LatinoPoliticsBlog.com

Latino religous leadership up in arms over same sex marriage

September 21st, 2007 · 30 Comments

I found this press release today while combing through the news. Some prominent Latino religious leaders, including the Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, the same doofus who said that we are telenovela, Ricky Martin, J Lo, salsa and habañero chiles, want a constitutional amendment to protect marriage as only a union between a man and a woman. Out of all the pressing issues that affect Latinos and other Americans, this one brought out La Raza to rally in San Fernando. Can you believe this? Let’s not rally for better wages, for the end to death and destruction in Iraq or for better schools and access to higher education, but let’s get scream and shout because gays want to get married. Who cares? We as a people have more issues to be upset about. I certainly don’t think that allowing gays to marry will impact our growing out-of-wedlock birth rate or our high school drop out rate.

Share

Tags: Evangelicals · Same-sex marriage

30 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Baerguez // Sep 21, 2007 at 2:44 am

    And you wonder why Latinos, as an ethnic group, sit at the bottom of the food chain, are the largest minority group in prisons, and have very little political clout. To waste time and resources protesting issues like Same Sex Marriage conveys how little we know and understand the adverse political issues oppressing us today. Why can’t we learn from the actions of the NAACP, the Urban League, and the Rainbow Coalition? They are all right now in Jena, Louisiana protesting against racism and injustice. When is the last time you’ve seen La Raza doing that? Do we have to constantly remind the world, not only how ignorant we are, but how twisted and maligned our values are also?

  • 2 Latino Pundit // Sep 21, 2007 at 2:44 am

    People are motivated by fear. They are afraid of gay couples. Maybe, there is something deep down inside some of these people that they don’t want to confront within themselves. Maybe they are closet fags or homophobic or whatever…

    I agree. We should be motivated by OUR futures…not someone else’s.

  • 3 reenee // Sep 21, 2007 at 2:08 pm

    I could not agree with you more. Who cares? I’ve been railing for years that intelligent organized protests about real issues combined with efforts to improve school performance, prevent 14 year old mothers and perhaps try to find out why so many of our youth gravitate towards dead end futures in gangs, would be much more effective than running around waving flags, or pontificating about non-issues like same sex marriage.
    Working within the system to change it is much better than to alienate those that can be used to help the cause.

  • 4 Michaelr // Sep 21, 2007 at 6:25 pm

    Where are our political leaders? Why are people following this Rev. Samuel Rodriguez in these stupid, self-serving protests against human beings only seeking their pursuit of happiness? With all the problems facing Latinos, we choose to waste our time protesting same-sex marriages? This man is obviously perverse, inanely selfish, and living in a bubble. Where are his Christian values? His hatred would be better served if he could focus it on political issues oppressing the Latino community. This is a man of God?

  • 5 PMG! // Sep 23, 2007 at 6:48 pm

    This is why it took us going to six catholic churches to find our right one…

    Anyway, this type of rhetoric which is not only stupid, but also just plain lazy and cowardly. It takes intelligence, strength and bravery to tackle the real and complex problems like find a viable national health care solution… of securing our border while not choking our manual labor supply… of making sure that truly no child, poor, autistic, or abused does get left behind.

    Its no wonder that these ‘issues’ are the meat and potatoes of the GOP…

    –Dommy!

  • 6 HispanicPundit // Sep 25, 2007 at 5:58 am

    I wonder, what are your views on polygamy? Should it or should it not be legalized as well?

  • 7 webmaster // Sep 25, 2007 at 2:45 pm

    We have tried experiments with polygamy in parts of the US and have seen it play out in other countries. I don’t think that it should be legalized. I don’t think that you can compare gay/lesbian marriage to polygamy. It seems that most gays that I know who are committed to a partner have no desire to live a Warren Jeffs like existence. Is this some sort of a “slippery slope” argument that if we let gays get married that we should allow polygamy? Maybe we could try it out in Utah and see what happens there… but wait, I would bet that the Mormon leadership would deny that there are gays in Utah. ;)

