So I don't fully understand all the circuits and courts, but apparently today the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of allowing same-sex marriage. In 2008 California Prop 8 re-banned same-sex marriage in California, which was then contested as being unconstitutional. It's been tied up in the legal system ever since. It's going to be tied up for a while longer, too. This will get pushed on to the Supreme Court next.
My hope is that the Supreme Court makes a ruling in favor of allowing same-sex marriage that applies to all 50 states and every U.S. territory. That being said, I hope the churches will be excluded from the ruling. There's no sense in "forcing" the churches to perform a same-sex marriage that is clearly against their doctrine.
I've been trying to understand how someone else's same-sex marriage can somehow invalidate or diminish an opposite-sex marriage. Especially when celebrity marriages exist. Best I can figure it's a perceived notion that legalizing same-sex marriage will validate them "under God", and to that I say we have separation of church and state. Clearly it's not a family or parenting issue. Canada hasn't fallen apart and same-sex marriage is legal there.
So if the Catholic church (and various sects of Christianity, or others) don't want to perform same-sex marriages don't force them to. They've already established themselves as discriminatory organizations, and no-one seems to mind. So I don't see why discrimination laws should apply here and force them to perform same-sex marriage. Separation of church and state is a 2-way street. There's other ways to get married. Other religions that will. State officials such as Judges for example.
In preparation for the Supreme Court ruling maybe I should brush up on marriage ceremonies. There will be a high demand for marriage officiants and if the main-stream churches turn them down I feel it is my duty as a minister to answer the call. My church fully endorses same-sex marriages.
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
«Same-Sex Upheld, The Battle Continues»
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
«The Reverend Marf»
This is what I believe to be the most epic thing I've done since starting this blog. It's all sorts of silly, epic, and to some I'd imagine offensive. I have officially renounced my atheism. If that sentence can even make sense. One can't really renounce a non-religion, can they?
I am now an officially ordained minister of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I'm now The Reverend Cody Durkin. I've seen the noodly light of Pastafarianism. Note the raised gold seal. This is a legitimate document.
I can legally use Reverend in front of my name now. Seriously. I can also officiate wedding ceremonies. Laws do vary between states (even counties) in the US, and I haven't researched international laws. Weddings are such a business in Nevada (go Las Vegas!) that they have some unique requirements. However, in most other states including my resident state of Idaho, one only needs to be a judge, governor, mayor or an ordained minister of any denomination. [Idaho Code Section 32-303]
Any. Denomination.
They'd have one hell of a First Amendment case on their hands if they tried to deny it.FSM is a real, legitimate religion, as much as any other. The fact that many see this is as a satirical religion doesn’t change the fact that by any standard one can come up with, our religion is as legitimate as any other. And *that* is the point.
What's that sound? Yeah, I didn't hear it either. I expected to hear the sound of the sanctity of marriage draining away, but I guess celebrities already drained that. The "we must protect the sanctity of marriage" people need to wake up to reality. Same-sex marriage is the least of their worries. I can now legally perform marriage ceremonies, that are recognized by the government, in the name of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Some religions oppose same-sex marriage. My religion supports it. The government has no right to deny my people their Noodle-given right to marry someone of the same sex any more than it can deny a man and a woman to get married under the Christian God. And *that* is my point.
See the rest of “The Reverend Marf”»
Sunday, December 19, 2010
«Don't "Don't ask, Don't Tell"»
"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Repealed
Embedding has been disabled for the video, so you'll have to follow the link. It's just a quick news report that the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy has finally been repealed. It's a victory for gay rights.
There goes my escape strategy if they should ever enact a draft...
Thursday, December 2, 2010
«Salvation Army is a Hate Group?»
I never realized the Salvation Army was so against homosexuality. It seems silly for a charity organization to take a stance on this issue at all.
Boycott The Salvation Army
As if those bell ringers weren't bad enough. They also oppose pornography in all forms. Makes me not feel so good about those pots and pans we bought when I first moved to Boise Idaho.
Here's a Facebook page you can "Like" if you want to Boycott the Salvation Army.
Friday, November 19, 2010
«Joe Biden on LGBT Youth»
Vice President Biden: It Gets Better
That was unexpected. Kudos to Vice President Joe Biden. It's good to see a politician take this position or even talk about.
Although I still think he doesn't quite understand. It's not just the youth. There are no laws that forbid people who stutter to marry each other. There's not a group of people out protesting with signs that say "God Hates Stutterers."
A video with a heartfelt speech is nice. But will he actually do anything? Will he push the administration to realize this inequity? That not all Americans have the "unalienable rights" to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness they should have? I suspect not.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
«Atheist Fears»
Yes, it's this guy again.
Atheist Fundamentalism?
