OVerl;ya that with an electoral map showing Red/Blue states and I believe you would find a strong correlation.

Nate Silver recently projected support for same sex marriage ballot initiatives for 2016 and 2020. He seems pretty good at stuff like this. The good news for opponents of same sex marriage, is that there will still be places where support for same sex marriage will be low. The bad news is that all these places will be in the state of Mississippi.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/26/how-opinion-on-same-...

It becomes pretty obvious why opponents of same sex marriage are so desperate to get ballot initiatives passed: Their numbers are literally dying and being replaced by new voters, who approve of same sex marriage by an 80:20 split. Just like their religion, people have been unsuccessful at passing their bigotry on to the next generation.

i think that you make a good point, modern youth make their own minds up on a wide range of issues and are less influenced by their parents than in previous generations

Don't disccount those older people who have changed their minds.

When I first heard it was even being considered, probably back in the 1980s, my knee jerk reaction was 'of course not'.  I didn't even know any gay or lesbian people (or wasn't aware of them).   Since then, through my church, I have met, interacted with, become friends with, gay, lesbian, bi, and transexual people.  I have worked on church committees with them, shared meals together, invited them to my home.  I have attended their weddings. 

While once I hadn't thought about it - now I am definitely on board.

If you read Nate's blog entry, he points out that about half the increased support is older people changing their minds. But even if the opponents of same sex marriage could stem this loss of support, the kids are absolutely killing their side. They can't make their kids stay Christian, or stay afraid of gays.

Just like older people, much of the reason for increased support for same sex marriage is that people know more GLBT people, and they aren't scary. In fact, they're pretty nice. They just want to get married like we do. So, do people vote to restrict rights to their friends, or do they disappoint their minister? Pretty easy question, made easier if they no longer have a minister.

My ministers would be more disappointed if I voted to restrict their rights.

Yes, but the resistance to same sex marriage in North America is being led by Christians. Christian leaders are, by far, the biggest obstacle to acceptance of same sex marriage. Maybe not yours, but find any opponent of same sex marriage, and 9 ties out of 10, they'll make references to God or the bible. Ask any teenager who it is that is preventing same sex marriage from being accepted in the US, and they'll tell you it's Christians. Everyone knows this, and it's absolutely killing Christianity

One further comment, Jae. Actually, more of a prediction.

I'm pretty sure we're going to see an about-face from you on same sex marriage. Maybe not today or next week, but sometime in the next couple of years, I'm betting you'll find a way to reconcile same sex marriage and your faith, once you realize that opposition to same sex marriage is an untenable position and makes your faith look evil.

This won't be the case for every Christian. I expect a lot of the usual fundie suspects from WC will never change their positions, because they have invested too much personal capital to turn back. You have a lot invested, too, but you're not nearly so immune to reason or reality as they are. You can change positions. You often change back again...but you can be convinced, if briefly, by good arguments.

It'll be interesting to see how you "evolve" on this subject. We've seen that word a lot lately. I love how politicians are "evolving" on same sex marriage. Even Republicans who don't necessarily believe in evolution are evolving on this, now that the writing is on the wall.

/hotlinked, like the first cover

WEll it certainly happened that way with Slavery, and mixed race marriages. The people most opposed to abolition, and to mixed race marriages, were conservative, right wing Christianity.

Today conservative, right wing Christianity actually has the gall to claim they started the whole aobolitionist movement, and that they fought to allow mixed race marriages.

It won't be long before you find conservative, right wing Christianity claiming they championed the fight for marriage equality.

An interesting prediction chansen. Thank you for sharing it.

At the present time I am in a covenant with the evangelical university that I'm a student of not to endorse same-sex marriage.

Oh, I'm well aware that at present some evangelical teacher you admire has you under his spell. You even post like someone has performed a Jedi mind trick on you. I half expect you to announce that these aren't the weddings you're looking for.

Mc Jae ...... stick to your covenant .........

It is far more safe and comfortable to have someone else tell you what to believe...

Take the easy comfortable road .....    Whatever you do ... never take the responsibilty for thinking and looking for yourself.    Keep it superficial and simple.....

