“Nobody expects the Spanish Opposition…”
The overwhelmingly Catholic (94%) Kingdom of Spain deserves recognition this week for showing some real cojones recently. The Spanish government has taken two steps in as many weeks that are in direct conflict with the teachings and policies of the Vatican.
First, gay marriage was legalized at the end of June, and the first gay wedding was held yesterday. The Spanish law gives gay couples 100% of the rights of heterosexual couples. I’m not out there pushing for gay marriage. Frankly, as a heterosexual, I don’t really care whether or not there’s gay marriage. It doesn’t affect me. However, I am obviously opposed to any government policy that is justified with a religious argument, so I consider this a victory for godless heterosexuals everywhere.
Second, Spanish Health Minister, Elena Salgado, said in a recent newspaper interview that Spain will introduce legislation that would allow for therapeutic cloning. “The Church has always been opposed to the advances of science, but fortunately science has continued progressing. And thanks to that we live in better conditions,” she said. [source] Rock on, sister.
In response to the recent actions of Spain’s Socialist government, the gay marriage law in particular, Herr Ratzinger Pope Benedict XVI said “Blah blah blah.” I don’t know. Click the link. The Catholic Church hasn’t had anything new to say since the second Nicene Council anyway.
~I AM~
July 12th, 2005 at at 9:53 pm
I guess the government finally heard all the shouts of “Help! I’m being repressed!”
July 12th, 2005 at at 10:14 pm
I only see this as a good thing. I haven’t read much about it though. Is 96% of the population in Spain Catholic? Or is 96% of the religious portion of the population Catholic? And how did they do this? Was it meant as a lead to follow for the United States or just a slap in the face? This is one of the few good things I’ve heard about in a while. Sad, really.
July 13th, 2005 at at 12:21 am
Spain rocks. I’m surprised though. I figured the US would be ahead of Spain in things like same-sex marriage and stem cell research. *shrug*
July 13th, 2005 at at 12:50 pm
Rathitlerzinger is going to need all the help he can get. Spain isnt exactly the global hotbed of conservatism you know. For cryin out loud, Spain is the home of the island Ibiza!
I believe that Spains move will prompt other European nations to follow suit.
Kele, regarding your comments: In actuality, Europe is at least 10 years ahead of America in terms of social progress and freedom. America always plays catch-up to the social policy trends that Europe sets, as well as the general mindset of the European population.
We can only hope that within a decade, America’s population becomes as progressive as Spains is today.
July 13th, 2005 at at 1:31 pm
Frankly, as a heterosexual, I don’t really care whether or not there’s gay marriage. It doesn’t affect me.
Just want to point out that just because something doesn’t affect us personally doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t care. We should care about some things because it is the right thing to do. You don’t have any gay friends, relatives, acquaintances, etc… who would benefit from this?
However, I am obviously opposed to any government policy that is justified with a religious argument, so I consider this a victory for godless heterosexuals everywhere.
So, theoretically, if this wasn’t a religious thing, you might be persuaded to deny homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals?
Sorry to play devil’s advocate here, but your statement about not caring because it doesn’t affect you just seemed a little callous.
July 13th, 2005 at at 2:32 pm
Bruce:
No, I actually don’t have any gay friends, relatives or acquaintances. Well, not anymore. I knew a guy in college who used to try to kiss me every time he got drunk, but that’s a whole other story.
You play an interesting word game. There is a difference between denying gays the right to marry and denying them “the same rights as heterosexuals.” They have the same rights as heterosexuals. They are welcome to marry someone of the opposite sex and get all of those benefits. I don’t care if it’s genetic (which it probably is) or social. If they’re not interested in members of the opposite sex, that’s not society’s fault.
What we’re ACTUALLY talking about is special, new rights for gays. I could NOT be persuaded to deny homosexuals the new right to marry, because I don’t care in that direction either. If homosexuals want to fight for marriage rights, and they win, good for them, but I feel no obligation to fight for their right to get married.
I would fight for their right to get the same jobs or be openly gay without persecution or not pay some kind of “gay tax.” On the issue of marriage, though, I’m completely apathetic.
