Separate the Civil and the Sacred

Anyway, MMA, Gimpi, if you see this.

"Pagan Place,
In general that's why I find your path more appealing than some others. Among the Pagans I know, they seem to be the most willing to follow follow the golden rule, to live and let live, and to honor freedom in all it's manifestations than many other religious folk. Why is that,do you suppose?"

Well, for starters, it's not quite 'The Golden Rule,' though the 'eight words' so important to us, we like to think, have a similar spirit to what we see as the best in that Golden Rule: 'If it harm none, do what you will,' is more than an admonition against harming others, ...it's also an exhortation to act *from* a sense of freedom and responsibility.

Eight words that can be lifetimes in the exercise thereof. :)

It means that our central morality isn't a 'Golden Rule' merely moderating a sense of entitlement to make and enforce commands, ...it starts from the very *place* of aware freedom.

That's why that is. :)

Also, modern Pagan religion has a certain luxury: we aren't an obsolete system of *government* trying to compete with free and equal modern civilization: we're in our element in a free and pluralistic society based on individual liberties, because this is where our modern forms *grew.*

We have no built-in need or desire to convert people or 'take over' ...because to our experience, we don't need to.

We hold many things sacred, most notably the Earth and our relationship with Her, as well as with each other. But we can appeal to conscience and reason and science about these things, because we aren't trying to maintain control for some old pseudo-government based on some fear of a 'God' or outsiders or anything.

We can take care about the *means,* cause it's not so much about 'Ends.' Only ways.

(continued below)

(continued from above)

Take it a step further, and as polytheists at least, if not the pretty baseline 'panentheistic' view we hold of the world, and even if we *were* like a government, the fact that we see the Divine in many forms and shapes means, quite simply, that we see no need to force everyone into 'one shape,' since there's nothing holy or powerful about *that* to us.

The problem with control-based religions is that they tend to take the shape of the most controlling ones in them, validated by those most inclined to be followers.

I think this is why the monotheists have an alpha-ape-like preoccupation with controlling all the sex around them, or, by extension, *everywhere.* If there was to be just one way for people to be, they, by gum, were gonna be the ones to say what it is.

(That's also why the Fundies in government and religion can't ever seem to live up to their own rules: to their instincts, the rules aren't *for* them. They may *viscerally* want to control everyone else, but the idea they should obey their own rules is a mere abstraction to them. )

Control, to Pagans, isn't of such value. It comes from within, at its heart, and given that, is established by the community for the community's benefit. (Which is also why we don't take kindly to moneyed interests exploiting people and calling it 'their freedom.' )

"For me, it's not a "liberal vs conservative" thing, it's a "control vs freedom" thing. It appears Pagans feel the same way. Am I right about that?"

Pretty much. Trying to break Pagans down along 'liberal/conservative' platforms doesn't tend to work as well. It's kind of like if you took the spectrum between 'liberal' and Libertarian and bent it around in a big circle, we'd be falling around where they join up. Probably vastly tending liberal, all in all, but with some key exceptions: defining the whole lot, you could say we believe in individual freedom and group responsibility, not the other way around, where 'conservatives' are obsessed with controlling the details of individual lives, but call it 'freedom' to allow and even encourage moneyed interests to run roughshod over everyone, not to mention foul the ground that keeps us all alive.

'Right and Left' tend to be pretty much defined by conflicts within the dominant religion's absolutism, and its tensions with a free society.

We're under no such burden.

Your 'general rules' pretty much work for us, though. Maybe with a few important caveats about terms. What you wrote is the sort of place where Christians and Pagans could meet, though... In America.

Thought I'd wander back in and see where this went. :)

FWIW.

Anyway, quick bit:

Rohit:

"And if gays are entitled to be treated similarly to heterosexual couples, then why should two people who do NOT have a sexual relationship, but who love each other be banned?"

Why should they? Sounds like a 'slippery slope' argument no one cares about.

Neither civil marriage nor Pagan religion *require* couples who don't want to have sex to do so. I know this is a medieval Christian tradition, as well, that a marriage isn't really a done deal until it's 'consummated' ...but that's a religious view of it, not civil law. It has nothing to do with civil law, only a specific interpretation of your religion and 'traditional' custom.

Straight people paralyzed from the waist down can get married as they wish. Gay people who can't have this 'sex' you worry about so much, can't.

