Marry your like, says the Bible : Mail & Guardian Online

Marry your like, says the Bible : Mail & Guardian Online

Marry your like, says the Bible

André Müller: COMMENT



24 February 2008 11:59

I am a proponent of same-sex marriages and as a Christian minister of religion, I want to make it very clear that the Bible nowhere gives an indication that such marriages should be condemned. Most of the opposition to same-sex marriages could be ascribed to a lack of knowledge of what both marriage and homosexuality mean.

The biggest mistake most people make is the assumption that the institution of marriage has remained unchanged since ancient times. They falsely wish to adhere to a traditional value that was supposedly handed down through the ages and could be traced back to the Creator Himself. May I remind them that slavery was also a traditional value, supported by various authors of the Bible and by the church until slavery was abolished in the 18th century? The truth is that marriage has a long history of development characterised by change and evolution. Even in the Bible itself, many forms of marriage can be recognised, such as monogamy, polygamy, a man simply taking a woman, parents choosing a bride for their son, and even a very strange (to us) form of marriage called the Levirate marriage, where a man was expected to marry his sister-in-law in the event of his brother’s death. Today we wouldn’t even consider enforcing this kind of marriage -- even though it is stipulated in the Bible.

I differ strongly from traditional churches which proclaim that marriage was instituted by God. He did nothing of the kind. What He did was that He created Adam and Eve and simply brought them together. There was no ceremony, no legal documents and no witnesses. Marriage is a cultural phenomenon that developed spontaneously and assumed many different forms in different cultures. God nowhere in the Bible prescribes that we must get married or what form the marriage must take. As we read through the Bible, it is simply mentioned as a matter of fact that certain Bible characters were married or got married. We do know, however, that God was pleased with this development in human behaviour and that it had His blessing.

Two major principles found in the creation account of Genesis that could also be applied to same-sex couples is the declaration by God that it is “not good” for a human being to be alone. Therefore, it is also “not good” for a gay person to be alone. Next, there is also the motivation verbalised by God when He brought Eve to Adam, namely that she was someone “like him” -- his equal. In modern terms, Adam and Eve were heterosexual and in that sense they were like one another, and a perfect match.

If a gay person is forced into a heterosexual marriage, it will most definitely be against that person’s nature and it would be a total mismatch and a disaster. On the other hand, if two gay people get married, they are “like one another” and equals, and in this way they comply with the standard set by God Himself for intimate relationships, namely to experience another human being as “someone like me”.

There is overwhelming evidence that the early church had no problem blessing same-sex marriages -- a fact that has been well documented by the Yale University theologian and church historian John Boswell in his book The Marriage of Likeness: Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe. There are many early-church manuscripts dating from the fourth century of liturgies used for the solemnisation of same-sex marriages. It is only in subsequent centuries where sentiment turned against such same-sex rituals of bonding.

The biggest mistake we can make about homosexuality is to think that gay people are actually heterosexuals who simply choose to be gay to rebel against the Creator. It is not a matter of choice but a given reality of creation that must be accepted. That is the way God created them and as such they are also created in the image of God. The Bible nowhere speaks about being gay as we understand it today. The few instances where the Bible condemns homosexual acts are about expressions of aggression (performed by heterosexuals), idolatry or promiscuity -- and never about only two people who love each other. Not in a single case do we find a condemnation of a loving relationship between two same-sex individuals who intend to be faithful to each other. Had that been the case, I would not have had the confidence to officiate at same-sex marriages. But, being convinced that the Bible doesn’t condemn it, I will continue to act as a marriage officer for same-sex couples and ask God’s blessing upon their unions.

Brooks to appeal same-sex marriage decision in Rochester NY

Democrat & Chronicle: Local News

Brooks to appeal same-sex marriage decision


Erica Bryant
Staff writer



(February 23, 2008) — Though same-sex weddings cannot be performed legally in New York, the state must — at least until a Monroe County appeal is heard — recognize the marriage of Chili residents Patricia Martinez and Lisa Ann Golden.

Their union, legally consecrated in Canada in 2004, was not immediately accepted by Martinez's employer, Monroe Community College. In 2005, she sued to get health care benefits for Golden. On Feb. 1, a court ruled in her favor.

