In Reply: Standing Up For What You Believe is Right isn't Always Easy (Ask Replacements Ltd. and Madeleine McAulay)

Revised and extended, in reply to the following comment at the American Conservative post "Punishing Businesses on Gay Marriage," about the backlash against Replacements Ltd., a North Carolina business who rallied against the anti-marriage equality amendment that recently passed in that state:

I doubt that the conservatives who stop shopping at Replacements will take the course of action that homosexual activists have taken against those opposed to SSM. The homosexual activists are especially aggressive and are determined to shut down all speech that they disagree with check out this link American Power: YouTube Pulls Madeleine McAulay Gay Marriage Video as Violating Guidlines on 'Hate Speech' to see an example
5/26/12, 10:22 AM
---

It was the wrong decision, to be sure... ...but it was youtube's wrong decision.

I get why people might be offended when you suggest they're second class citizens, so I don't actually blame the "homosexual activists" who complained about Madeleine McAulay's video--though they were wrong; it isn't hate speech to spout Christian dogma about marriage; it just fails to take into account that we shouldn't and generally don't look to the Bible to write the laws in this country, in part because this is the result when we do--but it was up to youtube to stand up for speech, and in the end it was youtube who failed Madeleine McAulay ...and all of the people who use their service. (Twice, in fact. Madeleine appealed their original decision calling the video hate speech, and even after looking a second time, they still said it contained hate speech.)

And (tying this back to the original subject) there are a whole lot of conservatives and others who feel strongly about speech who are vowing not to use YouTube, based on decisions like these. I'm all for voting with your wallet and your feet when you feel strongly about a political or social issue. So, perhaps I'll use youtube a little less, and spend less time and money in CA and NC, until they get right with human rights... except for Replacements, Ltd. and others in those states who stood firm against laws that make love and equality a crime. (And having spent some time in the dinnerware industry back in the 80's and 90's, I can say that I heard nothing but good things about Replacement's Ltd. back then, so even apart from my being down with their stance on marriage equality, I recommend them highly to anyone who needs to find discontinued dinnerware, flatware, crystal pieces for their table.)
---

Submitted Posted 5/27/12, 2:13 AM
---

Also:
Replacements Limited’s Stand for Gay Marriage Has a Cost - NYTimes.com
American Power: Bob Page, Replacements Ltd. CEO Who Turned Firm Into Pro-Gay Campaign Outlet, Now Concerned His Radical Politics Could 'Hurt Our Business' ("Radical politics"... What a maroon...)
Gay 'Replacements Ltd' Owner Faces NC Hate After Opposing Amendment One| News | Towleroad

In Reply: "The only way to keep the word “marriage” a sacred bond, is to keep it from being used in secular law."

In reply to the following comment at the post (VIDEO) Controversies of Gay Marriage :: Faith Hope and Politics:

Wellspoken. My question is: In states where Civil Unions are recognized, and give gays the same “rights” as heterosexual married couples, why do gays still insist on being “married”?
May 23, 2012 at 9:06 am
---

In case I was in any way unclear, I’m in favor of secular marriage equality… (just in case anyone wants to rethink how well spoken I am, or anything… 8>)

As to the question, I seem to recall reading that there are over 1300 federal benefits attached to the word “marriage,” not to mention that DOMA prevents a gay couple legally “married” or “civilly united” in one state from moving to a state without marriage equality / civil unions from remaining legally united in that state, which really must stink for those affected, not to mention calling that whole US Constitution “full faith and credit clause” into question (though obviously, the powers that be in the legal / justice profession didn’t see it that way…)

That’s why I believe that the only way to keep the word “marriage” as a sacred bond, is to keep it from being used in federal, state, and local secular laws, which, if you ask me, is where the real redefinition of marriage took place years and years ago, when they first turned a religious sacrament into a term of secular law.
---

Posted May 23, 2012 at 9:35 am

In Reply: Defining Marriage: Church for Church, State for State, and Never the Twain Should Meet (Madeleine McAulay, Faith Hope and Politics Blog)

In reply to re: Vulgar Comments from “Controversies of Gay Marriage” :: Faith Hope & Politics, and more specifically, the following video:



(And shame on YouTube, both for taking it down, and for making me link to Breitbart to put it back up here.)

---


The problem as I see it is that the religious sacrament of marriage was written into secular law, where it has no place. It is and should be one's faith that defines marriage, NOT state or federal secular law.

That's not to say that secular law should have no interest in who is or is not a family unit, but there is no reason that any church or faith should set the rules for the general population, at least some of whom are not adherents to the faith setting those rules. We are not a theocracy, and it makes no more sense to use biblical definitions in secular law than it would be to allow secular law to define religious sacraments.

US law cannot redefine sacred marriage. But then, the church cannot define secular "marriage,"(that is, the term as used in federal and state laws) either.

In a more perfect world, the word "marriage" would be stripped from all secular laws--perhaps be replaced with "civil union," or some similar non-sacred term--leaving marriage to God and church alone. But since that will probably never happen, I have to hope that folks are intelligent and sophisticated enough to understand that legal marriage (and all the laws and legalities that stem from it) and sacred marriage (the sacrament, and all that God expects from those who enter into it) are not necessarily the same, and indeed never have been.

I'm fully in favor of religions defining sacred marriage for their believers with as little outside interference from the government as possible. I'm also in fully favor of we, the people, legislating, enforcing, and adjudicating the state and federal laws concerning "civil marriage" with as little influence from religious institutions as possible. To do otherwise is to allow the State to control the Church, or the Church to control the State. Neither circumstance is in keeping with American values or tradition.
---

Submitted May 21, 2012 at 5:00 am (or thereabouts... I didn't know it wasn't going to post, so I didn't pay sufficient attention to the exact time.)
Resubmitted May 21, 2012 at 12:07 pm (It doesn't seem to be a moderated blog... Maybe there was a glitch, the first time... ...but it didn't post the second time, either...)
---