"[T]here’s nothing you can do apart from grumpily cross your arms and stand there, disapproving."
Hey, don't knock it. It's good enough for the Tribulation Force, after all.

I can think of one thing they could do, which is, if they run companies, stop offering benefits to spouses because they might accidentally give benefits to a gay spouse.

The 'let's punish everyone so we can keep screwing the gays' reaction is pretty great, because I literally cannot think of anything so designed to bring about solidarity with gay people

Catholic Charities has already done this because of same-sex marriage in DC IIRC.

I'm sure that, if they found themselves related to someone pursuing a gay marriage, they could, if they were feeling sufficiently spiteful and willing to put that much effort into being an asshole (both of which they are, pretty much by definition), sabotage or even prevent the wedding from occurring.

Christ, what a bunch of assholes.

"we will not stand by." Of course you won't. You'll throw a hissy fit. Of course, you throw a hissy fit every single time you don't get 100% of your way on everything, so I don't know why anybody would notice.

i predict much impotent stamping of feet, surly glaring and general douchebaggery followed by running home to tell mommy how mean everyone is to them.

They'll be running home to tell mommy that they need more donations to fight the Big Gay Menace. Can't forget that request for donations, or what would be the point of having their tantrum publicly?

Heck, even if they do get 100% of their way on everything, they have a special hissy fit prepared to make like they didn't, just to set up for later getting the next item on their agenda.

"If you’re not a same-sex couple seeking to be legally married, this doesn’t affect you. At all."

That is plain wrong.

I'm a single lesbian, and yes it does affect me to know that I cannot legally marry in my country. It also affects me that every time I attend one of my opposite-sex couple friends' weddings (in Australia where I live) I have to listen to the preamble that the government made part of the wedding service, specifically reminding everyone present that marriage is only between a man and a woman.

It affects straight people too: the children of same sex couples who are considered 'biological strangers' to one of their parents, who therefore have to go to court to have parental rights.

It affects the community, the taxpayers and welfare groups, when a gay person is bereaved and then loses his home because the estate taxes were too high, or when a sick person isn't covered under her wife's health insurance. The foster children who can't be adopted when same sex couples aren't given equal protection under the law. The labour a country loses when some of its skilled workers have to live abroad because their partners can't get in because their relationship isn't recognised.

You have government-approved wedding vows? That's kind of ridiculous. I thought everyone writing their own vows was just what people did, if only to remove the idiotic 'let people object to the wedding' and 'obey' bits.

It's not in the vows, it's what the wedding celebrant says.

that is just plain and simple assholery right there.

It was plain meanness on the part of the government at the time (this was in 2004.) Same sex marriage wasn't legally recognised, but that wasn't enough for them, they wanted it to be EXTRA SUPER not recognised.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

Wow. I'm glad our government does not control things to that extent.

So do you not have civil ceremonies in (I assume) the U.S?

Speaking as a USian, we do have civil ceremonies, but that doesn't always mean the state sets the text of the celebrant, even at the most basic courthouse ceremony. Sometimes there's only one text, sometimes you can chose from a list, sometimes you can provide your own vows. It really depends.

And sometimes you cannot find out what the text will be anywhere in advance and then you have to bite back outrage when the judge makes a totally inappropriate and offensive statement about how Marriage = One Man One Woman, sigh....

Clergy members typically hold licenses, so that the wedding ceremonies they perform are also legally binding. We also have civil ceremonies, and there are some malcontents who insist that couples who have these ceremonies "aren't really married."

I favor switching to the system used in some European countries, where only the civil ones are legally binding and where devout couples later have religious ceremonies with their families.

The folks who insist that clergy members will be forced to officiate for same-sex couples conveniently neglect to mention that these clergy are already free to refuse interfaith couples.

i actually think you misread. I'm going to point out why by breaking up your post and referring it to the quote you made.

"

"If you’re not a same-sex couple seeking to be legally married, this doesn’t affect you. At all."