On Friday, Monroe County Executive Maggie Brooks announced that the county would appeal the appellate court ruling to protect taxpayers.

"We certainly cannot ignore the definition of marriage that currently exists under New York state law," she said in a statement.

As long as the Martinez case ruling stands, same-sex marriages legally performed elsewhere will be entitled to the same treatment under state law as marriages between a man and a woman. This gives such couples access to inheritance rights, for example, and the right to make medical decisions for each other.

Though many local employers already offer benefits to same-sex couples, others must consider how the ruling will change their policies. The implications have left same-sex marriage supporters celebrating and gay marriage opponents hoping the Court of Appeals reverses the decision.

Meanwhile, many are lobbying the state Legislature to pass a law regarding same-sex marriage that will take jurisdiction over the matter out of the courts.

The state Court of Appeals said in 2006 that same-sex couples are not allowed to marry in New York, unless the legislature passes a law legalizing same-sex marriage. In the Martinez case ruling, the Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, said that same-sex marriages legally consecrated elsewhere must be recognized in New York, unless the Legislature passes a law to deny their legitimacy.

Martinez, 52, and Golden, 40, stress that their fight is not just about access to health care benefits. They can sleep easier knowing that they have the legal rights and protections married couples have.

In Alan Hevesi's 2004 statement in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage, the former state comptroller said there are 1,049 federal benefits and responsibilities afforded by marriage, in addition to hundreds more offered by New York.

Before, same-sex couples had to draw up legal documents to simulate marriage. "The only thing we as lawyers had to work with was contract law," said Martinez's attorney, Jeffrey Wicks. Christopher Hinesley, the director of the Gay Alliance of Genesee Valley, said that Hevesi's statements pushed many same-sex couples in New York to start going to Canada to get married.

Evolving laws

The Martinez decision pushes New York into evolving legal territory. "Thousands of employers are going to be wondering what to do," said Martinez. The Rochester area's three biggest employers — University of Rochester, Wegmans Food Markets Inc. and Eastman Kodak Co. — already provide benefits to same-sex married couples. UR and Kodak provide domestic partner benefits. Wegmans provides health and dental benefits if the couple is united by a ceremony that happened someplace where same-sex marriage is legal.

Since Martinez filed her suit, Monroe Community College's contract with the Civil Service Employees Union has started providing benefits for domestic partnerships. MCC conducts its contract negotiations separately from Monroe County, and county spokesman Noah Lebowitz says the county does not offer any benefits to same-sex couples. The towns of Greece and Henrietta and Paychex Inc. also do not offer such benefits.

Due to the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act, same-sex marriages recognized in New York still will not have access to benefits bestowed by the federal government. This act defines "marriage" as a bond between a man and a woman and "spouse" as a married partner of the opposite sex for federal matters, and federal law supersedes state law on many marriage issues.

This means, for example, that same-sex couples who can now file state income taxes as a married couple still must file their federal taxes as single. Neither federal pension and private-sector pension benefits nor certain health care plans regulated by the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act are legally due to same-sex couples.

Xerox Corp. and Bausch & Lomb Inc., which provide benefits for same-sex couples, along with Kodak, are members of the Business Coalition for Benefits Tax Equity, a group that wants the IRS to adjust tax code to help companies that extend benefits to employees in same-sex relationships.

Under current IRS regulations, the value of nonspouse, nondependent benefits is included in employee wages and increases the amount of tax paid by the employee and employer. Benefits provided to spouses or children are not included in wages, resulting in lower taxes for heterosexual married couples.

About 1.2 million people said they were part of same-sex partnerships in the 2000 census, about 0.6 percent of the total adult population.

'Opposed to this'

Rabbi James Appel of the Congregation Shema Yisrael in Irondequoit says the Martinez decision absolutely should be appealed.

"I think the majority of people in the county and the whole country are opposed to this," he said. "Judges are moving us in this direction against the moral attitudes and standards of the rest of the country."

The Rev. Sammy L King of Trinity Missionary Baptist Church in Rochester is also opposed to same-sex marriage.

"It's not that we don't love gays and lesbians, and reach out to them," he said. "Legalization can come in the state of New York, but in the eyesight of God, (same-sex marriage) can never be legalized."

