Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

MARRIAGE: Gregoire’s stance is welcome

Letter by Iver M. Haugen, Lakewood on Jan. 5, 2012 at 11:25 am with 59 Comments »
January 5, 2012 3:03 pm

Gov. Chris Gregoire is providing courageous and just leadership in her support for same-sex marriage (TNT, 1-5). Now the Legislature and the rest of us need to step up with our support. Making it legal is a matter of justice for all.

And it’s not difficult. Let the legal part of getting married be taken care of entirely at the courthouse. As couples now go there to obtain a marriage license to marry they would then go there and complete the marriage contract and be given a certificate of marriage. Nothing more to do: same for all, hetero or same-sex couples. It also solves the problem for those who object to same-sex marriage and fear being “forced” to preside at a same-sex marriage service.

Separated from the legal dimension, for persons of faith the role of the clergy person and the religious community would be exactly as it is now (except that the clergy person would not be a servant of the state, needing a marriage license to proceed and forms to fill out).

As now, clergy persons could have procedures offered to those anticipating marriage – helpful information, marriage counseling and/or workshops. They could also help in planning for and carrying out a “service of blessing” with liturgy, scriptures, prayers, vows, music, flowers, reception, etc., after the marriage has taken place.

(Haugen is a retired Lutheran pastor.)

Leave a comment Comments → 59
  1. aislander says:

    Same-sex “marriage” isn’t marriage. The very word implies a uniting of opposites…

  2. I’m sure glad that definitions of words have never been altered over the years.

    It wouldn’t be cool.

  3. Language, like the air and water can and has been polluted. Yes, it does change with usage, but to treat it as something without essential significance and meaning is a mistake.

    Even in something as simple as electronics and plumbing (not human but the under-the-sink kind) doesn’t marriage mean the union of a male part to a female part?

  4. muckibr says:

    Anti-miscegenation laws, also known as miscegenation laws, were laws that enforced racial segregation at the level of marriage and intimate relationships by criminalizing interracial marriage and sometimes also sex between members of different races. Such laws were first introduced in North America from the late seventeenth century onwards by several of the Thirteen Colonies, and subsequently by many US states and US territories and remained in force in many US states until 1967.

    Discrimination against miscegenation mostly followed the mainstream Nazi anti-Semitism, which considered the Jewry as being a group of people bound by close, so-called genetic (blood) ties, to form a unit, which one could not join or secede from. The influence of Jews had been declared to have detrimental impact on Germany, in order to rectify the discriminations and persecutions of Jews. To be spared from that, one had to prove one’s affiliation with the group of the Aryan race.

    The above quoted from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws

    It’s time for Americans to stop acting like Nazis when it comes to the matter of gay or lesbian couples who would simply like to be married couples.

  5. muckibr says:

    I looked up “marriage”in the Dictionary, and this is what it says…

    marriage |ˈmarij|
    noun
    1 the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.
    • a similar long-term relationship between partners of the same sex.
    • a relationship between married people or the period for which it lasts : a happy marriage | the children from his first marriage.
    • figurative a combination or mixture of two or more elements : a marriage of jazz, pop, blues, and gospel.
    2 (in pinochle and other card games) a combination of a king and queen of the same suit.

    DID YOU READ THAT? The first bullet under the number 1!

    • a similar long-term relationship between partners of the same sex.

    It is already changed in the dictionary, so now I guess it is FACT!!!

  6. Literal meanings are as restricted as the simple mind boxes them.

  7. keepinitreal says:

    muckibr, I’m sure glad that definitions of words have never been altered over the years.

    :)

  8. muckibr says:

    keep… I have no idea what the hell you mean by that. And quite frankly, I don’t care.

  9. keepinitreal says:

    Sorry, what don’t you understand about it ?

    Did you understand it at 4:27 ?

  10. muckibr, it pains me that you so easily accept as fact that which you find in an abitrary source.

    Not so many years ago, homosexuality was listed in medical reference books as a disease. Under pressure, changes were made and it was deleted.

    Such changes are sometimes rooted in scientific findings, but many times they are rooted in, as I said, social pressure. Sometimes both.
    For the record, I do not consider myself learned enough to take issue with the position that people are “born” with homosexual orientation. I am not disputing their rights in a civil court. Still, I struggle with the use of the word “marriage” to describe the union of same sex couples.

    You don’t have to share in my struggle, or sympathize with it, but the fact is that your big discovery means essentially zero in the age-old debate on this subject.