I was just having an email exchange with addict_no_more about this very subject. She believes that the solution to the problem is actually the abolition of marriage. It’s an institution that is inadequately enforced and serves little or no purpose. People who are likely to stay together will do so without marriage, and those who aren’t, won’t. In the modern world, not being married doesn’t stop people from having children, and there are plenty of married couples that choose not to. Why is marriage still around at all?
July 13th, 2005 at at 4:28 pm
I agree, we SHOULD abolish marriage all together. Maybe then, all my friends and relatives will stop asking me when my girlfriends and I are getting married.
July 13th, 2005 at at 4:34 pm
How many of your girlfriends do you intend to wed? Are you moving to Utah?
July 13th, 2005 at at 5:04 pm
For me, the whole point is that marriage (gay or straight) is a legal issue and not a religious one. Marriage is a legal contract with legal and tax implications. Denying gays the right to marry is a violation of their civil rights because it denys them the same protections under the law that straight couples enjoy. I could go on and on about how religion has no place in marriage, but it really has no place anywhere!
July 13th, 2005 at at 5:08 pm
What we’re ACTUALLY talking about is special, new rights for gays.
Well, I guess I don’t quite agree with this. It seems to me that we are actually talking about levelling the playing field. Just because a group of people are fighting to get the same recognition and treatment as others doesn’t mean they are fighting for special rights.
You play an interesting word game.
OK, well I think you might be playing some games yourself. You use both the word “special” and “new” when referring to gay marriage. I will give you that these are “new” rights in the sense that homosexuals have not been allowed to marry in the past and thus legalizing gay marriage would give them a “new” right. But the word “special” implies something different, like we are going out of our way to grant them something that nobody else has. I don’t think the phrase “special rights” has a positive connotation, so I can’t help but take your comment about “special, new rights for gays” as not indifference, but as possibly opposition to gay marriage. If this is not your intent, then I apologize. Do you really think that gay marriage is a “special” right? If you are really indifferent to marriage laws, then why would gay marriage be so “special”?
They have the same rights as heterosexuals. They are welcome to marry someone of the opposite sex and get all of those benefits. I don’t care if it’s genetic (which it probably is) or social. If they’re not interested in members of the opposite sex, that’s not society’s fault.
Come on, seriously, you are really going to stand by this statement? And when blacks weren’t allowed to marry whites, the same logic applied as well? So society is always right and those who are in the minority must capitulate or suffer the consequences?
I would fight for their right to get the same jobs or be openly gay without persecution or not pay some kind of “gay tax.”
Homosexuals don’t have the same rights as heterosexuals because the ability to be married in this country automatically gives heterosexual marriage partners some rights that you do not get if you are not married. I hope you are not going to argue that marriage in this country does not provide special benefits and rights that the unmarried do not enjoy. In this sense, gays are paying a “gay tax” because they are not able to enjoy the same benefits that heterosexuals take for granted.
She believes that the solution to the problem is actually the abolition of marriage.
Actually, I couldn’t agree more. This has been my feeling on the matter for a long time. To me, marriage is a religious ceremony (which is the primary reason why my sig-other and I haven’t been married for over 15 years). But let’s face it, we are never going to be able to make the majority of Americans understand this concept, so government supported marriage is never going to go away and no politician is going to try and take away marriage benefits. Thus, the second best solution it seems to me is to make sure that government sanctioned marriage and all the benefits granted by marriage is extended to homosexuals as well.
Listen, if marriage gave no special benefits in our society, then I would care less too. But because marriage does give married people special rights and benefits, then it should be extended to homosexuals as well. As I mentioned, my sig-other and I are not married. Fortunately, I am covered under a health insurance policy that covers domestic partners, so we don’t need to be legally married in order for her to be covered by my insurance. If someday my insurance changes and they won’t cover domestic partners and she doesn’t have her own insurance, well, we will probably get married so that we don’t go bankrupt from medical bills. Now, if my sig-other happened to be of the same sex, then we wouldn’t have the marriage option and he would never be covered under my insurance. Sure, he could just purchase insurance for himself. But why should we have to pay extra for his insurance when my wife’s insurance would be free? Sounds like a “gay tax” to me.
