TBP editor Waymon Hudson got quoted in the Contra Coast Times last week in an article about how some clergy aren't signing marriage licenses anymore:
"I think the need to untangle civil marriage and the rights associated with it from religious blessing is an important step to moving towards full marriage equality in our country," said South Florida editor Waymon Hudson, president of Fight OUT Loud, a national organization that advocates protection against hate crime and discrimination.
Hudson and his partner plan to travel to San Francisco this summer to marry.
"Our country's idea of marriage is completely too intertwined with religion, which is why we have fallen behind other countries in the world when it comes to marriage equality," he said. "Spain, one of the most Catholic countries in the world, allows same sex marriage because they are able to separate the religious aspect from the civil contract, something our society is unwilling or unable to do."
Awesome.
In the article's quotation battle, Waymon's put up against this:
Much of the world disagrees with what Hudson calls marriage equality, said a spokesman for the California Family Council.
"For many religious individuals who hold marriage to be between a man and a woman, that is a religious belief and character," said legislative coordinator Everett Rice.
"As a historic or traditional understanding it has always been understood in law that marriage is specifically between a man and a woman. Some folks may have issues with religion, but the discussion is not just relegated to religious perspective, and that's not just in the U.S. and Canada, it's around the globe."
The law the whole world over sees marriage as heterosexual? Not just US and Canada? Even though two states and the nation of Canada legally recognize same-sex marriage? And South Africa, Belgium, Spain, and the Netherlands are there with them?
And weren't these the exact same people who got mad that the Supreme Court looked to other countries in the Lawrence?
But it's better than this brainiac:
"Marriage between a man and a woman is a Biblical institution," said Robert Tyler, general counsel for Advocates for Faith and Freedom, the legal arm behind Proposition 22. "Someone who says it is a wholly legal institution must be someone who doesn't read the Bible. Our nation was founded on Judeo-Christian principles."
And anyone who thinks that the US was founded on "Judeo-Christian principles" must be someone who hasn't read up on US history.
Comment on this entry
Ah, but Alex, our imperfect union was founded on Christan principles. The first synagogue in the United States was founded in 1763 and could hardly have had an influence, although it was in Virginia. It's congregation came from a group fleeing religious persecution.
The part that was OK according to biblical standards of the new testament (as interpreted by 1500 years of Roman Catholic meddling)was the subjugation of women in property,and voting, slavery,homophobia (mostly confined to that idiot Paul who never even met Jesus) was mostly an invention of the states. Eating shellfish should have been included, but the Massachusetts lobster fishermen had a strong lobby.
As that good Republican Abe Lincoln said: "The Union cannot long survive half slave and half free." Same with domestic partnerships with full federal recognition. It should also be a matter of the Federal government to provide this fundamental right with full benefits recognition. Finding a minister or rabbi to sign a piece of paper is the easy part.
The hard part is to convince congress to expend political capitol on us. Oh well, I always have the 23rd psalm to fall back on, and genuine love. I think that makes me a winner anyway.
Robert Ganshorn | June 2, 2008 11:59 AM
"Marriage between a man and a woman is a Biblical institution," said Robert Tyler, general counsel for Advocates for Faith and Freedom, the legal arm behind Proposition 22. "Someone who says it is a wholly legal institution must be someone who doesn't read the Bible. Our nation was founded on Judeo-Christian principles."
They haven't read their bible very well. Polygamous marriages were also allowed, as well as concubines.
zythyra | June 2, 2008 1:34 PM
Way to go Waymon! It's always great to see our contributors in the news.
Bil Browning | June 2, 2008 5:58 PM
Religion is one of the great tragedies of humankind.
In America has produced mixed results, none particularly good. If it created communitarian utopian groups like the Shakers it also was the means of deliberately injecting the poison of racism to justify slavery and genocide against Native Americans. Although that was done in the century or so before independence both forms of racism flourish to this day. (Roots of American Racism: Essays on the Colonial Experience, A. T. Vaughan, Oxford University Press - USA, 1995. Get it at the library, it’s very expensive.)
Religion has always been a tool of the rich. Preachers denounced unions for decades until the unions got huge. Scuzwads like Billy Graham, Cardinal Spellman or Pat Robertson have always been happy to tell soldiers marching off to kill and be killed that god was on their side. But they make themselves scarce when the body bags begin to pile up.
The question is what should we do about the influence of superstitious bigotry. A good start is the educational campaign around marriage equality. It gives us an opening to push for laws restricting religion to its proper place as part of the broader entertainment industry. They don’t pay taxes like Disney or United Artists but they should. They don’t go to jail when they rape children or cover it up, but they should. They shouldn’t be allowed to promote bigoted violence against us but they do it every day.
We have to use the openings provided by their pigheaded opposition to same sex marriage equality to begin concentrating our fire on the questions of taxes, abuse, molestation and hate speech.
Bill Perdue | June 3, 2008 12:05 AM
To help avoid spam, all comments from unregistered users are held for moderation.