  11. aislander says:

    sozo: I’m sure you agree that there is no substantive difference between a white man and a black man, or between a white woman and a black woman, other than that they are all individuals. Anti-miscegenation laws were, therefore, discriminatory on their face, but not a valid analog to maintaining the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman.

    There ARE substantive differences between men and women, and the law treats men and women differently in appropriate instances. There is no discrimination in the law regarding marriage, since all people of both sexes are under the same rules.

    Same sex couples can call their relationships anything they want, but they cannot ask for my endorsement of those relationships, which is what state-recognized same-sex “marriage” requires, since the state operates in the name of its citizens.

  12. keepinitreal says:

    Solid point aislander.

  13. “Same sex couples can call their relationships anything they want, but they cannot ask for my endorsement of those relationships, ”

    I really don’t think anyone gives a damn about your endorsement aislander. They just want the right to get a state produced document called a Marriage License, that is not a church document, and they have a right to that as taxpayers.

    BTW: I disagree with keep… in that you actually made a lame, weak and stupid point aislander.

  14. beerBoy says:

    aislander – thankfully we don’t make law based upon what you think a word implies.

  15. beerBoy says:

    Clear away the meddling “conservative” crap and marriage is simply a legal contract.

  16. You did a better job than I in explaining the ontological issue, aislander. That was the point I was trying to make. Thanks.

    Sorry if my reference to pain insulted you muckibr, but it DOES pain me when people are so eager to acquiesce on important matters just because it’s easier…and appears to be “nicer.”

    Our culture, our world, is in some serious trouble. What bBoy calls meddling is, in the eyes of many, simply an attempt to maintain some sense of order, integrity, dignity and equilibrium to a ship that is seriously listing to one side.

    The old “tolerance” song comes to mind. It sounds so nice to say I am tolerant, but are there not some things we should NOT tolerate?

  17. beerBoy says:

    are there not some things we should NOT tolerate?

    I am very intolerant of intolerance.

    If you truly are worried about the state of marriage and the impact it has upon society spend a little more time dealing with the high divorce rate. That is a much, much bigger issue than gay marriage ever will be.

  18. muckibr says:

    sozo “but it DOES pain me when people are so eager to acquiesce on important matters just because it’s easier…and appears to be “nicer.”

    YOU TOTALY MISUNDERSTAND ME: I don’t “acquiesce” or reluctantly accept the notion that same sex marriages should be legal, I completely accept it as being the fair and right thing to do after all these years of double-standard discrimination against same sex couples.

    I don’t “tolerate” same sex couples, gay or lesbian individuals, I welcome them as friends. Indeed, two of the very best friends I have ever had in my life are a lesbian couple who helped me out financially when I needed help, when my own family turned its back on me. Another of my very best friends is a gay man who is a better person than most all of the other people I have ever known in my life.

    You can acquiesce or not. You can tolerate, or not. But get used to it sozo. Equality for these folks is coming, sooner or later, whether you or aislander like it or not. And aislander is WRONG, they have been and still are being discriminated against until they are allowed to get their own government produced and tax payer funded Marriage License, because they are taxpayers too and they have rights.

  19. That you presume I am against equal treatment for all shows the shallowness of your thinking muckibr. You use the “one-of-my-best-friends-is-gay” argument…well, I have loved ones and friends who are gay as well, and yes, they love me even though we may disagree about the issue of gay marriage. And I love them.

    Bboy, I agree with you that the state of marriage in general in this culture is in a shambles. That doesn’t mean we should add to the shambolic state in which we find ourselves.

    As I’ve tried to say on another thread, language matters. As Marilyn Chandler McEntyre (Princeton) writes: “We need to mean what we say. And for that purpose, we need to reclaim words that have been colonized and held hostage by commercial and political agencies that have riddled them with distorted meanings.”

    Poet Wendell Berry says, “My impressin is that we have seen…a gradual increase in language that is either meaningless or destructie of meaning.”

    What we call something matters.

  20. TheSlag says:

    I would appreciate religious fundamentalist using some effort to really fight child rape, clergy rape and cover-up, and misogamy in their own institutions and homes. Solve problems that stem from hate, don’t worry about what comes from love. I always thought that’s what Jesus stood for. I am not religious, that does not preempt me from having morals that rely on love, and not base fear and hate.

  21. TheSlag says:

    meant to say misogyny

  22. keepinitreal says:

    I am very intolerant of intolerance.

    Not from what I’ve seen. Selectively intolerent of intolerence? Yes.

  23. muckibr says:

    sozo: “That you presume I am against equal treatment for all shows the shallowness of your thinking”

    But the FACT is you are AGAINST same-sex marriage, and that DOES clearly PROVE that you are AGAINST “equal treatment for all.”