..... it's not comfortable for us being persecuted by churches like yours .... but that hardly matters ..... as long as you are comfortable .....

After all ...it's an issue about "lifestyle choices" ..... not about actual persons with hearts at all.    We made our "choice" after all didn't we???   We have no hearts .... it's all about self pleasure after all.    We give up everything for a giggle and to simply be depraved....

We have no face .... we have no personal identity .... we are merely an issue .... a bother... nothing more......

It doesn't hurt ...... not much ....... not much at all ......  (how I wish.....)

Rita

Is this actually a legally binding covenant that you had to agree to in order to study at that university?  

It is hard to follow Jesus who went about asking questions, inviting free thought, challenging authority...  

It is hard to look at everyone as your neighbour and love them as yourself. 

But, before tossing that first stone, I am aware how hard my journey was. I know the things I was told. The things I believed. The things told to me by people I admired, respected, cared for... the things "experts" said. The things I read, even in scripture, without the theological and linguistic knowledge to really understand what I was reading. The things I said about my own self when I was alone. 

It is a journey from A to B. 

I seriously doubt most people on Wondercafe, gay or straight, were a-ok with it always. 

 People like to say where they are now. They want to fit in and look good, instead of being honest. Nobody wants to say they were once less than gay-friendly or were racist or sexist.... 

It is a journey from A to B. A few start at B, because times have indeed changed. Most still have to move that way toward B. It can be a simple step or a long, hard road. 

Thank you, seeler, from the bottom of my heart for being open and honest and saying it was a journey. It was for me too. 

Actually it probably is.  Honour codes are relatively common at private institutions.  To study or to teach at them you have to abide by the code.

It is this sort of requirement which makes some people think that Trinity Western University should not be successful in their current attempt to get an accredited law school.  Because the honour code may seem to bar open discussion of legal issues such as same-sex marriage, or GLBT rights.

Yep, honour codes and community covenants exist. 

Yes it is. If a student doesn't abide by the Code they can ultimately be kicked out and refused re-admission. All students at the school have to abide by the Code. Female, male, gay, straight, etc.

I think this is really important to remember.  A lot of people (not necessarily here) have made disparaging comments about people in the news who have "evolved" their positions on gay marriage, saying they are just making a political move.  This is ridiculous to me.  People change their minds about things all the time, and sometimes they have a struggle along the way.  Chastising someone for not believing in something all along doesn't help anyone.  

I've seen a huge shift in my parents' thoughts about homosexuality in my life time.  When I was a kid/teen my mother thought homosexuals were sick psychologically and needed to be treated.  My dad just thought they were disgusting and probably would have said sinful as well.  My mother has been in full support of gay marriage for years now and my father has recently come around, too.  It was a much more difficult journey for him than it was for her.  I'm glad that they've come to this point, however long it took them to get here.  

I think the way you phrased it is very telling, deferring to the agreement you have with your university, rather than spelling out your position. I'm probably late on my prediction.

Don't worry, no God-fearing staff member from your university would darken the virtual door of such a godforsaken corner of the Internet as this.

In these circumstances, I understand your reluctance to share any personal opinions about gay marriage, either for or against.  I suspect that there are probably more issues in this Code that you aren't allowed to discuss from your own perspective as well.  

I have to say, though, that I don't think much of an institution of learning that forces students to parrot the "official" beliefs of the institution rather than allowing them to think for themselves and come to their own conclusions.  It certainly doesn't sound like a place where I would want to study, if only because I could never be sure whether what I was learning was true and/or accurate or if it was just what the powers that be decided they wanted me to know.  

I agree with your thoughts here.  I was thinking exactly the same thing.

True.  It takes time and reflection and throwing out bad sociology and religion.  In 1950 Homesexually was consider a mental illness.  It changed over time if you read the different versions of the psychi books.  Today it is not even in the psychi bible.

Even evangelical schools are in the midst of change and chansen is correct in his forcast. 

It's not much of a forecast. This is a question of survival for Christianity. Christian groups who do not accept same sex marriage will be pushed to the margins and have their very survival threatened, because their kids won't stand for it. 19-29 year-olds already approve by an 80-20 split, and it's a gulf that continues to widen.