  • 8 Michaelr // Sep 25, 2007 at 6:23 pm

    Polygamy has been illegal in the United States since 1781…and for numerous reasons. The utmost being the forced subjugation and demoralization of women, which produces offspring that tend to regenerate hereditary family diseases, emotional, and physical conditions that prohibit those children from living full and enlightened lives. It’s bad enough most of us choose to waste 2-3 hours per day watching Network Television. How would you like to be born into a culture that teaches you that women are only mindless baby-making handmaidens, and men are demigods? It’s bound to have a profound influence on your ability to even appear slightly intelligent. For health reasons alone, and the negative physical, emotional, and cultural effects on the offspring of those unions, Polygamy should continue to be illegal. Same sex unions don’t reproduce, so there aren’t any innocent victims. Look what the Mormons have done to Utah, Arizona, and Idaho. Do you want to see those cultures expanded? We have enough ignorance and stupidity in the world already. Do you want to multiply it tenfold?

  • 9 leesee // Sep 25, 2007 at 7:04 pm

    To compare gay marriage to polygamy is a flawed argument, it’s apples and oranges.
    Gay people deserve the same rights as heterosexuals, it’s the right thing to do.

  • 10 HispanicPundit // Sep 26, 2007 at 1:41 am

    One can make arguments in favor of polygamy that overcome all of the above criticisms…and even so, even if one were to make society concerned criticisms against gay marriage (say divorce rates, spread of AIDS, etc) that wouldn’t much sway proponents of gay marriage either.

    So yes, I am saying that for one to be for gay marriage one has to be logically for polygamy. The only difference between the two is that gay marriage has political clout and polygamy does not.

  • 11 webmaster // Sep 26, 2007 at 1:58 am

    Spread of AIDS??? Ok, if anything, I think that married couples (gay or straight) are less likely to contract AIDS. You think twice before cheating when you have made a legal contract and obligation to another person because your partners disease could become your own and vice versa. And if one party is HIV + and married, it seems that there would be a smaller chance that said person would go sleeping around outside of the marriage union. How is that similar to a polygamy situation where the disease could be transmitted beyond two people?

    That doesn’t make much sense.

    I have known gays who are more committed to their partners and relationships than some straight couples. I don’t think that it would hurt me to see some of them get married.

  • 12 reenee // Sep 26, 2007 at 3:52 am

    I will rarely get into a debate about gay marriage. For one, it’s none of my business. I am in no position to condemn anyone else for their lifestyle choices.

    Polygamy has no place in the argument regarding same sex marriage. In my opinion, polygamy is the result of what seemed like a good idea to whatever greedy man was setting up the rules at the time.

    As for AIDS and how it spreads, heterosexuals are spreading it at record speed in Africa and other countries.

    It’s a tad ignorant to be blaming gay people for everything that’s wrong with the world..

    Yanno?

  • 13 HispanicPundit // Sep 27, 2007 at 2:00 am

    Legalizing gay marriage does more than just push fidelity within marriage, it also puts a stamp of approval on gay sex itself. And considering that gay sex, specifically male, has the highest likelihood of spreading AIDS, you will wind up with an increase in AIDS victims.

    For the record, in case there is any confusion, my argument against gay marriage (and polygamy for that matter) is not on the basis of AIDs, divorce rates or so forth, it is more on the basis of limited government and children.

  • 14 Michaelr // Sep 27, 2007 at 5:45 pm

    What makes you think you can stop gay sex? Gay sex is as old as heterosexual sex. Maybe you should call the CDC in Atlanta and pass on your theories that gay sex produces more AIDS victims than heterosexual sex and they can stop utilizing all their resources in Africa and focus exclusively in the gay communities in San Francisco, New York, West Hollywood, and Miami. You must be homophobic to be so obsessed with this. How does gay marriage endanger your right to exist? Hunger is a bigger worldwide problem than AIDS.