    I rest my case. (Not really. Just waiting for your next meaningless statement. You really should try to say what you mean. Words have meaning, you know?)

  24. keepinitreal says:

    The slag, if you search for it, you will find they do.

  25. TheSlag says:

    right, the catholic church in particular is fighting really hard for the equality of women. I have searched – and not found.

  26. muckibr says:

    TheSlag: “I would appreciate religious fundamentalist using some effort to really fight child rape, clergy rape and cover-up, and misogyny…”

    AGREED! And why, after being raised Catholic as a kid, I have been so disillusioned by the actions of the Catholic Church to cover-up such activities within the church.

    Fight the evils that we must face, with the goodness that is represented and taught by Jesus. But don’t create evils that are not there, such as the discrimination against same-sex couples that has gone on far too long.

  27. aislander says:

    beerBoy writes: “Clear away the meddling “conservative” crap and marriage is simply a legal contract.”

    So…don’t call it “marriage…”

    As for “meddling:” who’s trying to change things? The only “meddling” is to stand in your way, apparently.

    TheSlag: I didn’t make ONE reference to religion in my arguments against this redefinition….

  28. aislander says:

    When “change” was being imposed on Germany in the 1930s, the leaders there used the analogy of replacing a bridge.

    They said you don’t tear down the old bridge and replace it all at once, or people would object. You replace it one bolt, rivet, and strut at a time until there is no trace of the old structure remaining.

    The existing definition of marriage is one bolt in the structure of our culture–but it is a vital one…

  29. “…well, I have loved ones and friends who are gay as well, and yes, they love me even though we may disagree about the issue of gay marriage”

    As I recall, the slaves loved their master, as the master was the controller of their rights and destiny. They didn’t know better.

  30. Don’t flatter yourself, I was not talking to you, aislander

  31. bringing up Germany 1930 is telling. That was directed at you, aislander

  32. aislander says: “So…don’t call it “marriage…”

    FINE!

    Let’s have the state, county and city governments reprint ALL the MARRIAGE LICENSES and change the title for everyone to “CIVIL UNION LICENSES” for everyone, gay and straight.

    Will that satisfy you aislander?

  33. How juvenile to demand ownership of a word.

  34. Many who oppose equal rights deny that they have religious reasons. Why hide? Why deny your own religion? It’s living a lie and telling a lie. Ted Haggard (and a slew of others) did the opposite: he touted his religion and denied his sexuality. Perhaps the two are irrevocably linked…

  35. Denial and religion are linked, imho, to be clear

  36. TheSlag, did you see that Ted Haggard is back in the news?

    Jan. 4, 2012
    Tonight’s episode of “Celebrity Wife Swap” on ABC featured a unique exchange: Gary Busey’s fiancée and Ted Haggard’s wife traded places for one week. Surprisingly, there were no fireworks.

    I guess Ted is cured of his gayness.

    Now, speaking of a show like “Celebrity Wife Swap.” That sure is a monumental way of Defending The Sanctity of Marriage, is it not?

  37. ItalianSpring says:

    Gregoire is hilarious. She is such a political lib hack.

  38. Wife swap? Ted is moving in with Gary? wow

  39. aislander – no one is going to force you, or anyone else, into a same-sex marriage.

    Your Nazi reference is a clear example of what Godwin was referring to – you desperately have attempted to connect this the Hitler and the Holocaust and have clearly lost the argument.

  40. And – since the Nazis required homosexuals to wear pink triangles and they were – like the Jews, Gypsies and disabled – imprisoned in concentration camps where some died, some were castrated, your attempt to appropriate the Nazis in an argument against equal rights, including marriage, for gays is rather disgusting.
    http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/online/hsx/

  41. concernedtacoma7 says:

    BB- scroll up. Muck started the Nazi debate.

  42. You’re reacting inapporpriately bBoy. The point that aislander was trying to make is that the Nazis understood how to effect change without disturbing the sleeping citizens.

    Likewise with this.

    This is sound reasoning…”The existing definition of marriage is one bolt in the structure of our culture–but it is a vital one… ” for those who care to look farther down the line than the end of their noses.

  43. aislander says:

    I’ve been getting a strong sense of deja sumner in this thread…Oh, well: never mind…

    There are many restrictions put on the ability to marry, and the law does treat men and women differently, so it is obvious there is no immutable right to marry whomever one wants to.

    You can’t marry your sister, brother, father or mother. You can’t marry someone who is already married. You can’t marry more than one person at a time, although some advocates are using the existence of same-sex “marriage” laws in some states as an argument for, and a predicate to, allowing polygamy.

