Because we need hairdressers, artists, and 'theatre fags', of course
NPR: Morning Edition - Mass. Justice of the Peace Resigns Over Gay Marriage Justices of the Peace in Massachusetts will be required to marry gay couples beginning Monday. The move follows an order from the state Supreme Court. Linda Gray Kelley of Charlton, Mass., chose to resign her post rather than perform gay marriages.
While I can respect a "conscientious objecter" stand, I can't help but roll my eyes at Kelley's remarks defending herself as not homophobic to a national radio audience - which include a comment, on national radio, how she's "always been in the world of theatre and interior design".
Need I say more?
"Render unto Ceaser what is Ceaser, and render unto God what is God's."
By performing civil marriages, she wasn't doing anything Church-sanctioned in the first place.
Posted by the Other michael | Friday 14 May 2004 5:23PM
Well, if she won't perform gay marriages, at least she's stepping down to allow for someone else to perform them.
I've been involved in theatre for most of my life and I like to decorate. By her standards, I'm gay.
Posted by Jenny | Friday 14 May 2004 5:31PM
Michael: That's exactly what I thought... She seems to be contradicting herself in a way.
Thanks for the Christian quote!! (I emphasize this because generally when Christian quotes out of the Bible are used for this topic, the quotes most often seem to be quotes from the Pentateuch which seem to contradict Jesus. And I guess I find that amusing for some reason. hehe.)
But considering the proposal of an amendment to the constitution, which seems to be totally disregarding the "seperation of church & state", to define legal marriage as a 'sacred' institution, yadda yadda... I think people are onto something with pointing out the growing need to completely seperate "spiritual marriage" (or "religious marriage") from "legal marriage" to clear up this misunderstanding for people. The Rainbow Journal of NEPA (local LGBT publication) has a commentary published in it about this topic, which I think contains a pretty smart idea. (Unfortunately the site is designed with icky frames, damn it, so you'd have to click on "Read the May-June Issue Online", and then click on the link to the piece titled "Faith & Spirituality A different perspective on the fight for 'gay marriage'" to get to it.)
It's certainly not a new idea, I've seen it written about before. I can't think of a rational reason that this proposal wouldn't make everyone satisfied.
Posted by Chloe | Friday 14 May 2004 6:29PM
Jen: Exactly... when I heard that, I thought of how I've heard people say, "I'm not against Mexican immigrants, we need people to be professional housekeepers and gardeners." And I cringe. I mean, this is outside the scope of the concrete topics of "gay marriage" or "Mexican immigrants", it's about deeply entrenched, even unconscious, bigotry. Like it's fine for people to be Mexican if they're the housekeeper or gardener. Consciously or unconsciously, Kelley seems to be saying "in subtext" (pun intended), "I know gay people in the realm of theatre and interior design where it's 'socially acceptable' to associate with gays, unlike in the rest of society and my life, including the law, where it's not acceptable."
Anyway, you do seem fairly happy, Jenny! hehe. (I'm just full of wordplay today, baby!)
Posted by Chloe | Friday 14 May 2004 6:30PM
... discretion. "Quiet," discretion.
Posted by C | Saturday 15 May 2004 7:38PM
She is not being paid for her personal or religious beliefs, so what choice was left for her to step down. She calls it taking a stand. I call it as leaving on her own terms, before she was asked to step down. Because she could not continue to marry straight couples and then refuse or ignore gay and lesbian couples without some kind of reprimand.
I think a lot of gay and lesbian couples already see themselves as married and are not necessarily looking to be married in the "eyes of god," but to have that extra security that most straight married couples after they receive that legal piece of paper stating that they're married. The romantic in me always cringes when I say that marriage is just another contract, but it provides so much for a couple and there should be no reason that gays and lesbians should be denied any of the privileges that come along with it.
