burlingtonfreepress.com

Sponsored by:

vt.Buzz ~ a political blog

Political notes from Free Press staff writers Terri Hallenbeck, Sam Hemingway and Nancy Remsen


3.17.2009

 

The question of religion

Same-sex marriage is front and center in the Statehouse this week.

I wasn't covering this issue nine years ago when civil unions came into being, though I was reading the stories closely 40 miles down the interstate. It is unlike most other issues to cover. That may be because everybody thinks the reporter has an agenda.

To wit: When I asked opponents Monday what the driving force for their opinion was, if they had trouble articulating it, I asked it was religious or something else. That often made them defensive. No, it's not just religion, they said, it's also social. I wasn't suggesting that having an opinion based on one's religion is a bad thing, I was just trying to get at what that particular person's reasoning was so that I could explain it to the world.

According to a quote in the Rutland Herald from same-sex marriage opponent Stephen Cable, this is how the people I was asking took it:

"Do go ahead and use your religious and moral arguments, but the press
would like nothing more than to de-legitimize us … by saying 'oh, this is just
about their religion.'"

That's a shame because I was in no way trying to "delegitimize" anybody's argument by asking whether it was based in religion. But now I know why they were uncomfortable with the question.

In a sense, no opinion is ever just based in religion. Religion is a belief structure and if you are against something because it's against your religion, you're also against it because you think it's wrong. I suppose to suggest you are only against something because of your religion suggests that you swallow religious doctrine without thinking. I guess I can see why people would not want to be accused of that.

Still, I'll be asking people on either side of the issue what it the driving force for them. That's legitimate any time.

- Terri Hallenbeck

Comments:
"I suppose to suggest you are only against something because of your religion suggests that you swallow religious doctrine without thinking. I guess I can see why people would not want to be accused of that"...

Truth hurts....
 
Well, when the opponents of civil rights for gays constantly cite the Bible, why isn't it legitimate to ask them about religion? Moreover, when the "Rev." Benson is one of their spokespeople, how can they deny that religion is an issue here?

I wish I believed in the Baby Jesus -- or even the teenage Jesus - because, boy-oh-boy, that would certainly make things easier: "I believe, therefore, I'm right."

Whatever.

It sounds to me like Terri is about to let the religious zealots have it both ways: Cart their "pastors" and "scripture" before us when it's convenient but then demand that it's "not religious" when it looks like it's not working.

Keep your thinking-cap on, Terri.
 
Stephen Cable is a nut who lives to strike fear.

Remember Cable and Benson back in 2000 said civil unions would destroy marriages and bring Vermont to the brink of disaster.

Then the GOP used civil unions as a political wedge for political control.
 
Terri --

If you had been involved with the civil union enactment back in 2000 you wouldn't have made this totally unintentional oops. In 2000 it was all about religion and nothing else. Letters to the editor, ads, comments from legislators and those opposed to civil unions, etc were all religious arguments. If we heard "it's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" once, we heard it a hundred times.

Although those religious beliefs are still at the core of the anti-marriage movement, they've discovered that Vermonters are turned off by the perception that someone is "foisting their religion on others." Just look at that recent study that came out that said VT is the least religious state in the nation.

So they had to find other arguments that Vermonters might find pursuasive. Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on your point of view) they're currently using the talking points from groups opposed to gay adoption. But since everyone knows marriage isn't only about having children this strategy seems doomed to fail when applied across the board to marriage in general.

You're learning a lesson about religion the hard way -- just as those opposed to gay marriage learned in 2000.
 
This is a big distraction from the problems we need to tackle in Vermont now.
 
It's a dsitraction only because the two sides are making it so.
 
Congrats to the Free Press Editorial Board for taking a courageous position on Freedom to Marry.
 
The legislature and Shumlin want this dog an pony show because they want to use it to embarass Douglas and help beat him in 2010. It is just a tool for them not some great gesture for the gay community. Our community should see it for what it is and get out of the charade.
 
This issue should be voted on by the people- put it to a vote by the people.
 
Voting on civil rights issues is not good practice.
 
In Vermont, legislation is never voted on by the people.

We have no system for voting by referendum. There are no open votes on other laws, why should there be an open vote on this one?

Tell me, how much would it cost to have a special "election" for this one piece of legislation? Too much, when we already have a valid system for making laws.

If you don't like what your legislator is doing, don't re-elect him or her. It's that simple.
 
That is good advice - everyone remember that in 2010.
 
In January Macro International did a poll that found that 58% of Vermonters support gay marriage. Only 39% are opposed.

Popular opinion is on the side of equal rights for all Vermont families.
 
If it's a civil rights issue, popular opinion doesn't matter. Why do you cite alleged popular opinion figures but oppose a referendum. It's illogical.
 

Although those religious beliefs are still at the core of the anti-marriage movement, they've discovered that Vermonters are turned off by the perception that someone is "foisting their religion on others." Just look at that recent study that came out that said VT is the least religious state in the nation.


Exactly. It's the same strategy as "Intelligent Design", which tried to put creationism in schools by pretending (lying) that it wasn't religious opposition to evolution.

There are no rational arguments against gay marriage. All opposition is religiously motivated. Some may hide this, because they don't want to seem bigoted. But like it or not, they are.
 
If popular opinion is in favor of it then it should be no problem to put it to a vote of the people.

Then the argument would be over.
 
Post a Comment



<< Home

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

June 2006   July 2006   August 2006   September 2006   October 2006   November 2006   December 2006   January 2007   February 2007   March 2007   April 2007   May 2007   June 2007   July 2007   August 2007   September 2007   October 2007   November 2007   December 2007   January 2008   February 2008   March 2008   April 2008   May 2008   June 2008   July 2008   August 2008   September 2008   October 2008   November 2008   December 2008   January 2009   February 2009   March 2009   April 2009   May 2009   June 2009   July 2009   August 2009   September 2009   October 2009   November 2009   December 2009   January 2010   February 2010   March 2010   April 2010