"That is plain wrong."

How is that wrong? So you're straight and two same-sex individuals getting married is going to affect your life? Wait for it...

"I'm a single lesbian, and yes it does affect me to know that I cannot legally marry in my country."

Oh, you are part of the LGBTQ community. Wait, so how does the ability for same-sex couples affect you, now? Because the statement is about here in the United States. Here, it is not going to affect opposite-sex-couples if same-sex-couples can marry.

"It also affects me that every time I attend one of my opposite-sex couple friends' weddings (in Australia where I live) I have to listen to the preamble that the government made part of the wedding service, specifically reminding everyone present that marriage is only between a man and a woman."

Yes. Correct, it does affect you that your government has not reached this point in declaring equality, yet. Yet, how does -your- ability or inability to marry affect opposite-sex-couples? It doesn't.*

"It affects straight people too: the children of same sex couples who are considered 'biological strangers' to one of their parents, who therefore have to go to court to have parental rights."

They must only have to go to court for parental rights in your country. Here, if the birth mother, at the time of birth, declares man 1 to be the father of her baby, even though man 2 is, man 1, a biological stranger, is father to that child. Yes, man 2 can go to court for visitation and other legal rights, however he only can because he is biologically related. Meanwhile, man 1, the biological stranger, has full legal right to the child. This is the same with adoption. When you adopt, once the adoption is finished, they are your parents. The adoption process means that neither parent is your biological parent, so it's just a process of saying who is responsible for you.

"It affects the community, the taxpayers and welfare groups, when a gay person is bereaved and then loses his home because the estate taxes were too high, or when a sick person isn't covered under her wife's health insurance."

Wait, what? You mean that I, a straight individual, am NOT affecting the community if my spouse dies and I can't afford the estate taxes? My presumed husband isn't covered by my insurance? Well, why doesn't he have his own through his own job? The point of this response is that it doesn't matter who you are, straight or not, you can still become a burden on taxpayers. There are PLENTY of opposite-sex-couples sitting on welfare, disability, food stamps, etc here in the United States. This is not a phenomena that happens only with same-sex-couples.

"The foster children who can't be adopted when same sex couples aren't given equal protection under the law."

That must, again, be in Austria... because just look up adoption in the United States. There are ways for same-sex-couples to adopt.

"The labour a country loses when some of its skilled workers have to live abroad because their partners can't get in because their relationship isn't recognised."

This definitely isn't the United States. Why? Because our workers can live wherever they want, regardless of their relationship status, because our government has laws that protect us from being discriminated against due to our relationship status. Single women, men, married, divorced, widowed, none of that matters. They actually can't even ask that during the hiring process, it is only on your tax forms for how many deductions you claim.

So the point of everything here, is not that I'm trying to be a bitch or cause problems or be argumentative, even though I realize some of it may come across that way. All this article is saying, is that the fact that a same-sex-couple getting married is not going to, in any way, shape, or form, affect opposite-sex-couples. At all.

As for you, being a lesbian in Austria, I hope that equality finds its way to Austria soon. As the world changes and more and more countries take this step, those that don't or haven't, will start to see a growth in the number of people that want equality. Governments can only ignore the people for so long before change becomes inevitable. I just hope it happens sooner, rather than later.

* "The two men down the street are able to marry, I guess we need to get a divorce," said -no- opposite-sex-couple EVER.

I don't know why I kept putting Austria.... I know it said Australia... oof, no edit button.

The statement is a heck of a thing. Its argument basically boils down to the "natural law" assertion (and serious question, is there anything to "natural law" besides "stuff I have no evidence for, but feel in my gut anyway"?). They can't and don't explain how allowing gay marriage could ever hurt specific, real people; just a general concern about how it's bad for our collective moral fibre or whatever -- you know, the sort of vague loosey-goosey hand-wringing that's supposed to be the province of us bleeding heart liberals.

Marriage as existing solely between one man and one woman was not an idea manufactured by the Christian Church. It precedes Christianity.