  • 15 O/S. // Sep 28, 2007 at 1:50 am

    I think the problem with us latinos is that the majorty of us have a huge jealous and envy streak. Instead of congratulating a friend on a promotion, or Personal gain. We choose to talk behind there back and call them braggers. I work in the entertainment industry. I tried working on latino run programs. everyone is out for themselves. The several programs i have worked in. the latino management treated the latino crews like crap. compared to the non latino crews when we traveled abroad. Alot of the lower income to middle, have no respect for anyone. sometimes it makes me ashame to be mexican when i go to the park to walk my dogs on a sunday afternoon. I see how the Raza leaves all their trash everywhere after a soccer game. I ask them to pick it, because i come here often and everyone looks at me, like im looking at you with disgust. I tell them they make me embarrased to be latino. We have to educate our raza and make them aware that you dont need money to have self respect and dignity.
    I was born in Mexico, educated in the USA. FYI

  • 16 HispanicPundit // Sep 28, 2007 at 4:01 am

    Michaelr,

    There is a difference between trying to prevent gay sex and encouraging it…I am arguing that gay marriage does the latter and have not made an argument, for or con, about preventing.

  • 17 michaelr // Sep 28, 2007 at 4:39 am

    O/S: We often call what you’re describing Third World Mentality, in that the choices we make seem to be all self-serving and do not consider the consequences of tomorrow. I’ve been abroad and seen it practiced on a grander scale, and its almost comical. Stay blogging…and you’ll avoid all those short sighted people.

  • 18 O/S. // Sep 28, 2007 at 10:25 pm

    Being employed by the entertainment industry. I often get sexually harrased by male execs. My friends laugh at me when I tell them, because I’m also a male, I’m straight as a titanium arrow. I Have to befriend and accept the gay community in order to stay employed and deal with the Gay men and horny old cougar production execs. I learned to deal with it. I just brush it off and tell them I’m straight. I never have been homophobic. I dont have a problem with gay marriage. i think Everyone deserves to have the same benefits of a marriage wheather it be with a life partner or a woman. Everyone deseves to live as happy as possible. My freinds and I kid around and say if it was legalized we would get married for the tax benefits. why not use the system to our advantage. Then we realized that we would be marrying a dude. So there goes that idea! What bothers me the most is the fags. Thats what my gay co worker calls them. He calls himself a gay man not a fag. I come to find out that a fag is what we most assume a gay man to be according to him. feminine, flamboyant, and very out there. The “hey look at me I love men” thats the kind we most associate gay men to be. My co worker says a gay man has self respect and his sexuality is no one business but his and his partner. I have been friends with him for over three years and had no idea he was gay. When I found out. I asked him how come he never told me. He simply repled it’s none of your business what gender I lean towards. Turns out his best friend was his life partner and has been for over 8yrs. they have been faithfull to each other the whole time. Thats when I realized why all those excuses in the past when it came time to double date. Knowing he is gay didn’t change how i saw him. We just stop playing basketball on opposite teams. LOL. just kidding. He’s not into sports. Aids is always put in the forefront and blamed gay men for spreading it. I Blame infidelity on the spread of aids. Enough sad! I think we as a society would tolerate gay marriages and gay couples, if they acted more like mainstream hetero couples do. Like my co worker. Everyone knows he is gay, but is well respected because he has class, self repect, and respects everyone around him.

  • 19 webmaster // Sep 29, 2007 at 1:32 am

    HP, I think that marriage is more about commitment than it is about sex. In some ways, I would argue that dating encourages more sex than marriage does if you really think about it. When one is single, gay or straight, he or she resorts to a variety of tactics to keep things interesting in a relationship or to hold onto somebody and potentially has multiple partners.

    I think that O/S brings up a good point that infidelity has more to do with the spread of disease whether the partners are gay or straight.

    To bring this discussion back to the original post, why do you think that some within the Latino leadership even bother with this issue? Aren’t there more pressing concerns to be resolved?

  • 20 reenee // Sep 29, 2007 at 5:44 am

    Webmaster, thank you for yanking us back to reality. Yes, there are LOTS more pressing issues than worrying over whether someone is gay or straight.

  • 21 HispanicPundit // Oct 1, 2007 at 4:57 am

    Which brings me back to why I find the arguments against polygamy, especially by gay marriage proponents, lacking.

    As far as the original post goes, well I think many latinos find gay marriage morally repugnant and consider moral issues more important than say, financial issues or atleast political issues.