July 13th, 2005 at at 5:22 pm
No, I actually don’t have any gay friends, relatives or acquaintances. Well, not anymore. I knew a guy in college who used to try to kiss me every time he got drunk, but that’s a whole other story.
Seriously? I didn’t think it was possible not to know at least one gay person nowadays. Even my conservative born-again co-worker knows some gay guys (love the sinner, hate the sin). It could be where I live though. Portland, OR is a pretty liberal place and it is pretty normal to see two men or women arm in arm or hand in hand.
I’ve never had a gay guy hit on me though. But I’ve known a few lesbians that I wish would have.
July 13th, 2005 at at 5:27 pm
No, seriously. There is one professional contact that I deal with maybe three times a year who’s gay. That’s it. I couldn’t care less if he gets married.
No matter how much you insist that I must be opposed to gay marriage, I’m not. If you want that argument, go to a Christian blog. Somehow I have landed myself in the middle of a vigorous debate about a topic that’s unimportant to me. Let me end my involvement in this discussion with the following statement.
Homosexuals of America: Good luck on the whole marriage thing. You want it, so I hope you get it. Thanks for the invitation to the march, but I won’t be attending.
July 13th, 2005 at at 6:31 pm
I understand I Am’s lack of interest concerning gay marriage. I equate it with a myriad of topics that I see as worthy causes, but I have neither the precious time nor the desire to be a part of. Perhaps that is partly why many atheists aren’t activists, because they understand the value of time and energy, and focus on what they deem important.
I’d be willing to bet that marriage has its roots in religion. The dominance displayed by assuming the woman will take the man’s surname reeks of religious ideals. The idea of a dowry assumes women are property and it is a burden for a man to ‘take in’ a woman. And the discrimination of gays concerning the “sanctity of marriage” (what a joke that is) is religious homophobia displayed naked for all to see.
It may seem like a lost cause to call for the abolition of marriage right now, but we can slowly chip away at its foundations. Over time, future generations will turn it into something more beneficial for all. There are some obvious benefits to marriage that have already been discussed (taxes, insurance, etxc.), but no one touched on what I believe to be the driving force for marriage advocates. That is the perceived stability of our societies by legal vowes of monogamy. Right or wrong, marriage promotes some benefits for society. The curbing of sexual diseases, the stability of a nuclear family environment finacially and emotionally (hopefully). The responsibility and education and guidence of children. Lower crimerates, drug use, and psychological issues. The opposite is true as well. Domestic abuse, unhappiness, bitterness and divorce and discrimination of unmarried couples.
July 13th, 2005 at at 10:25 pm
This is just further proof that Europe rocks.
July 13th, 2005 at at 10:46 pm
So society is always right and those who are in the minority must capitulate or suffer the consequences?
Society is what makes “marriage” marriage. Whether that’s marriage as we know it in the Western world, or marriage as, for example, certain Sherpa groups know it in Nepal where it’s polyandrous. It’s a societal institution and a societal constraint.
Fortunately, I am covered under a health insurance policy that covers domestic partners, so we don’t need to be legally married in order for her to be covered by my insurance.
This is not even the beginning of all the reasons to get married, as marriage currently exists. What about visitation rights if one of you gets ill? If, hypothetically, your family hated her, they could “rightfully” keep her out. This is just one of the problems gays have…
To me, marriage is a religious ceremony
Here I am in great disagreement. The ceremonial aspects of marriage are what one couple make of it. I am married, and happily so (yes, I know I asked I AM if he dated readers - it was a joke, and if the engaged Delta can joke he’s I AM’s appointed reader dater, I am obviously not the only one with a warped sense of humor). My husband is also an atheist (I would have it no other way). Our marriage ceremony had nothing to do with god, and we were very specific on that with our officiant. I’ll admit that part of why I wanted to get married was societal influence… how can it not be? From legal, medical and sociological/cultural perspectives, it is the “thing” to do - hell, I’ll even admit I like the trappings of it, the white dress, the pretty sandals… but at the end of the evening, I had married my husband because I love him, because I wanted the ceremonial commitment. I wanted to promise, in front of friends and family, that we would love each other through everything life throws at us. Maybe it’s silly, but I don’t have god. For me, that makes the ceremonial aspects of marriage all the more important. I wasn’t vowing to love him so I could have sex. Heck, I’d been doing that for some time already… it wasn’t about some heavenly father’s design for our lives. It was about our design for our lives, and our expression of who we are, both as individuals and a couple. Maybe, despite being a cynical atheist, I also happen to be a serious romantic… but marriage can be meaningful without god, and I am sure there are others out here who would agree with that.
