “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United State; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” If the contract exists, it should be open to all. The right to practice religion freely should not, in itself, be sufficient to disparage the right of two people to pursue their own happiness.
Peter Panepento
November 18th, 2008 at 3:54 pm

Ragged –

I understand your frustration on this one. This has been a tough thread to moderate, because people have such strong feelings on this. I’ve had to delete quite a bit of stuff and, frankly, I’m disappointed at some of what I saw here.

I’ve tried to allow folks to express their opinions without making direct attacks at a particular person. I’ve also let some stuff go because, well, it shows the ignorance of their thinking.

In any case, I know you meant no ill will with your comment. I’m just trying to keep this on topic without it veering out of control (as it did at times earlier in the thread).
Michael Mahler
November 18th, 2008 at 5:27 pm

I would like to point out that Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate (2.2 per 1000 marriages, as opposed to the national average of 3.8.) This remained low after Massachusetts equalized its marriage laws in 2004. The argument that banning equal marriage rights for same sex couples somehow “protects” or “defends” marriage is not borne out by empirical data. The highest divorce rates are to be found in Bible Belt states. There are doubtless other factors at play, but the point is that when measured objectively, equal marriage rights for all does NOT harm heterosexual marriages. This is not some theoretical projection of what will happen, this is an objective measurement of what has happened.
Dale
November 18th, 2008 at 10:35 pm

Rag, Chuck, James A. Guys, we had a great discussion today. I really hope that no one is truly offended. Even the “old man” comment did not bother me. We all have our own thoughts, and that is as it should be. I’m happy we were able to express our opinions openly without resorting to personal attack, and hats off to Peter for a good job of keeping the peace!!!
Ashley
November 18th, 2008 at 10:42 pm

I attended the rally in Erie on Saturday in an effort to do my part to amplify love and dissipate hate and discrimination. I encourage everyone to watch this video/read the script:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27650743/

“You want to sanctify marriage? You want to honor your God and the universal love you believe he represents? Then Spread happiness—this tiny, symbolic, semantical grain of happiness—share it with all those who seek it. Quote me anything from your religious leader or book of choice telling you to stand against this. And then tell me how you can believe both that statement and another statement, another one which reads only “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
chuck
November 19th, 2008 at 8:37 am

I agree with your last post Dale. Great conversations & opinions. Thank you also for not resorting to name calling or degrading comments as I have experianced in past blogs.
Lita
November 19th, 2008 at 7:24 pm

There was a film that changed my perspective dramatically about this issue. It is called Saints and Sinners (2004).

Another thing to consider:
#1 problem with this country right now: the economy
Sure there are bailouts being proposed, etc. etc. But people simply aren’t spending. Think about all the spending that would happen if there was legalized gay marriage. I mean… woah!
MGR
November 19th, 2008 at 10:55 pm

One thing I notice in most of these gay marriage debates is that the proponents envision themselves as enlightened or intellectually superior and consider the opponents to be simplistic or blindly following religion. Opponents often take the position that “marriage” in the traditional sense comes directly from religions that do not accept homosexuality and the proponents are deviants. I can’t support it, but not because I hold some moral high ground, instead I think the practical ramifications are problematic.

Legalized gay marriage will lead to gay couples raising kids, which likely will lead to a higher rate of homosexuality due to children’s exposure to it during formative years. These folks may raise better kids for all I know, I personally would require a stringent education and permitting process for ANYONE to have kids given the lousy parenting that we accept as standard. Regardless, this will naturally lead to a decreased birth rate, which has already fallen below replacement for industrialized societies. Interestingly, so far this is mostly attributable to removing religion as the base framework of these populations.

Then there is the legal precedent. For example why shouldn’t polygamy be legal? What is the argument against it if there are 3 or more consenting adults? If it can’t be on moral grounds, then it must be legal. How many other legal structures are based on a moral foundation that can be torn down based on a civil right? My guess is that there are plenty, so the law of unintended consequences may apply.
chuck
November 20th, 2008 at 11:05 am

MGR I am not sure if you know of what you speak. So what if Gay people adopt and raise children, what would be wrong with that? If you are saying or have the belief that if a gay couple adopt children they would raise them to be gay your thinking is moronic and Ignorant. What I would be more worried about is; if you are raising children they will be having the same thinking as you and that would not be a good thing to have more closed minded people in the world. I am not sure if you have done any research on what you talk about. If your thoughts were true about gay people raising children they would be or the chance of the children being gay would be increased. How do we get gays then?? If they were raised in a heterosexual home where would their homosexual tendencies come from? Homosexuality tendencies feelings and attraction is something you are born with not taught. If a man is attracted to a man or a woman is attracted to a women that is their sexual preference not doing it because they seen someone else do it. Please expand your mind and thinking.. I also do not agree with you other thinking about what ifs!! I will stop here because I am going to guess this would be like trying to have a discussion with a brick wall…
MGR
November 20th, 2008 at 2:03 pm

Actually I don’t hold a strong opinion on this topic in either direction, so I tried to take a pragmatic approach. I think most people vote this issue on emotion rather than logic. Any time you increase acceptance of a subculture, it’s level of occurence will rise because there is no stigma against it and it is more publicly visible and accepted. Given that there is research to support both nature and nurture drivers for sexual preference, I would scientifically derive that broad societal factors can impact the rate. I am no sociologist, so maybe there is some counteractive force I am unaware of, for all I know gay couples raising children may be an improvement. If the rate does rise, though, the birth rate will natrually drop - go do a little research on the long term implications of this for industrialized nations and you will be stunned.

As far as what-if’s go, you and I can probably make a reasonable judgement between what we do and don’t want to allow in our society, but once the legal machine gets going, hold on to your hat!

If I ever did bring kids into the world, I would at least make sure they based their opinions on a rational interpretation of facts and research rather than the rampant group-think talking point simplified manner in which the masses seem to flow these days. I think the last time someone considered me closed minded, ignorant, or moronic was during some annebriated parties in college, so I thank you good sir for making me feel young.

Entries (RSS)
Comments (RSS)

About 'Outside Erie'

Peter Panepento After more than six years working as a journalist in Erie, I'm now the web editor for the Chronicle of Philanthropy in Washington, D.C., and the publisher of GlobalErie.com. I still maintain close ties to Erie - a community that I care about deeply. I hope this Web site can help inspire a better future for Erie.

Outside Erie