Young people can either agree that their friends all deserve the same ability to marry the loves of their lives, or they can take the position that some people are second class citizens and be seen as hateful bigots because their God says so and fight a losing battle for the rest of their lives. Tough call.

The debate is over, and it's the young people who have ended it. They're far less religious than their parents, and they are far more accepting of other people's sexuality.

chansen,

I cannot speak about national curves or such. I can tell you that my experience has been different.

My wife and I would both disagree based on our experiences.

We would say that the toughest group is around our own age groups. The youth are great under 20. My wife and I are just Modern Family to them. The old folks are great over 70. They have lived long enough to have changed their minds on many things. They lived through change.... Soap, Elllen, Rosie...

There seems to be an odd age bracket where people are parents and get more rigid in their beliefs or more concerned or "don't want to encourage". People who were or are cool with us sudden are worried about high school Gay Straight Alliances or their young kids asking questions they don't want to yet answer.

Also, we find that the UCCers are far more likely to be ok than the general population, including the athiests.

Now, that is our experience.

We would also say that we are more embraced and affirmed in the rural north of Ontario more than we ever were in the suburbs of Toronto. We had numerous incidents in places we lived and just in general, shopping in stores and even eggs tossed at us leaving a bar in Whitby and we have had no incidents at all here. There is nobody who doesn't know and nobody seems to care. (We used to head to the city from the suburbs to hold hands and dance together, now we don't have to go anywhere to do that.)

SG, I don't have your perspective on this matter. Clearly, I don't. But your observations are not borne out by the numbers. Also, there are entire UCCan congregations who won't allow a same-sex marriage.

And here's what Gallup said about it:

Source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/159089/religion-major-factor-americans-opposed-sex-marriage.aspx

chansen,

I agree, my experience here in Near North of Ontario is not the US.

I do not compare the US experience to the Canadian one, though I might since I have lived in both places.

My experience was, however, much the same in the US. My grandmother took my coming out in stride, my parents did not. Older people have always accepted me for me. They may not have understood. They may have had preconcieved notions. Yet, they were more than willing and open to talking about it when they learned I was. It is far different from the people who want to pretend they are ok and not acknowledge how many hang-ups they still have.

The "flock to the city or else" was also, for me, an illusion. When I lost places to live and jobs over my sexual orientation, it was in the city.

I comfortably lived an hour northeast of Pittsburgh, PA amongst mostly the Amish, Missouri Synod Lutherans. Wesleyan Methodists and Catholics. In fact, I lived comfortably three hours southwest of Houston, Texas surrounded by mostly Baptists, Pentecostals and Catholics. In both rural places, I worked with women who were not afraid to be alone with me. I worked alongside men and was accepted as "one of the guys".

If you ask someone what they think, they may tell you what they think they should, what they have been told to say, etc. Ask someone their stance on ___ and you may get the party line. That may or not be how they feel. I can bet some of those folks who had me at their table and loved me, would have told Gallup folks what they thought they ought to.

Chansen, whole UCC congregations that won't allow a same-sex marraige means what, exactly? It likely means something different to you than it does to me.

For me, it means that within a few hours drive I will come across a handful that won't or have not decided in an official way. I can in that same drive find dozens that will. In fact, living where I do, in the middle of nowhere (in a whole township with less than 800 people) I can name two UCC's within a fifteen minute drive that will. I can tell you that all within a half hour will. So, it means not much to me that one an hour or two away won't (BTW they are also in towns where they are not the only UCC)

I am also aware that I can find places that won't marry the divorced, won't marry people of different faiths...

Look at what is being talked about in North Carolina. There is where your anti-religion rants would be of more value.

But, heck, that is harder than coming to the more liberal and chewing them out at every turn.

I'm not in a position to debate you on this topic. I think any place is a good place to oppose religion, but that's a minor point. What you'veexperienced is what you've experienced. I do think that other members of the GLBT community would not agree, and that many of them would be far more critical of religion than you are, but I'll leave the actual arguments to them.

chansen,

You are correct, what I have experienced is mine and other's experiences may differ. I am not into stereotyping "the gay experience" or "gay experiences with church" or "gay experience rural or city, America or Canada". 

