Consider also the relligions that have.supported and do sanctify
same-sex marriages, without regard for, indeed in spite of, the legal
status of such unions, e.g. the Meetings of Friends (Quakers).




On 11/9/08, Owen Densmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 9, 2008, at 12:09 AM, Orlando Leibovitz wrote:
> ...
>> In my opinion this is not a marriage issue, it is a civil rights
>> issue.
>
> And there you have the problem in a nutshell.  "Gay marriage"
> confounds the two.
>
> One the one hand, the word "marriage" creates considerable angst on
> gay issues within the various religions. The recent Anglican/Episcopal
> split was largely over gay marriage and gay bishops.  This is a
> complex issue where religions have to confront difficult problems
> within themselves.  And definitely a church/state boundary.
>
> On the other hand, gay civil rights are clear: they are being violated
> and the strictly civil rights have to be granted immediately.  "Civil
> union", however, may be a distasteful term to the gay community.
>
> Most of silicon valley had to deal with this within their corporate
> laws.  They all grant gay civil rights by now.  They simply had to
> change the concept of "partner" and insurance, spousal rights and so
> on were easily solved.  I don't believe religions are concerned about
> this solution.  As far as I know, the government does not object, and
> even allows for joint tax filing.
>
> I wonder if the word "marriage" were taken out of the equation, would
> it at least help obtain civil rights for gay couples?
>
>      -- Owen
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Reply via email to