If you don't want to listen to him ramble on, at least skip to time index 5:50 in the video and watch until time index 8:00. I've felt this fear, too. I still do in some situations.
I've been an atheist since I gained a vague understanding of the concept of God. I think I believed in Santa Claus longer because there was more evidence for him. I even saw Santa Claus in the mall, and there were presents from him under the Christmas tree. It wasn't until I noticed Santa's handwriting was the same as my mom's that I really questioned it. However, why would a child ever tell his parents that they've figured out the Santa thing? It could mean less presents1!
Just like my non-belief in Santa Claus, I was afraid to reveal my Atheism. This God thing seemed even more important than Santa Claus, so what could the consequences of admitting non-belief of Him be?
I don't think I had a true "coming out" with my parents, at least not that I remember. They just sort-of figured it out on their own2 and they are okay with it. I did have a lengthy discussion with my grandfather about it though... 2 discussions in fact. While my grandparents have accepted it, they're not happy about it.
Even to this day I don't announce my atheism to everybody, even when it would be appropriate. Before I moved from Ketchikan my mom got a new neighbor in the apartment below her. A man from West Africa. Usually I'm a hermit and avoid new neighbors, but I felt some need to show him my avoidance is not because he was black3. So I introduced myself, and made a very good first impression.
From then on he couldn't stop telling my mom about how much of a gentleman I am, and how kind I am. I found out he worked at a church, a preacher or pastor or something of the like. I didn't want to shatter his view of me. Even though it would have been an excellent time to make the point that atheists are good people, too.
As I was packing up to leave town, he said we should get together and pray before I leave. I told him "maybe" and went on my way. Now I feel a bit guilty that I mislead him.
I've read places where people that were both homosexual and atheist wrote it was tougher to admit their atheism than their homosexuality. While this is not true for everybody, atheism and homosexuality are from my point-of-view on the same level as each other as social stigmas.
Maybe that's why I'm such a proponent of gay rights. I might be way off in saying this, but I feel like I know what it's like to be gay. To be a member of society who is disowned because of one aspect of themselves, regardless of any other traits they may have. It is one reason I support gay rights, there are other reasons as well.
1: I should note the consequences of not believing in the Tooth Fairy or Easter Bunny were not as severe, so I admitted my disbelief earlier for them.
2: I have confirmed it many times since with my parents, and my dad reads my blog. Sometimes my grandfather does as well.
3: That in itself could be a form of racism I suppose.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
«TEDsters»
In TED talk by Michael Sandel, he asked the audience by show of hands who thought state recognized marriage should only be a traditional marriage between 1 man and 1 woman: 2 people raided their hands. Then he asked by show of hands how many favored the inclusion of same-sex marriage: nearly the entire audience raised their hands.
In another TED talk by Richard Dawkins he mentioned that he was (pardon the expression) preaching to the choir about atheism. 90% of the intelligentsia are atheists. This is an inverse of the general population.
TEDsters are my kind of people...
Thursday, October 15, 2009
«There Goes My Cop-out»
Let me first say that I disagree with and condemn the Selective Service System. I only registered when I turned 18 because I was extorted by the government; by law I had to. I thought there was a law that says anything signed while under coercion or intimidation is not lawful. I guess the government is exempt when they're the ones doing the coercion.
Anyway, I was forced to register for the Selective Service. However, if it came down to it and they reinstated the draft, I'll do whatever I can to get out of it.
I can't really claim it's against my religion, since I don't have one. Even the draft wouldn't make me fake believing in a religion. However, I would consider claiming I'm homosexual (or at least bisexual) due to the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy.
Thanks to Obama's recent vow, that may no longer be an option. Obama promised to end the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy.
Ok, that's a good thing. It's another step towards equal rights and diminishing the blatant discrimination against sexual orientations other than heterosexuality. Good for Obama (if he follows through).
I'll just have to find some other way to dodge the draft if it is reinstated. Maybe I could at least get a non-combat listing due to my bad left eye and thus bad depth-perception. Problem is, I hate the military mentality. I'm afraid I wouldn't blindly follow orders without understanding them or seeing a point for it. Maybe I'll just skip the country or go to a federal prison instead...
Let's just hope it doesn't come to that.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
«Good Job IKEA»
Homosexuality is one of the essential elements of living in contemporary society.
Thank you IKEA. More companies should follow your example.
See the rest of “Good Job IKEA”»
Sunday, November 16, 2008
«Gay Marriage and Non-Kosher Foods»
Gay marriage backers rally in Manhattan, other cities
If I were in one of these cities with the protests for gay marriage, I think I would go out and support them. It's not just gays that support gay rights. It's not just gays out there marching alongside them.