Surprise, surprise, GLBTQ  folks and their experiences, beliefs, etc,,,, are about as diverse as anybody else. 

You believe any place is a good place. That is your experience.

I believe that if one is motivated one asks oneself about the goal. That is my experience. 

If I want to vent on the death penalty and it is all about me, I could go anywhere.

If I am trying to evoke change, then IMO there are bad places, better places, good places... there are highy visible places and not so visible places. There are places I am wasting my breath and places I might or could accomplish something. 
 

Sending my friends in Canada an email is doing something, but it is not much really. It might be better to write Americans or those who live where the death penalty is a reality.  It might be better to write those in positions to influence others or evoke change or discussion. Maybe those in the Senate or House, governors, etc. Maybe to lend support to writing for ant-death penalty sites, etc.

Heading somewhere I know that people support the death penalty and venting on their asses is not going to be very productive or enlightening, but heck it might make me feel better if it is just about me and releasing my feelings about the death penalty and not really about the death penalty. Then again, my goal is usually more than just getting it off my chest. 

As much as I value freedom of religion I believe in freedom from religion, thus my writing letters regarding North Carolina. 

Tabitha,

One cannot count how many times people will say, "my minister says..." or "my denomination says..." or "we believe..."

That is part of why lifting names is important. It invites people to quiet their own "stuff", to listen to other voices, to listen for the still, small voice of God, to discern, to pray.... because the person and that name have much in common.

It also challenges people who stereotype "evangelicals" or "Baptists" (or pick a denomination. It invites people to It invites people to quiet their own "stuff", to listen to other voices, to listen for the still, small voice of God, to discern, to pray.... because the person and that name have much in common.

It is a bridge. It also makes a great divide not so great after all.

Jim Wallis is the latest of evangelicals, authors and pastors, to support equal marriage or quit opposing it.  

There is a list that does not start or end with Jim Wallis.

Jay Bakker, Rob Bell, Steve Chalke, Ryan Bell (no relation to Rob that I know of), Matt Glover, Fredrick Haynes III..... those are merely the ones I am familiar with.

Fredrick Haynes III said this in Dallas last year, in a sermon about people being upset about homosexuality and the idea of marriage equality-

“Why are you so angry? Jesus never said a word about it [homosexuality]. … Well, maybe we need to talk about what issues you may have, because evidently you’ve got some major issues, or there is an ignorance that is rooted in fear. Y’all are not feeling this, but I’m going to preach the gospel anyhow, because you do understand, my brothers and sisters, that the sad reality is, we love to judge other folks’ sins, because it keeps it off of us, as opposed to looking at us.”

I want to add a few Donte Hickman and Delman Coates and others in Maryland.

As well as those who marched and are marching in Washington.

http://www.religiousherald.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6830&Itemid=61

Thanks SG.

I have enjoyed Jim Wallis's writings on social justice issues for years. I was pleased to see this.

It really will be like the civil rights movement-history will look back and wonder what took everyone so long!

I'm about as conservative as it gets, and even I don't think you can legislate morality.  People are going to be gay and lesbian, and really, they have the right.  They do not, however, have the right to be singled out as a group for the rights of marriage.  That is unconstitutional, at least in the US, and my prediction is that the movement will ultimately fail.   The high court will probably say it is a state issue.  I am a teacher as well, and I certainly don't see the movement away from traditional Christianity like some.  I believe it is wishful thinking on the part of those who wish it to be so. 

LOL

Ummm...no. Most legal experts seem to be siding with same-sex marriage advocates. I mean, you're even to the right of Fox News on this one. You're over with the Breitbarts and the World Net Dailys of the world - the same people who think Obama is a Kenyan muslim.

Ah yes, the closing churches and the massive increase in the "Nones" is just a mirage. I should have known it. Much better to take the word of people who get their answers from an invisible friend than from StatsCan and polling firms, which have a well-known reality bias.

This war's been over a long time. Just skirmishes left. Little moppings up to do. And speaking of the original post, i.e. about the southern U.S.A., they're known for the backwardness of their opinions. They still have problems with integration  and inter-racial marriage. Big hoo-ha about one of their ignorant towns actually attempting, in 2013 no less, to try an integrated prom...