Appel has supported an explicit state ban on same-sex marriage and the recognition of same-sex marriage, similar to those found in more than half of the states.

Last year, Gov. Eliot Spitzer introduced a bill to legalize same-sex marriage. The Assembly passed a similar bill. No action was taken in the state Senate. The four state senators who represent this region all oppose same-sex marriage legislation.

Sen. Joe Robach, R-Greece, says he supports civil unions but not gay marriage. Sen. James Alesi, R-Perinton, says he supports civil rights and anti-discrimination legislation but draws a line at same-sex marriage.

"The majority of my constituents are opposed," said Alesi, who does not expect the Senate to take up the issue this session.

Wicks believes that his client is on solid legal footing because New York recognizes marriages that are not legal in New York, such as common law marriages. The appellate court ruling states: "For well over a century, New York has recognized marriages solemnized outside of New York unless they fall into two categories of exception: marriage, the recognition of which is prohibited by the 'positive law' of New York and marriages involving incest or polygamy, both of which fall within the prohibitions of 'natural law.'"

Brooks disagrees. A county statement issued Friday states: "According to the New York state law, marriage is an institution that exists strictly between a man and a woman. Foreign marriages are recognized so long as they are not contrary to New York state policy. Monroe County currently holds the position that same-sex marriage is in fact contrary to New York state policy."

A sense of validation

Martinez has said that she is prepared to fight her case all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In the meantime, Jo and Christine Meleca-Voigt, two Henrietta women who were married in Canada in 2005, are trying to pursue joint medical insurance in light of the recent decision.

Jo Meleca-Voigt said the court ruling has made her marriage feel more real. "Before when we would drive into Canada, as soon as we crossed the border it felt like we were legitimate," she said. "(After the court decision) I feel more legitimate and validated here."

Doreen Peever, a lay chaplain of the Unitarian Congregation of Niagara in Ontario, Canada, performed Martinez and Golden's 2004 wedding ceremony.

She says she's conducted 208 same-sex marriage ceremonies since they became legal in Canada in 2003. The vast majority of couples have been from the United States.

Peever says the Unitarian Church has been performing gay marriages since the 1970s. "I don't understand what the big deal is," she said. "It doesn't threaten family values; it reinforces family values. These are new families."

Brooks called the Martinez victory "a clear misinterpretation of the law." Her statement concludes: "To expand (health care) benefits to same-sex couples is to ignore the will of the people of Monroe County and New York state. Therefore, the county is seeking an appeal of the recent ruling in this case."

Martinez anticipates that the success of her case in appellate court means more people will be heading north to get married.

"If I weren't married already, I'd be leaving skid marks on that Peace Bridge going to Canada," she said.

EBRYANT@DemocratandChronicle.com

'Decline to sign' campaign launched

The Bay Area Reporter Online | 'Decline to sign' campaign launched

by Seth Hemmelgarn
s.hemmelgarn@ebar.com

A coalition of groups supporting same-sex marriage is asking for volunteers to help defeat an effort to make same-sex marriage unconstitutional in California.

Equality for All, a coalition of LGBT and allied civil rights groups, is launching a "Decline to Sign" campaign to discourage people from signing petitions that support putting an anti-gay marriage initiative on the November ballot.

The measure would amend the state's constitution to specify marriage can only be between a man and a woman. That effort is being led by California's ProtectMarriage.com and the New Jersey-based National Organization for Marriage, according to Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality California, which is part of Equality for All.

"We want to make sure people know what they're signing," Kors said. "We want to make sure that people know this would actually write discrimination into the constitution."

Kors said that starting this weekend – Friday, February 22 – volunteers will be sent to locations where paid signature gatherers have been sighted.

Volunteers will attempt to educate people and ask them to sign petitions to show support for same-sex marriage. Kors said volunteers will be told not to engage people in confrontations.

Kors said the coalition estimates there are from 150 to 200 paid signature gatherers in the state, based on talks with people in the signature gathering business. He said there have been reports of people circulating the anti-gay marriage petitions and Equality for All wants people to report such activity when they see signature gatherers. He said the work appears to be most prominent in the Central Valley and Southern California, and he's not aware of any sightings in San Francisco.