Now, maybe, Bruce, you want to argue that all ceremonies have some sort of religious roots… maybe, say, graduations? A diploma and a marriage certificate, at the end of the day, are no different. With the diploma, you’ve completed the necessary coursework, but the document makes it “legitimate”, at least theoretically. Same with marriage, in an ideal world. Ideally, you want to spend the rest of your life with that person and you love that person, despite their flaws (though my husband, of course, has none :P). I didn’t need the piece of paper to make it official… but I won’t deny that, despite feeling marriage as an institution is pointless and silly, I like being married. I like having a husband - but not because society has me convinced I should (which is unfortunately the case with too many of my friends).
The problem with marriage isn’t what gays might do to it… it’s what heterosexuals have done to it since, well, likely since the beginning. I have no doubts that gays would eventually do the same, if given the right to wed. It’s not about straight or gay. It’s about human nature and societal/cultural pressures. My husband and I may be exceptions to the standard… but we’re in the minority.
As for I AM being apathetic to gay marriage, I don’t think that means he’s homophobic or anti-gay rights. Can you honestly say that there isn’t a single issue that fails to elicit an emotional response from you, Bruce? I know I can’t say that… there are plenty of issues I don’t really care about. That doesn’t mean I am opposed to them.
Boywonder, you actually touched upon part of the debate I was having via email with I AM. I don’t feel that marriage really promotes benefits for society. I think that’s what certain people want to believe (and here you certainly add the religious component)… but at the end of the day, couples who aren’t married but love each other and have good relationships raise children, and married couples can hate each other and yet insist on remaining married and fail their children because of the conflicts in their relationship.
Marriage happens far too often because it’s supposed to. It ends because people find it easier to walk away then to fight for something they believed in once. It’s easier, somehow, to wipe the slate clean and start anew for far too many people. I very sincerely don’t think it would be any different for gays if marriage were legalized for them. Maybe slightly at first, because contrary to what Bruce seems to think, it would be a “new” right. It might take them a few years to screw it up as royally because it would be a novelty.
Now, for the record, I am not saying there aren’t cases where divorce is clearly the right option… but divorce has become far too easy, and marriage isn’t taken seriously. Hell, over half the married couples I know don’t even share bank accounts - and they think my husband and I are freaks because we have a joint account (and, incidentally, did even before we got married).
Society tells us we should get married, and GeneralZod’s comment illustrates this nicely. I didn’t get married because of that pressure, but I won’t deny it was a relief to have it end… now, don’t even get me started on how children are entered into the mix for the same reasons - because that’s what we’re “supposed to do”… if there wasn’t so much pressure coming from so many angles to get married, I bet the divorce rates would sharply drop.
Feel free to email me (anyone) if you’d like to continue the debate, but I get the sense I AM has had enough. god_addict_no_more@yahoo.com.
ANM
December 6th, 2005 at at 9:48 am
WEll. I think Spain Rocks too. But as a Catholic who believes in progress I have to say…the Church is way more progressive than you think. Three is a Pope that seems to have taken a step backwards but you really must listen to others as well. I attend a parish where the priest is very progressive and speaks out in oppositin to the current Pope. Especially on gay rights. I think this is important. I don’t believe in removing religion fromt he face of the earth though I do believe that would solve a lot of problems. But what about those to wixh to practice religion in a respectful, compassionate, and accepting way.I will not force my religion on anyone and in fact I believe in encouraging others of other faiths or at least respecting them. Any how…as for the science thing. Becareful there. THe Catholic church is very much for the progree in science. We are not creationists. In fact I just attended a seminar on Evolution. There are a lot of ethicists out therea nd I look at the church as just that. If they happen to make the wrong statement…just give them time:) Help to educate them…don’t push them down. There primary purpose in life is to love!
January 31st, 2007 at at 8:04 pm
mortgage…
mortgage…