I don't know if you check out Mark Fiore web site
Posted by Lee Ann | Saturday 15 May 2004 8:03PM
Lee Ann: Yeah, I think you have a point about it being about her "leaving on her own terms"... I mean, at the start of listening to the interview, she *did* sound reasonable... but the remark at the end showed her hand. But I think that's because she does see, as The Other Michael pointed out, the legal form of marriage as somehow religious - as is asserted by anyone supporting that amendment to the constitution.
And I think you're right about same gender couples just wanting legal rights... After all there are many couples who can get married, but don't, but that doesn't mean they don't have a commitment to each other, and aren't living their lives together as a team. The legal benefits of marriage are what are at issue. Indeed, I think perhaps some people who want to "ban gay marriage" are actually trying to ban the relationships, which is something they cannot control, so this is their last ditch effort to "make a stand" to try and control other people.
I too, lately particularly, because of this whole thing, have been cringing at my view on marriage. I guess it's because it's a changing perspective, in light of more evidence and knowledge. I've never had a particularly romantic view of marriage, so that wasn't my issue. But now I realize the issues involved with the legal aspect of marriage... I'm more convinced that if I were to make a commitment in a romantic relationship, with someone, to live my life as a team with that person, the legal contract and benefits of it would be almost a necessity to me, understanding better & knowing what I know now. Indeed, I'm not sure I would be capable of planning my life with another person if these benefits were not part of the plan. And on the contrary, I now think that this aspect of legal marriage is an important part of the "romantic notion" of marriage... because if I'm going to live my life with someone else in mind, I surely wouldn't want there to be any possibility of them being "shut out" of my life, by someone else legally "closer"... or visa versa. And that, I think, is truly a romantic notion.
Thanks for the link... that's an excellent little movie... Funny but with some very stark points.
Posted by Chloe | Saturday 15 May 2004 8:59PM
And do tell me, Ms. Kelley, how many divorces have you overseen of heterosexual couples which is also condemned by orthodox catholocism?
Posted by John D. | Saturday 15 May 2004 9:25PM
Enjoyed the funny responses to an even funnier quote. If only it did not reflect a huge swathe of opinion....
Posted by Coup de Vent | Monday 17 May 2004 10:03PM
Comment Avatar icons by Gravatar.
E-mail addresses are required, but not displayed nor shared.
Please post comments relevant to this page only. For off-topic comments, questions, and discussion, please use this site's Message Board Forum. All comments posted that are spam, abusive, use phoney e-mail, or that do not relate directly to the page, will be removed.
Thank you for respecting this site, author & readers, and for helping stem the flow of ridiculously inaccurate hits from search engines.
superficiality >>If the facade is what's important to you, all you wind up with is an illusion. Disillusionment is the gift of substance.
-- Chloe<<
(more)
The point to remember, then, is that written words have permanency, and thoughts carelessly put on paper can, when not destroyed by accident, exist for hundreds of years.
"Render unto Ceaser what is Ceaser, and render unto God what is God's."
By performing civil marriages, she wasn't doing anything Church-sanctioned in the first place.
Well, if she won't perform gay marriages, at least she's stepping down to allow for someone else to perform them.
I've been involved in theatre for most of my life and I like to decorate. By her standards, I'm gay.
Michael: That's exactly what I thought... She seems to be contradicting herself in a way.
... discretion. "Quiet," discretion.
She is not being paid for her personal or religious beliefs, so what choice was left for her to step down. She calls it taking a stand. I call it as leaving on her own terms, before she was asked to step down. Because she could not continue to marry straight couples and then refuse or ignore gay and lesbian couples without some kind of reprimand.
I think a lot of gay and lesbian couples already see themselves as married and are not necessarily looking to be married in the "eyes of god," but to have that extra security that most straight married couples after they receive that legal piece of paper stating that they're married. The romantic in me always cringes when I say that marriage is just another contract, but it provides so much for a couple and there should be no reason that gays and lesbians should be denied any of the privileges that come along with it.
I don't know if you check out 
And do tell me, Ms. Kelley, how many divorces have you overseen of heterosexual couples which is also condemned by orthodox catholocism?
Enjoyed the funny responses to an even funnier quote. If only it did not reflect a huge swathe of opinion....