Kors said the anti-gay marriage groups need about 1.1 million signatures by mid-April in order to collect the nearly 700,000 valid signatures needed to put the measure before voters. The anti-gay marriage groups have not responded to requests for comment.

If the initiative were successful, it would nullify a positive outcome from the same-sex marriage case that's before the California Supreme Court, should the court rule that the state's marriage laws are unconstitutional.

The court is set to hear oral arguments in the same-sex marriage case on March 4. The consolidated marriage case stems from Mayor Gavin Newsom's action four years ago during which same-sex couples were allowed to wed. The court voided those marriages later in 2004. A San Francisco judge then ruled that the state's marriage laws are unconstitutional, but that a state appellate court overturned that decision, sending the case to the high court.

One of the people behind ProtectMarriage.com is reportedly Gail Knight, the widow of state Senator Pete Knight. Pete Knight authored Proposition 22, which was passed by voters in 2000 and holds that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." That measure is part of the state's family code, not the state constitution.

Kate Kendell is executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights and is a member of Equality for All.

"We are very interested in mobilizing folks around the state who, for a long time, have been wanting to help, but between the court cases and legislative action there hasn't been a huge grassroots component – well, this is the time," Kendell said.

She said the effort to keep the initiative off the ballot would be time well spent.

"If it gets on the ballot, the effort to defeat it becomes much more expensive and intensive, so if we could keep it off the ballot, it is impossible to overstate what a tremendous victory that would be," Kendell said.

To volunteer, go to www.equalityforall.com.


02/21/2008

Marriage vs. civil union: What's in a name matters - NJVoices: Steven Goldstein

Marriage vs. civil union: What's in a name matters - NJVoices: Steven Goldstein

Marriage vs. civil union: What's in a name matters
Posted by Steven Goldstein February 18, 2008 11:00PM
Today is the one-year anniversary of New Jersey's civil union law. For same-sex couples for whom today might have been a cause for celebration, this has been a year of survival through legal and personal hell. The law has wreaked havoc on same-sex couples' lives because too many employers, hospitals and others throughout the state do not recognize civil unions as marriage.

According to a report released today by the New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission - the agency charged with evaluating the effectiveness of the law - companies across New Jersey have refused to grant health benefits to the same-sex partners of their employees. Because the civil union law doesn't give same-sex couples the freedom to marry, many companies don't consider civil union partners to be spouses who qualify for health coverage. My organization, Garden State Equality, has received 564 complaints over the past year from civil union couples denied equal health coverage. Lambda Legal reports having worked with more than 100 such couples.

Considering that about 2500 couples have entered into civil unions in New Jersey during the past year, the law is failing for at least one of every five couples. That's not a mere statistic. That represents couples who pay the same high taxes as everyone else - including property taxes that hit gay families as hard as straight families - who are being denied adequate health care and financial security under the law. Some civil union couples are forced to live check to check. Other civil union couples have been deprived of their dignity and emotional security at the most critical moments of their lives.

Take the case of a couple from Montclair who testified before the commission. Over the past year, they and their two children have been to the emergency room four times. In one instance, one of the moms had a potentially life threatening condition.

Rather than process the couple as quickly as they did other couples, emergency room staff interrogated the couple about their relationship after the women said they were in a civil union. The staff didn't care that a civil union was supposed to give the couple the same rights as married spouses. As other patients were rushed into care, the civil union couple had to present every legal document under the sun.

What was the difference between the women in a civil union, and the others who received more expeditious health care? The term "civil union," no matter the intent of the law, wasn't good enough. The term "marriage" was.

For too many families across New Jersey, the warning of former New Jersey Chief Justice Deborah Poritz has proven prophetic. "What we name things matters, language matters," she wrote in her dissent in the 2006 Supreme Court decision that led to civil unions rather than marriage for same-sex couples. "By excluding same-sex couples from civil marriage, the state declares that it is legitimate to differentiate between their commitments and the commitments of heterosexual couples."