I don't see how anyone could truthfully read the Old Testament and find a strong "one husband, one wife" precedent. Fred's Chik-fil-A series has covered this topic in some detail, to put it mildly.

Civil institutions do not create marriage nor can they manufacture a right to marry for those who are incapable of marriage ... Redefining the very institution of marriage is improper and outside the authority of the State. The Supreme Court has no authority to redefine marriage.

Well, that's just incorrect.

If the Supreme Court becomes the tool by which marriage is redefined in the positive law of this nation, the precedent established will leave no room for any limitation on what can constitute such a redefined notion of marriage.

Not entirely sure what's being gotten at here, but I assume it's a version of the "today gay marriage, tomorrow box turtles!" slippery slope.

Conferring a moral and legal equivalency to same-sex couples by legislative or judicial fiat also sends the message that children do not need a mother and a father. It undermines their fundamental rights and threatens their security, stability, and future.

I assume, for consistency's sake, that these people also demand divorce be outlawed? It's the only way to force ensure kids grow up in a two-parent household!

Experience and history have shown us that if the government redefines marriage to grant a legal equivalency to same-sex couples, that same government will then enforce such an action with the police power of the State.

[citation needed]

Impressively, of the five factual assertions in "civil institutions do not..." every single one is untrue. I don't know that the IndigNation know they're all lies, but I do know they recklessly disregard the truth six to eight days a week on average, so would it make a difference?

Civil institutions do not create marriage nor can they manufacture a right to marry for those who are incapable of marriage ... Redefining the very institution of marriage is improper and outside the authority of the State. The Supreme Court has no authority to redefine marriage.

If that is the way that this guy feels, why not just have the state revoke legal recognition of his marriage? After all, the state has no authority to define what marriage is, so what does he care? Let him pay all his taxes as a single person and be denied visitation rights. After all, it is not like the state has any influence now, right? [/sarcasm]

Not to mention that were it so, DOMA had no business being the law of the land in the first place.

Experience and history have shown us that if the government redefines
marriage to grant a legal equivalency to same-sex couples, that same
government will then enforce such an action with the police power of the
State.

I'm pretty sure they're calling back to Brown v. the Board of Education. The state will enforce the rights of people, and will do its best to take away the privilege of discriminating against people, and yes, with police action if necessary. These assholes are scared because a day is coming when they won't be allowed to discriminate against non-straight people for not being straight any more.

I bet they're also thinking about the state disallowing certain Mormon cults from forcing their teenage daughters to "marry" old men.

i honestly am not sure they are referring to any actual, historical event or experience. i'm also not sure how they think the police would become involved in a wedding unless they are planning some kind of criminl act to disrupt that wedding.
sounds completely paranoid to me.

If they call in they call in the police to enforce a gay wedding it can't be long before they bring in the army too. And then any other law enforcement officials, like sheriffs from the old west- who'll probably bring their native american sidekicks with them. And then the door's open to vigilantes- like buff construction workers who want to take the law into their own callused hands. The only way to avoid that would be to Go West to New Zealand or something.

A far-fetched scenario, you say..? Perhaps.

But there is precedent.

http://www.stonewallvets.or...

Dammit. I forgot the biker guy.

He falls under the "vigilantes" category.

"I assume, for consistency's sake, that these people also demand divorce be outlawed? It's the only way to force ensure kids grow up in a two-parent household!"
They'd need to outlaw parental death too, wouldn't they?

The lefty hand wringers are often met with the response "if you don't like it why don't you move somewhere else?" when criticising US policy. I just wonder why the right wing don't take their own advice.
Similarly, why put so much trust in your "gut feeling"? A strong gut feeling is a precursor to an outpouring of shit.

I don't see how anyone could truthfully read the Old Testament and find a strong "one husband, one wife" precedent

There isn't a precedent if you go that direction. However, from what I can tell monogamous marriage does predate Christianity in Western cultural history. Both Ancient Greece and preChristian Rome did have laws in place mandating marriage between one man and one woman -- it was legal (and frequently expected) for men to have mistresses and other lovers on the side, but polygamy was made illegal.