Just so we're real clear about exactly where the last vestiges of this crap is coming from. And the company its proponents keep. Buford, where do you get this stuff from? How is marriage a special right? It's a human right, for adult humans, irregardless of arbitrary social gender precision and the number of penises intended to grace the marriage bed.

ONE is the number of penises allowed to grace the marriage bed, and the number of penises in the marriage bed shall be one. Two penises in the marriage bed there shall not be, nor shall there be zero penises. Three penises is right out!

Would you be okay then with polygamy. It's the next step down the slippery slope according to some.

Next, it's gay polygamist marriages! (Like the three penises line above.) Then, it's multiple partners of random gender and one goat. Then multiple goats and sheep. Then the whole barn is getting married.

Where will it end?

As long as polygamy isn't restricted to the one-man/many-women paradigm about which the Traditional Christian God seems to be somewhat ambivalent, sure.

I could have done with a much-younger model to carry stuff from the Farmer's Market this a.m. But I like the old guy for watching movies with, lol!

That's ageist. I'm sure what you really mean is that you could have done with a physically-stronger model this morning? And that you like the familiar guy for watching movies with? 

Careful here Mc Jae ........ the bible is quite pro polygamy......

Seems that "slope" has already been slid LOL

Regards

Rita

You know what, I agree with this statement......to me though it means that they should not be singled out and banned from the ability to be legally married. It makes me sad/angry/perplexed when I read that one partner in a same sex marriage is not allowed to visit his/her partner in the hospital because s/he is not "family", even though they have been together for years. Thankfully that nonsense seems to be becoming less common.  

Anyone who is married should be able to visit their spouse in the hospital (unless, you know, there is some kind of actual medical reason preventing that from taking place). Note that I am not saying that same-sex marriage should or should not exist. I am just stating my opinion on hospital visitations for married people.

New Zealand just given sex marriage full recognition. Here's the moment… a moving clip:

(New Zealand has allowed civil unions between same-sex couples since 2005. This new law allows same-sex couples to enjoy all the same rights as any married couple. This includes adoption and having the marriage recognized in other countries.)

Mike, that was beautiful - thank you for sharing it! Was that the national anthem they were singing?

In doing the Welcome Training etc....it was interesting that the core material came from the U.S. - Canada was out in front in pushing Queer rights etc and it putting it forward in the political world but very little work was done by the queer community to help educate the general population of what the queer community is all about.   The U.S. seems to be doing it the other way around.... I don't think within McJae's lifetime or mine that the different streams of Christianity in the US will change their minds.....it will happen - the course has been set.    Our program director of Rainbow Camp said to me that perhaps we will only need to do camp for 5 years.....that by that time kids will be excepted for who and what they are.....unless the faith community changes drastically in the next several years, Rainbow Camp will be needed for a long time.

Somegal:

It's a well-known Maori love song. I don't thing I've ever known a New Zealander who could sing more than a mumbled version of the chorus to the National Anthem, which traditionally goes like this: "da-da, doo-dum, di, diddy dee… la-la-something, something, de, da-da-dum… god defend new zee-ee-ee-land" —  follwed by a big collective yawn. We're not big on patriotic noise. We just know who we are and, when we're pushed, we tend to push back.

I was amazed in Scotland: Scots tend to know 'O Flower of Scotland' but God Save the Queen's something you just stand up for. Not a lot of non-Unionists would actually sing. Though many Scots know about the infamous verse six (i think it's 6) that promotes the ethnic cleansing of the Gael back in 1747:

"Lord grant that Marshal Wade
May by thy mighty aid
Victory bring.
May he sedition hush,
And like a torrent rush,
Rebellious Scots to crush."

And I'm amazed by how many Canadians actually really know and sing a couple of verses of O Canada. And it's interesting that few, though,  seem to know it was a French song first performed at a National Congress of French Canadians in 1880, on St. Jean-Baptiste Day… the words being from a poem by a French judge, Adolphe-Basile Routhier.

Some of the earlier lyrics are interesting, more of a hymn.

Northwind, thank you from replying to buford's post of
"They do not, however, have the right to be singled out as a group for the rights of marriage."