Indeed, scores of civil union couples have told first-hand stories of second-class treatment to the New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission. Particularly stunning is the saga of another Essex County resident who testified about how the phrase "civil union" negatively affected her life. When she asked her workplace for benefits for her same-sex partner, she was told the union contract did not recognize civil unions. The benefits administrator invoked a complicated federal law that provided a legal loophole.

But when she later said that she had gotten married to her same-sex partner in Massachusetts, where same-sex couples can indeed marry, the administrator changed on the turn of a dime to say, oh, you're married, we didn't know that, we'll cover you. The word "marriage" had enough persuasive weight to make the federal loophole irrelevant.

New Jersey is a fairer state than this. Gov. Jon Corzine has said he'd prefer to sign a marriage equality law next year rather than this year, lest a new state law become an issue in the 2008 presidential election.

But to same-sex couples across New Jersey, the failure of the civil union law isn't a political issue. It's personal. Same-sex families across New Jersey are suffering emotional and financial pain - sometimes devastating pain - because marriage is the only currency of commitment the real world consistently accepts.

Governor and dear legislators, if you look in your hearts and truly believe that justice delayed is justice denied, you can only come to one conclusion. The time for marriage equality is now.

Steven Goldstein is chairman of Garden State Equality, the statewide organization for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender civil rights.

True values voters should embrace any loving marriage -- South Florida Sun-Sentinel.com

True values voters should embrace any loving marriage -- South Florida Sun-Sentinel.com


Michael Mayo

click link for full article

News Columnist

February 17, 2008


You know the saying about gay marriage: If you don't like it, don't have one.

Or don't attend one.

Or make sure you belong to a religion that won't allow one.

But what a religion allows and what the state allows should be separate issues.

Which is why I'm glad there will be a public airing of the gay-marriage debate this year in Florida. After a successful petition drive, a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage has made the November ballot.

Pretty needless, when you consider gay marriage is already illegal in Florida. The Legislature passed a "defense of marriage" law defining marriage as between one man and one woman last decade. Given the political realities of the state, it doesn't look like that law will be overturned any time soon.....................

Report Finds Problems With NJ Gay Unions

The Associated Press: Report Finds Problems With NJ Gay Unions


By GEOFF MULVIHILL – 21 hours ago

MOUNT LAUREL, N.J. (AP) — A commission established to study same-sex civil unions in New Jersey has found in its first report that civil unions create a "second-class status" for gay couples, rather than giving them equality.

The report stops short of recommending that the state allow gay marriage. But it does find that gay couples in Massachusetts, the only state that now allows same-sex marriage, do not experience some of the legal complications that those in New Jersey do.

The Associated Press obtained a copy of the initial report, which was scheduled to be made public Tuesday, the first anniversary of the state's first civil unions.

State lawmakers made New Jersey the third state to offer civil unions with a law adopted in 2006 in reaction to a state Supreme Court ruling that year that found gay couples were entitled to the same legal protections as married couples.

The civil union law sought to give gay couples those benefits, but not the title of marriage. As a part of the same law, the review commission was created to look into whether it was working.

Gay rights advocates say the civil unions do not deliver and have pledged to push lawmakers to vote to allow marriage. Gov. Jon S. Corzine has said he would be willing to sign such a bill into law but doesn't want the issue to be taken up before the presidential election in November.

The activists say civil unions, in practice, do not offer the legal protections that marriage does. The commission largely agreed with them.

The commission held three public hearings last year at which the majority of the testimony came from people who were in civil unions and said they were still not being treated the way married couples are by government agencies, employers and others.

For instance, the commission found that many companies in the state that are self-insured — and therefore are regulated by federal, rather than state, law — refuse to provide health insurance to the partners of their employees.

While employers in Massachusetts could legally do the same thing, most do not, according to the report.

The commission also finds that many people in the state do not understand civil unions, which create a "second-class status."

The commission's report says the misunderstanding of civil unions makes it more difficult for a child to grow up in New Jersey with gay parents, or to be gay themselves.

Through Jan. 19, 2,329 couples had received civil union licenses, according to the state Health and Senior Services Department.

Some social conservatives have said the commission is slanted in favor of allowing gay marriage, and opponents of gay marriage have been pushing back in New Jersey.