Civil marriage actually doesn't require sex: in Paganism, well, pretty much anyone who's willing to live up to the oaths can be married. We've even got traditions specifically *for* all sorts of 'Platonic' relationship. Oaths of the anam cara, clan, tribe, family, the whole 'blood brother' thing not being just a thing Cub Scouts do. Don't know if the state'll recognize these things, but marriage, well. No one said it was about the sex or 'deflowering virgins' or whatnot in the first place. I don't think the state's involved as it is.

But here are some questions for you. Two people X and Y love each other. No one denies their love and no one wants to harm them. If they want to live together, that is fine too.
The first question is, under what circumstances are they entitled to file a joint tax return?
A second question is, under what circumstances is one of them entitled to sponsor the other one for US citizenship?
A third question is, if X dies without a will, under what circumstances does Y inherit the entire property of X?
What if X and Y who love each other are brother and sister?
The point is that the answers to these questions go beyond purely personal questions, as the rest of society is involved also.
And if gays are entitled to be treated similarly to heterosexual couples, then why should two people who do NOT have a sexual relationship, but who love each other be banned?
You are tacitly assuming that the questions are easy, that it is no one else's business. I am trying to convince you that the questions are not easy.
Posted by: rohitcuny
**************************************************************************************
I was referring to criminal law, not tax or immigration law.
But to answer your questions:
Any law that allows consenting adults X and Y to
-file a joint tax return
-inherit surviving spouse benefits
-sponsor the other for citizenship
-inherit propert in the absence of a will
should also apply equally to X and X or Y and Y.
If consenting adults X and Y (or X and X, or Y and Y) are siblings and wish to set up such a legal arrangement between themselves, let them.

That pretty much sums it up, Gimpi.
Each person's life should be his/hers to live as s/he best sees fit, providing that otehrs aren't harmed by their actions. If your actions are causing harm to another, I have not only the right, but the obligation to step in.
The law should only prohibit such actions as consist of one person causing harm to another - rape, robbery, murder, etc.
Posted by: lepidopteryx
-----------
But here are some questions for you. Two people X and Y love each other. No one denies their love and no one wants to harm them. If they want to live together, that is fine too.

The first question is, under what circumstances are they entitled to file a joint tax return?

A second question is, under what circumstances is one of them entitled to sponsor the other one for US citizenship?

A third question is, if X dies without a will, under what circumstances does Y inherit the entire property of X?

What if X and Y who love each other are brother and sister?

The point is that the answers to these questions go beyond purely personal questions, as the rest of society is involved also.

And if gays are entitled to be treated similarly to heterosexual couples, then why should two people who do NOT have a sexual relationship, but who love each other be banned?

You are tacitly assuming that the questions are easy, that it is no one else's business. I am trying to convince you that the questions are not easy.

On another blog, I posted two general rules for deciding if I have any right to interfere in another person's path. I'd be interested in a Pagan view of them.

They are:
1, You should live your life according to your beliefs and opinions, but you can only make rules that impact others based on facts.
2, You only have the right to constrain another person's behavior if it causes direct harm to others.
What do others think?
Posted by: gimpi

That pretty much sums it up, Gimpi.
Each person's life should be his/hers to live as s/he best sees fit, providing that otehrs aren't harmed by their actions. If your actions are causing harm to another, I have not only the right, but the obligation to step in.
The law should only prohibit such actions as consist of one person causing harm to another - rape, robbery, murder, etc.

I think most things which Starhawk says are eminently sensible. The difficulty is that marriage is a civil institution and many of the laws governing marriage have to do with certain practical aspects of heterosexual relationships. As time has passed, marriage has come to have a different meaning even for heterosexuals - divorce is far more common for instance, many wives work, there are lots of single mothers, etc.

Some of the old laws no longer work in the new situation. For instance married couples had the choice of filing joint tax returns, or of filing "married filing as single" tax returns. When the two partners made very different incomes, then joint return was beneficial. When the incomes are similar then both options are worse than if they are not married. So we have the phenomenon of "marriage penalty" which we did not have before.

The ability to marry a non-citizen and sponsor her/him for citizenship still remains, but one wonders how much sense it makes given that divorce is now so frequent. The automatic precedence of a spouse over other relatives for property inheritance also makes less sense when divorce is so common.

The point is that laws address certain practical concerns and as time passes the practical concerns also change. The laws need to change but our dogmas remain the same. Hence the tension.

These concerns need to be addressed in an intelligent way, but talking about what God wants, or pretending that all questions are constitutional questions to be governed by "equality" misses the mark.

The concerns are practical, having to do with respecting long term relationships and with the care of children.