  • 22 Michaelr // Oct 2, 2007 at 12:35 am

    And what Latinos are you referring too? The ones who only shop at Wal-Mart and follow the GOP? These issues are apples and oranges. Do you really think a human being has a choice between being straight and being gay? You’ve got relatives who are gay…we all do. You’re probably gay and hiding behind this religious condescending morally repugnant self-righteous attitude because you’re shamed of coming out of the closet. You shouldn’t be shamed of what you are.
    Polygamy is a chosen lifestyle. These are heterosexuals who have chosen to treat males as demigods, and repress females. Gay couples simply want to take care of each other. Why would you deny another human being that simple need?

  • 23 HispanicPundit // Oct 2, 2007 at 3:08 am

    Michaelr,

    I don’t mean to offend you but I must say that I find it really difficult to carry on a discussion with you. Not because we disagree, after all, my views are not exactly mainstream, but because you seem to have a really difficult time understanding or at least restating my point, and doing so without bringing in my personal life.

    For the record, I did not imply, one way or the other the following,

    1. I have not made an argument (for or con) about the government trying to prevent gay sex.

    2. I am not addressing, one way or the other, gay sex…what I am addressing is gay MARRIAGE ( they are really very different things).

    3. I have not made a religious argument either for or against gays, gay sex, or gay marriage.

    4. I have not made any reference to my sexuality – whether I am a homosexual or a heterosexual has not been determined and cannot be determined from what I have written.

    5. I have not argued that we should deny human beings the ability to care for one another.

    Also, I know that you think I am a combination of a racist, homophobic, traitor to latinos everywhere, and stupid, and that’s fine, you are entitled to whatever opinion you have of me…but here I am trying to address a certain argument, and regardless of what my personal preferences and/or sexual orientation is, those argument should stand or fall INDEPENDENTLY of my character/preference. So how about we try addressing arguments and keep the personal stuff out of this? Let’s just, for the sake of argument, agree that you are a better person than I am. You are smarter, more tolerant, care more about latinos, and are much better looking than I am – in addition to anything else you want to throw in there….now can we address the argument? :-)

  • 24 webmaster // Oct 2, 2007 at 5:19 pm

    HP, so to clarify your argument… gay marriage supporters have a weak argument against polygamy?

    Don’t modern day polygamists believe that theirs is a lifestyle granted from a revelation of God? As I understand it, gays do not make these kinds of claims regarding their desire to legally join with a single partner.

  • 25 HispanicPundit // Oct 3, 2007 at 4:55 am

    I am making two separate arguments here – one a tangent from your original post, the other addressing your original post.

    The tangent is basically that if you support gay marriage you have to logically, or atleast very slippery slope-ishly, support polygamy. I can’t see how the two could be logically separated. The only reason that one has a chance of being legal while the other does not is political support, nothing more. The responses I have seen on here have further strengthened my view.

    The one directly addressing your original post is that many latino leaders oppose gay marriage because they, like many latinos in general, “find gay marriage morally repugnant and consider moral issues more important than say, financial issues or atleast political issues.”

    You write, “Don’t modern day polygamists believe that theirs is a lifestyle granted from a revelation of God? As I understand it, gays do not make these kinds of claims regarding their desire to legally join with a single partner.”

    Modern day proponents of polygamy are not a homogeneous group. There are varying arguments made in support of polygamy. Sure, there are some that come from religious arguments, but there are the secular reasons as well, see here:
    http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2006/10/is_there_a_case.html
    http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2006/11/reply_on_polyga.html

    http://hispanicpundit.com/2006/08/30/equal-rights-for-polygamists-too/

    Also, while gay marriage proponents don’t make the religious argument, they certainly rely on a religious rationale behind government sanctioned marriage to support their position. They argue, in short, that since they love each other, they too should be allowed to marry. But marriage (atleast government sanctioned marriage) has never been about love. Of course marriage involves love, but the primary reason the government is involved in marriage in the first place is because of the procreation of children (see here: http://engram-backtalk.blogspot.com/2006/10/ann-althouse-asks-about-same-sex.html). If marriage never produced children, then declarations of marriage would be no different than, say, declarations of ‘friends forever’, or ‘best friends for life’. In other words, if marriage was primarily about love disconnected from the procreation of children, as gay proponents claim, then they have a stronger argument for eliminating marriage from government (or do you think the government should also certify ‘best friend’ commitments, and other non pro-creative unions? If not, why love?) than to be included in government sanctioned marriage.