Roman Catholic churches around the state have been planning special prayers on marriage for Sunday. A major aim is to promote marriage as being between only a man and a woman.

A conservative Princeton group, the National Organization for Marriage, has aired radio commercials that say allowing gay marriage would undermine some religious teachings that homosexuality is wrong.

Gay-marriage ban dies in House | IndyStar.com

Gay-marriage ban dies in House | IndyStar.com

2008 Legislature
Gay-marriage ban dies in House
Backers of constitutional amendment must wait at least 4 years before they can try again
By Bill Ruthhart
bill.ruthhart@indystar.com
February 16, 2008


Supporters of a constitutional ban on same-sex marriages likely will have to wait at least another four years after a key House leader decided he won't consider legislation that passed the Senate.
Conservative activists and lawmakers expressed frustration Friday with the decision by Rep. Scott Pelath, D-Michigan City, not to hear Senate Joint Resolution 7, the legislation that included the constitutional ban.
Pelath's decision did not come as a surprise because earlier this session, he refused to hear a House version of the legislation in his Rules Committee. His decision not to hear the Senate version of the proposal, however, is significant because it likely wipes out a decision by the General Assembly in 2005 to pass the measure.
In order to amend the constitution, two consecutively elected legislatures must pass the measure, and voters must approve it in a general election.


When Republicans controlled the House and Senate in 2005, the legislature passed the amendment. Since the Democrats regained control of the House in 2007, the effort has stalled in Pelath's committee.
"The state just needs to understand that Democrat leadership in the Indiana House is preventing them from speaking on this issue," said House Minority Leader Brian Bosma, R-Indianapolis. "Speaker Pat Bauer and his leadership team killed this measure in 2004, they killed it in 2007, and now they're killing it in 2008."
Bauer, D-South Bend, has said he never promised a vote on the issue, only that he'd let it move through the legislative process.
Pelath also pointed to extensive hearings on the proposal last year in his committee, which resulted in a deadlock vote.
Amendment supporters say that if the full House were allowed to vote on the measure, it would pass overwhelmingly.
Pelath and opponents argue that the state already has a law banning same-sex marriages and that the amendment's language was ambiguous and could result in unintended consequences on issues including domestic violence protection and businesses' ability to recruit employees.
"This really is a very simple decision," Pelath said. "The reality is, we have no gay marriages in Indiana. It is against the law. Nobody has brought me evidence of a gay marriage taking place in this state.
"There's no reason to put very poorly crafted verbiage into our constitution, out state's highest document, that could potentially be a lawyer's dream with all sorts of unintended consequences."
Eric Miller, founder of the conservative activist group Advance America, blames Bauer, who he said has intentionally sent the amendment to Pelath's committee to kill it.
"It is a tragedy for the people of Indiana that one man, Speaker Pat Bauer, stopped the 100 members of the House (from) being able to vote to protect marriage and prevented the citizens of Indiana from having the opportunity to vote to protect marriage," Miller said. "It's not only a disappointment, it's wrong."
Pelath rejected that argument.
"That's not what our constitution says. It doesn't just say you throw out an idea and you throw it out for a vote -- that's not how we do it," he said. "We don't send everything up for referendum here. We make decisions and do our jobs. I'm abiding by the constitution."
Walter Botich, legislative chairman of gay-rights group Indiana Equality, was encouraged that Pelath stood his ground.
"I think his decision makes perfect sense," Botich said. "The people I've talked to, their concerns have been about issues about property taxes, so it makes logical sense that the legislature spends its time on those more important issues."
Sen. Brandt Hershman, R-Wheatfield, argued there was enough time to deal with the issue this session and that its language wasn't "hazy," as Pelath suggested.
"There's nothing wrong with the wording," Hershman said. "The concerns that were raised were a smokescreen for a fundamental difference in both sides' views on social policy."
The only way the issue could survive this session is if the amendment were attached to another piece of legislation, a prospect that is highly unlikely.
Instead, Hoosiers would have to wait until at least 2012 to vote on the measure, and that's only if it were to pass the next two elected legislatures.
"People were told a few years ago that gay marriage was going to happen tomorrow, but a few years have gone by and guess what? We don't have any here in Indiana," Pelath said. "It's not the issue they once thought it was