Note the lack of controversy here among the Pagans...(on gay marriage)

...A free society, if nothing else, is dependent on our ability to say yes or no to various religious ideas as we please... Only basing everything on the notion that all are equal. 'Unalienable rights' not ones anyone who claims 'Under God' means *under their authority to take away.*
Posted by Pagan Place

Pagan Place,
In general that's why I find your path more appealing than some others. Among the Pagans I know, they seem to be the most willing to follow follow the golden rule, to live and let live, and to honor freedom in all it's manifestations than many other religious folk. Why is that,do you suppose?

For me, it's not a "liberal vs conservative" thing, it's a "control vs freedom" thing. It appears Pagans feel the same way. Am I right about that?

On another blog, I posted two general rules for deciding if I have any right to interfere in another person's path. I'd be interested in a Pagan view of them.
They are:
1, You should live your life according to your beliefs and opinions, but you can only make rules that impact others based on facts.
2, You only have the right to constrain another person's behavior if it causes direct harm to others.

What do others think?

WE'LL CLEANSE ALL OLD-RELIGIONs AS PROMISED YE!
...........................................................................
.....O.......……………………,/////////////……………..........,/..
..0.........………,……..__,---///////////////////,…..............,/././..
0............…………,-'.. ). ). ). ). ). ).''///////_\…........../././././ ..
....O.......……_,-' ))`.. ) .) .). ) .) .) .). ). ).)..`-......././././././
............…/..()_).).).).).\. ) .). ) .). ). ). ) .). )__/./././././././ .
............…\____ ).).).).).). ).). ). ). ) .). ). ).__.\.\.\.\.\.\.\.\...
}-ABRAHAMICs;> ...).).)./. ). ). ) .) .) .). ).)_/,-`__.\.\.\.\.\.\.\..
............…..___,').),'). ). ). ). )_),,--'……………...\.\.\.\.\.\ …
............….(_______............\.\)_),--'"……………...`\.\.\.\ ...
............……………….-.........\.\.\……………………...`\.\.\ ..
............……,…………...........\.\.\……………….............`\.
.....................................................................................
.....O.......……………………,/////////////……………..........,/..
..0.........………,……..__,---///////////////////,…..............,/././..
0............…………,-'.. ). ). ). ). ). ).''///////_\…........../././././ ..
....O.......……_,-' ))`.. ) .) .). ) .) .) .). ). ).)..`-......././././././
............…/..()_).).).).).\. ) .). ) .). ). ). ) .). )__/./././././././ .
............…\____ ).).).).).). ).). ). ). ) .). ). ).__.\.\.\.\.\.\.\.\...
}-VEDICs;> ........).).)./. ). ). ) .) .) .). ).)_/,-`__.\.\.\.\.\.\.\..
............…..___,').),'). ). ). ). )_),,--'……………...\.\.\.\.\.\ …
............….(_______............\.\)_),--'"……………...`\.\.\.\ ...
............……………….-.........\.\.\……………………...`\.\.\ ..
............……,…………...........\.\.\……………….............`\.
.....................................................................................
.....O.......……………………,/////////////……………..........,/..
..0.........………,……..__,---///////////////////,…..............,/././..
0............…………,-'.. ). ). ). ). ). ).''///////_\…........../././././ ..
....O.......……_,-' ))`.. ) .) .). ) .) .) .). ). ).)..`-......././././././
............…/..()_).).).).).\. ) .). ) .). ). ). ) .). )__/./././././././ .
............…\____ ).).).).).). ).). ). ). ) .). ). ).__.\.\.\.\.\.\.\.\...
}-ISLAMs;> .........).).)./. ). ). ) .) .) .). ).)_/,-`__.\.\.\.\.\.\.\..
............…..___,').),'). ). ). ). )_),,--'……………...\.\.\.\.\.\ …
............….(_______............\.\)_),--'"……………...`\.\.\.\ ...
............……………….-.........\.\.\……………………...`\.\.\ ..
............……,…………...........\.\.\……………….............`\.
......................................................................................
}-PAGANs;>..SHAMAN-VOODOOs..WITCH/WICCANs..too

Well, I hope everyone's had a good holiday weekend.

I suppose, as the topic goes, if anyone doesn't think it's about *freedom of religion* to the extent that there can be any claim opposing equal marriage rights for all isn't a demand of a very specific religion:

Note the lack of controversy here among the Pagans.

Outlawing gay marriage has only served to enforce a particular religious view. Pagans celebrate it. Quakers celebrate it. Those who claim or rationalize religious rationales for harming gay people in this way...

Exclude and denigrate the religions (or non-religions) of others who don't share their view.