    And same-sex marriage advocates assured us all THAT would never happen…

  44. muckibr says:

    aislander: “You can’t marry more than one person at a time, although some advocates are using the existence of same-sex “marriage” laws in some states as an argument for, and a predicate to, allowing polygamy. And same-sex marriage advocates assured us all THAT would never happen…”

    IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE AFRAID OF?

    Is that also why 75% of Republicans polled have chosen anyone else but Romney because you guys are afraid a Mormon might institute polygamy?

    That would explain alot!!!

    P.S. Do you have any proof, supporting citations, or links, that the same-sex marriage proponents are also proposing polygamy. Or did you just pull that out of your…

    own head.

  45. scooter6139 says:

    aislander – Your comments are starting to sound a bit Santorum-ish. Not sure if that is what you are aiming for, but emulating that racist bigot can cause harm.

  46. TheSlag says:

    SOZO “The point that aislander was trying to make is that the Nazis understood how to effect change without disturbing the sleeping citizens.”
    You are seriously comparing the fight for equal rights with the Nazis? The Nazis hated on Jews, gypsies, immigrants, the disabled and the gays. Appears to me your kind is operating along those “values”.

  47. aislander says:

    You’re quite right, sozo, I was talking about the methods used to effect change, not the nature of the change. The lefties are deflecting because they don’t wish to deal with the actual argument…

  48. “Bandito says:
    Jan. 6, 2012 at 10:41 am How juvenile to demand ownership of a word.”

    The same people that are going to make sure that “Christ” is in Christmas, Bandito.

    It’s a control issue.

  49. so essentially aislander, you are saying that all change is like the Nazis….

  50. Or is it that you are saying that small, incremental change to “one bolt” of our culture is like the Nazis?

    Help me out here – since you maintain that your Nazi comment wasn’t directed towards gay marriage specifically but “the methods used to effect change” – how is this situation like Nazis?

  51. Just to be clear here: the Nazis promoted a nostalgic yearning for an imagined past glory when everything in their culture was wonderful (for Aryans) the changes they put forward through hatred of the Other (Jews, homosexuals, Romani, women, blacks, etc.), jack-booted thugs, concentration camps etc. were reactionary and conservative in nature.

    Maybe I’m slow on the uptake – but I still don’t get how you can make the Nazi comparison to legalization of same-sex marriage.

  52. aislander says:

    I’m talking, beerBoy, about effecting changes that, if made in one fell (and I DO mean “fell”) swoop, would provoke a very strong negative reaction in the populace. These bolt-by-bolt changes to America have been being inflicted on us since the first Roosevelt.

    You saw the reaction to Obamacare, for example, when the change was not so incremental…

  53. aislander says:

    As for the Nazis’ “nostalgic yearning for a past glory,” that was born of Romanticism, a VERY left-wing movement, while the ideal we conservatives seek is not of the distant past, and is a product of the classical era: the Age of Reason, which was the very thing the romantics were rebelling against…

  54. keepinitreal says:

    He’s no different than the rest of the deflecting projectors.

  55. beerBoy says:

    Still haven’t answered my question aislander. Your response are, as termed by keepinitlarry, deflections and projection.

    Kooky!

  56. keepinitreal says:

    Then you obviously have a reading comprehension problem.

  57. muckibr says:

    sozo wrote on JAN. 6, 2012 AT 3:59 PM  
    “You’re reacting inapporpriately bBoy. The point that aislander was trying to make is that the Nazis understood how to effect change”

    First of all, I don’t get where you, sozo, have the authority to tell beerBoy he is being inappropriate. aislander, on another thread I think, already said I was the nanny-thread-monitor-in-charge. But, be that as it may. (That’s a joke, in case you didn’t figure it out.)

    sozo, we all understand that aislander is very well aware of the techniques that the Nazis used to effect change. He uses one here himself with his oft recycled posts “There is no DISCRIMINATION”

    You see sozo, aislander believes if you tell a lie, often enough, and loud enough, then sooner or later people will start to believe it, even though it is still a lie.

    That my friend is the propaganda model promoted by Paul Joseph Goebbels, and that’s what aislander believes will work for him here.

  58. aislander says:

    keepinitreal: It seems that lefties either don’t recognize or refuse to acknowledge an answer when it is served up on platter.

    Interesting that sum-one goes back in time to credit Goebbels for his propaganda techniques when that worthy credited the progressive Wilson administration for giving him the ideas he used…

  59. keepinitreal says:

    Stunning really.

*
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0