But that's not "Biblical marriage" then. That would be Godless, pagan, heathen marriage, and we can't be having that...

Which invites the question of why they're against marriage of one man and all the women he can afford...

As a canadian whose country is now celebrating 10 years of legalized same sex marriage, I can say our government is TOTALLY coming into people's homes and forcing them to get gay married. Because that makes total sense and isn't completely insane to even imagine.

You can hardly recognize the Gomorrah-ian hellhole our country has become, with maple syrup thefts and cheese smuggling rings left and right*. Just the other day I was riding my moose to work, when a mountie pulled me over and forced me to marry my moose right on the side of the road. It was awful. Then we all had poutine.

*actually these were real stories in the news up here. It's kind of hilarious what passes for news somedays.

Frankly, if they were going to riot over anything, you'd think it would be abortion. But they haven't there, so I don't think they will here, either.

I don't doubt that there will be an uptick in violence against gays, lesbians, and their supporters. I don't doubt that for a second. But riots? No. If anything, they'll use it to continue to feed their persecution complex, continue to stomp their feet and pass meaningless testaments to their dead agenda, and use it as an excuse to rub the balm of indignation and bitterness on their wounded egos in public. in short, they're going to use it to grandstand and pretend they're both "moral" and "adults".

Yep. They'll fundraise off of it. Which they were doing anyway. It's a racket to separate gullible people from their money, as always.

"I will do such things,--What they are, yet I know not: but they shall be
The terrors of the earth. "

"The effort to redefine marriage threatens the proper mediating role of the Church in society. "

This, *this* right here, is the Religious Right's *true* objection to same-sex marriage! It proves that they truly have no "mediating role" in American society. It tells them that they are *not* the supreme arbiters of morality in this country. It bluntly indicates that their beliefs have no validity whatsoever to our system of jurisprudence. It tells them, "You are not the unquestioned and unquestionable authority on public morals and policy. So sit down and shut up."

Exactly right. Same sex marriage has become a proxy issue for the entire conservative Christian worldview. Becoming the moral minority on LGBT issues portends a complete loss of influence on the culture. Alas, would that be true!

It goes deeper than that. Their rejection of secularism is so thorough that it's as though the Enlightenment never happened. It's the concept of theocracy as applied to society instead of government.

In the UK we have bishops who take a direct role in legislation- basically we have a part theocracy. And they spend all their time bitching that no one listens to the CoE any more, despite it being the overly-dunked biscuit of world religions. In the US you have no established church, yet your legislators' hands are forced by the religious right on this, and abortion and stem cell research etc. I feel like a less succinct English Yakov Smirnoff right now.

I felt the same way when I heard Tony Benn describe democracy as having taken power out of the hands of rich people and given it to poor people.

Here we live in a democracy where our only vote is which group of rich people have the most power.

Oh, and for bonus points, the rich people are now using democracy to take the vote away from poor people.

It just makes things easier that way. "Streamlining" it think is the management-speak term for it.

Things they could do:

If they work in a hospital, refuse to recognize same-sex spouses and allow visitation as a spouse, or refuse same-sex couples access to their sick children.

If they work in a school, refuse to recognize the same-sex couples who are parents to their students as both being parents.

If they run a private school or daycare, refuse admission to the children of same-sex couples.

Basically, they could continue to do all the nasty, discriminatory things that they already do to same-sex couples, only with the added fun that they can call it "civil disobedience" because they're refusing to recognizes civil marriages.

But happily if DOMA gets struck down they can do so with new and improved ingredient "Congrats! You're a hateful asshole who just lost their job/got a lawsuit slapped on you/etc." Couldn't happen to nicer bunch of folks.

Thus proving their claim that they're persecuted!!!!!eleventy!!1111!!!