A free society, if nothing else, is dependent on our ability to say yes or no to various religious ideas as we please... Only basing everything on the notion that all are equal. 'Unalienable rights' not ones anyone who claims 'Under God' means *under their authority to take away.*

There is no controversy, *here.* But still some would have the government say, not only are LBGT people not equal citizens, but that this or that group that is not 'conservative Christian' enough ...isn't as able, to the extent anyone pretends, to be able to say what the 'Creator' wants.

Maybe you don't like *our* Gods, but is that how you want to trust government to speak for *yours,* Christians?

Mr. PRESIDENT & CO.:

"Ho Ho OBAMA & CO. Must Surely GO!"

"HO HO, OBAMA & CO. must Surely GO!"

"DOWN with OBAMA & CO., 2013"

"YO YO, OBAMA Gots To GO!"

-Prof. GATES, not Bill Gates, Not Asst. Sec. State Gates.., Must GO To Jail asap For almost (Conspiring) insighting a National & Possibly International (RACE BASED) RIOT!? The TERRORISTS & CO., are LOVE-N THIS!

......___________________......
...........||.......||........||.......||
...........||.......||.., , ,.||.......||
...........||......(||../|/(\.||/......||
...........||.......||.._'_ .,||......||
...........||.......||..o o..||.......||
...........||......(||...m...||)......||
...........||.......||...=....||.......||
...........||.......||.\___/||.......||
...........||.___||..).,.(..||___.||
......... /||..--...||.-\_/-.||..---,.||\
........./.||.--,_,||____.||.._--||..\
..........(||)RACE-GATES(.||)
............|"""""""""""""""""""""|......
...|ACTS AGAINST AMERICANS|...

Mr. OBAMA. Please, like an EX-Friend, Distance yourself from Mr. "Racist-GATES", not P.O. Crowley, like ye didth with REVrend/Brother Mr. Wrong, ooopps Meant your Ex-Friend Rev. Jeramiah (Bul{Frog) Mr. Wright!

--Or Else: "DOWN with OBAMA & CO., comes 2012 and beyond!"

"Ho Ho OBAMA & CO. Must Surely GO!"

"HO HO, OBAMA & CO. must Surely GO!"

"YO YO, OBAMA Gots To GO!"

Aha. Gods, I'm thick, sometimes. I'm saying that to Starhawk and wondering where this mysterious 'sanctity of marriage' straight Christians are afraid to 'lose' if someone overtly does something else, and... Duh.

It's the *ritual.* They want to preserve the idea that the *ritual* as practiced in mainstream society *really is* the gatekeeper to those civil rights, cause it's a *rite of passage for them.*

They *know* they can bypass it, or even imitate it: settle for the knockoff of the church wedding if the minister wouldn't approve, still feel indirectly blessed if there's someone else they can say would be 'worse' ...but they don't want to face the actual reality that the man in the funny costume *isn't in fact in control of the societal and governmental approval of the union.*

It's about the *ritual.*

Not sure what to do with that. Besides have a few of our own.

Somehow, Starhawk, it never seems that simple to many of the 'religious leaders' out there. I think it's partly cause they want to preserve the illusion that it *is* in fact the church and priests and ministers and what they want to demand that constitutes the gatekeeper for these very real and secular civil rights and responsibilities.

But they, and we, as clergy... Aren't.

I don't think that the cause of marriage equality is actually advanced in any way by suggesting *no one* has their religious marriages recognized, (that gives the impression something actually *is* being taken away from straights and Christians when that's not the case...) But I do wish some people could get their heads around the *idea.*

Frankly, the reality that already exists. Christian clergy can and will continue to froth as if LBGT people being treated fairly by the law would somehow detract from some pious and staid view of heterosexual marriage, as before... Those the priests disapprove of can continue to go to the JP or Vegas, as before...

Same-sex couples can go about our lives without having to fight for basic rights, and these Christians can get on with this holy mission of feeding the poor they keep talking about, even if it's less fun and titillating than blaming little ol' us for any discomfort they may feel if it's ever suggested that they may be wrong about any 'sinful' characteristics of LBGT people or whatever they get out of all this drama...

Personally, I think these Christians are doing it for *attention,* ....they claim they're being 'attacked,' but really, if they stopped trying to screw up our *actual lives and futures,* they'd fall way down on a lot of people's 'Things To Pay Attention To' list.

Ok, so they'd lose some scapegoats and have to look at their own hands and wonder what to do with them, but they know the Perfect Plan, right? They can work something out, I'm sure.