It is strange how some people think "heterosexuals should have the right to be singled out as a group for the rights of marriage."

It is why I try to avoid the use of same-sex marriage and refer to equal marriage. I sought no special rights, I sought equal rights. I sought to not be singled out.
 

---------------------------------------------

MCjae,

I have put a few words in bold for you, and invite you to read again what you wrote.

"Anyone who is married should be able to visit their spouse in the hospital (unless, you know, there is some kind of actual medical reason preventing that from taking place). Note that I am not saying that same-sex marriage should or should not exist. I am just stating my opinion on hospital visitations for married people."

So you are aware- Often, when people make sure they use that word "married", they mean the implications. They mean these folks can and these folks can't. They never state their beliefs regarding homosexuality or equal marriage. They simply hide behind the word and the current statutes.

For clarity-  Anyone who is married, CAN visit their spouse.

We are talking about those in loving, committed relationships who are barred from being married.

When people use "marriage", I tend to ask how they feel when the couple (say opposite sex) is engaged, living together, common-law? How do they feel if they have been in said relationship for decades and/or cannot be married? Is their criteria still marriage? Usually not. It also invites them to consider if it is a way to hide how they feel and think about marriage, homosexuality, gays and lesbians....
 

BTW I do not expect you to give your thoughts. You have made clear that you avoid and/or answer ambiguosly and will not profess or admit to thinking differently than your denomination or school.  

SG, I couldn't answer you this time anyway simply because I'm confused.

Here's what Northwind posted (emphasis mine)... "It makes me sad/angry/perplexed when I read that one partner in a same sex marriage is not allowed to visit his/her partner in the hospital because s/he is not "family", even though they have been together for years. Thankfully that nonsense seems to be becoming less common."

And now you're writing that anyone who is married is allowed to visit their partner.

Huh?? *scratches head*

Everything hinges on the word "marriage" and whether that marriage is acknowledged and recognized. It also hinges on whether marrige is even possible.  

Northwind said, "It makes me sad/angry/perplexed when I read that one partner in a same sex marriage is not allowed to visit his/her partner in the hospital because s/he is not "family", even though they have been together for years. Thankfully that nonsense seems to be becoming less common."

She might have said, "It makes me sad/angry/perplexed when I read that one partner in a same sex relationship  is not allowed to visit his/her partner in the hospital because s/he is not "family", even though they have been together for years. Thankfully that nonsense seems to be becoming less common."
(Knowing her, she sees marriage even if it is not a legal one.)
 

Would your thoughts and phrasing have changed if she said relationship?

Would your criteria be marriage?

I said that married same-sex couples can visit. If the same-sex couple is considered legally married, they are then considered family and can visit. That is what comes with equal rights. There are exceptions and I will address those.

Many same-sex folks are married and yet the marriage was not/is not considered a legal one. They were married by going to a place that allowed same-sex marriage and returned home to a place it is not recognized. They may have had Holy Unions or some ceremony marrying them each to the other in a state not allowing same-sex marriage. They may have even been married in the eyes of their church, but it was/is not legally recognized.
In our case, we married 5 years before we did it again in a legally recognized marriage.
We are married in Canada. I could visit. We also know that we are not married everywhere. Every opposite sex couple knows that if they go someplace, they are still married. Most countries recognize marriages from other countries. Not so, in our case. If my wife got sick in the US, it woudl depend on the state we were in whether we would be considered married. If I claimed spouse status in some places, not only would I not be let into the hospital, but I might be arrested. We have to consider those things when travelling.

So, the exceptions have to do with where you were married, where you live, where one is hospitalized...

One can be legally married in one place and that marriage not be recognized in another place.

If Northwind had not used the word marriage, what then?

This is why people work toward equal marriage.

Let's say Bob and John, or Jane and Sue, have been together 25 years. They lived together and slept beside each other each night...

 Or maybe they even gathered friends and their church family and exchanged vows with clergy. Their state may or may not recognize it as a marriage. They may or may not be each other's spouse. They have may have or may not have what is considered a familial relationship.

Or maybe they went to a state where it was legal and return to a place it is not.....