Left my heart in San Francisco

Gay, Catholic, conservative Andrew Sullivan is the go-to blogger today:

Ed Harrington, the general manager of the city's Public Utilities Commission, was one of the staff members in the mayor's office shortly after the decision was released. Harrington has lived with his partner for 35 years and in 2004 Harrington married about 40 same-sex couples.

"You wait for this your whole life," said Harrington, who said he planned to call his partner and say, "I love you. What more do you say on a day like this?"

I've spent the bulk of my ordained ministry dealing with guys who live by the "Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?" motto and gals who inexplicably accommodate them.  I'm finding it hard to get all that worked up over people who are eager to marry.

Comments

[Shannon]

Marvin-
This is one of the many reasons I look up to you so much and value your opinions and your theology.

Love is love, and isn't that a beautiful thing?

Thanks for saying this in a far more relatable and eloquent way than I could.

Shannon

[Rhology]

Are you not familiar, then, with the various opposing viewpoints and their reasoning?
Such as: there is little reason to think that marriage is not for whatever anyone wants if it is changed for this? Ie: Now someone can marry of the same sex; why not an animal? Why not a family member? Why not TWO family members? Why not polygamy?

Such as: the Bible defines marriage as one man and one woman.

Such as: this is the fundamental unit of society - a hetero couple and their children.

Etc.
I know this was a short post, but I'd encourage you to take a gander at the other side. I know that if *I* lived in SF, I'd've gone to the courthouse with my best friend (who's male, as am I) and my 16-month-old daughter to demand that all three of us be able to get married to each other. And then if they refused, I'd make the same arguments that the gay people have. And then if they still refused, I'd go to the media, as the gay people have. What's the difference?

[Marvin]

Rhology, these are slippery slope arguments, and I'm not a big fan of fan of slippery slope arguments in general.

In this case, there's a big difference between gay marriage, and legalized polygamy, bestiality and child sex abuse. With the latter two, there is no way for either children or animals to give informed consent into entering into such a legal contract. The relationships are inherently exploitative.

We know enough about the disastrous genetic effects of incest to rule out marriage between family members.

As for polygamy, I've addressed that issue here: marvinlindsay.typepad.com/avdat/2008/04/valeries-world.html

Even if we grant the premise that the Bible defines marriage as that between one man and one woman, and that's debatable given the rampant polygamy in the Bible (which, just to clarify, I am not in favor of legalizing), then we still have to recognize that the the federal and state governments under which we live are secular and not beholden to religious principles.

In short, no one is arguing that any old relationship ought to be recognized as a marriage in the eyes of the state.

[Rhology]

There are slippery slope arguments and there are slippery slope arguments. In this case, the fundamental nature of marriage is changed; why not go for some more? Seriously.

no one is arguing that any old relationship ought to be recognized as a marriage in the eyes of the state.

That's in the eye of the beholder, is it not? In this case, you're arguing that a mirror-image, frequently abusive and highly promiscuous, non-physically-viable, indeed physically harmful relationship be classified as "marriage". Sounds like "any old relationship" to ME.

Finally, yes, I know what you mean about the biblical argument.
1) Polygamy is TOLERATED, sometimes, in the Bible, not commanded nor permitted by command. You should know that - you're a preacher, aren't you?
2) OT polygamists paid a price for it.
3) The biblical command is one man, one woman. If people break that, is that God's fault?
4) Even if we throw all that out b/c we live in US law, why would YOU support gay marriage? It's not law yet! In fact, it's AGAINST the law in most places. Why come out in favor of gay marriage? You can't hide behind "well, we just have to do what the law says". What is the purpose here?

Peace,
Rhology

[Marvin]

In short, I support same-sex marriage because I think that if you're going to have sex, then you ought to get married first. So it seems prudent to me to allow the 3% of the population who
A. Have a homosexual orientation and
B. Do not have a God-given vocation for celibacy
to get married.

It's a matter of debate whether homosexual relationships are more abusive than heterosexual relationships. Sadly, the latter can be quite abusive.

It seems strange to me to charge gays and lesbians with promiscuity and then forbid them from cementing their relationships in a marriage contract. A Catch-22 if there ever was one.

If non-physically viable means not capable of proceation then the same can be said for my grandmother's marriage, in her late 60s, to a male neighbor after the death of my grandfather.

I'm not sure what you mean by physically harmful. I really don't want to get into a discussion about specific sex acts on this blog. Suffice it to say that heterosexual couples sometimes engage in some of the same sex acts as homosexual couples do.

And this will be the last exchange between you and me on this topic. Others are free to post.