I don't fully understand those who oppose gay marriage. If you don't like the idea of marrying someone of the same sex then don't; but please, don't stop others. I've seen the argument (from Looney, in fact) that a government recognized gay union would be saying that God supports it. In Looney's exact words:
The US government is not a theocracy. There's a phrase called "separation of church and state". It is traced to the letter written by Thomas Jefferson himself in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists, in which he referred to the First Amendment in the United States Constitution as creating a "wall of separation" between church and state. That seems like enough for me to say that the government does not represent God or God's wishes. It also means these justices of the supreme court clearly do not have the jurisdiction to claim to be "God's spokesmen". They simply speak for the government, not for a religion.As Thomas Jefferson noted, our rights come from our Creator, which was understood. Thus, the California Supreme Court, by declaring this right to gay marriage, has effectively stated that God endorses gay marriage. The justices of the supreme court have made a purely religious statement and declared themselves to be God's spokesmen.
Let me use a parallel religion-based example, in this case the right to eat non-kosher food. Kosher food is food that meets Jewish dietary laws. The consumption of any other food (called treif) is forbidden. So why does the FDA allow foods that are not kosher? After-all, if the Jewish God says not to eat it then why should anyone? It's against God! Yet the FDA (an agency of the US government) approves such foods! Oh, such an injustice! The US government has taken it upon themselves to be "God's spokesmen" in this issue already, by Looney's logic. What's that? Not everyone is Jewish, so not everyone has to follow their laws? The government is not God? Exactly.
Not everyone is Catholic or Christian. Not everyone has to follow their laws. The government shouldn't be forced to, either. There shouldn't be government laws against gay marriage any more than there should be against eating non-kosher foods. That's fine if you believe you shouldn't, it's your choice what you eat or who you marry. But don't force your beliefs on others.
See the rest of “Gay Marriage and Non-Kosher Foods”»
Thursday, November 6, 2008
«Congratulations California»
Congratulations California on passing Prop 8
- Being gay is not natural. Real Americans™ always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
- Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
- Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
- Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can’t marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
- Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
- Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren’t full yet, and the world needs more children.
- Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
- Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America.
- Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
- Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven’t adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.
See the rest of “Congratulations California”»
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
«News Topics»
Just a quick rundown of a few news topics that caught my attention today.
'Indiana Jones' tops box office on long holiday weekend
This is one movie I wouldn't mind seeing, even though I've read more poor reviews about it than good.
Aliens? In my Indiana Jones? It may be more likely than you think...
Noise Pollution
A complaint about a new firing range being built in town. This is the first I've heard of it. Oh, and the one they talk about as being "way out north" is also surrounded by neighborhoods, and in my opinion, is not that far out North of town.
Viacom and Google Should Share the Load
Yet another copyright lawsuit against Google... Need I say I hate copyrights? There's no feasible way Google could filter all the content uploaded by users, and they shouldn't have to.
Phoenix lander's work on Mars is delayed by a radio glitch
At least it landed safely, and everything seems to be in working order now. I hope this robot is like the others and far exceeds its expected lifespan.
TWO CENTS: Should same-sex couples be allowed to marry in California?
My answer is simply, yes. And not just in California, but every state.
Friday, May 16, 2008
«Response to Looney on Gay Marriage»
This post is a response to Looney's opinions on California's ruling on gay marriage. It is suggested you go read his post first.
I fully support gay marriage. Just because there's been no precedent in civilization doesn't mean it's wrong. With that sort of attitude, civilization would never advance.
And how exactly does this ruling "trash the Constitution"? All I see it trashing is the Leviticus book of the Bible. And by our First Amendment, church and state are separate.
Besides, wasn't the Old Testament kinda trashed by the New Testament? Churches seem to ignore parts of the Old Testament that don't suit them (claiming the New Testament trumps it), while upholding other parts of the Old Testament that does suit them. (Wouldn't it be nice if we could just pick and choose what laws we wanted to follow, and disregard the rest?)
Anyway, back on topic... I'm sure I could find many different sources other than Ephesians 5:24-25 that define marriage. Just because you choose to use the biblical definition doesn't mean everyone should.
By your definition, Poor ol' Drek and his wife aren't really married, and can't be. Please, don't take this as calling Drek's wife a man; but rather that their marriage was not a symbol of Christ. And I'm sure Drek would have a word or two about asserting the validity of his marriage.
Besides, from what I read into Ephesians 5:24-25, it's using Christ's love as an example or analogy... Not directly saying marriage is a symbol of Christ.
It all comes down to the simple fact that gays are people, too. There are certain legal rights given to married couples, and gay couples should have those same rights.
Perhaps you can tell I have a strong opinion on the subject of gay rights?
Some Rights Reserved