    As I see it, there are three logically consistent paths the government could take to placate the demands of gay marriage proponents:

    1. Eliminate marriage completely and make it Church based.

    2. allow gay marriage but also allow polygamy, polyandry, and any other form of adult sexual union people choose…with no secular rationale behind each.

    3. My personal favorite was given by Robert P. George, professor of jurisprudence at Princeton University, he writes:

    http://hispanicpundit.com/2005/04/29/should-civil-unions-only-be-restricted-to-gay-couples/

    In other words, domestic partnerships, if states elect to have them, should be nondiscriminatory and inclusive. They should be available to people based on needs, not on sex. The law certainly should not discriminate in favor of those unmarried people who are in sexual relationships over those with the same needs who, though committed to caring for each other, are not sexual partners. Widowed sisters living together and looking after each other, or an unmarried adult son taking care of his elderly father, may have the need for domestic partner benefits such as hospital visitation privileges and insurance rights.

    A constitutionally sound domestic partnership law would not discriminate against such people by excluding them from eligibility simply because their relationships are not sexual–just as a nondiscriminatory and inclusive law would not undermine marriage by treating unmarried sexual partners as if they were married.

    It’s the mixing of these that confuses me.

  • 26 Not The Only One // Oct 3, 2007 at 9:33 pm

    I’m a libertarian, so I think the government should allow anyone to marry. Gay marriage, polygamy, beastiality, whatever. Certainly these are not lifestyle choices I would personally make, but I don’t think the government should arrest someone else who chooses such a path in life. Some of the above have argued that polygamy is illegal because it leads to the demoralization and abuse of women.

    These people are so narrow-minded, because polygamy, if legalized, would be held inside and outside of a religious context (i.e., Mormonism, Islam) and could very well include marriages consisting of one wife and two husbands. I watched a National Geographic episode about some country in Asia where a woman is allowed to marry a man and as many of that man’s brothers are willing to join the marriage. So such a union does exist, but most Westerners only think of polygamy in the context of one husband with multiple wives.

    As for women being abused and demoralized in a polygamist marriage, guesss what? That happens anyway in polygamist marriage simply because of the illegal nature of such a union. It’s the same reason why hookers don’t run to the police when their pimps beat them up, or why drug dealers don’t call 911 after being robbed. A woman who is a second or third wife and (not a legal one) who is being abused by her illegal husband would never go to the authorities because her whole relationship is illegal to begin with. Criminals seldom go to the authorities seeking help for troubles related to their criminal activity precisely because said activity is illegal and seeking such help would involve telling the police that you are engaging in this illegal activity.

    If polygamy was legalized all those Americans living in polygamist marriages would come and get their licenses, and those wives who are underage or are being abused can get the legal assistance they need. Therefore, legalizing polygamy would result in fewer reporters of domesetic abuse, not more.

    I thought the proponents of gay marriage contended that whatever takes place between two mutually consenting adults should be respected, and certainly not outlawed. Well, what about three or four mutually consenting adults? Seriously, what’s the difference except the number of mutually consenting adults?

    As for same-sex marriage, Rev. whatever is a fool is he thinks gay marriage is why so many Latinos end up pregnant teen mothers, in jail or murdered before they see their 30th birthday. Maybe he’s against gay marriage because his favorite choir boy is pushing for him to make more of a committment.

    Can I leave off with a joke? According to Bill Maher, all marriages are same-sex marriages: every night, it’s the same sex!

  • 27 Michaelr // Oct 4, 2007 at 12:10 am

    I wholeheartedly agree.

  • 28 HispanicPundit // Oct 4, 2007 at 9:37 pm

    Great response INTOO…I’d like to see what the proponents of gay marriage have to respond…Do they agree or disagree with also allowing polygamy and any other form of adult relationship?

    If not, why not? Because of course, if you don’t agree with gay marriage err I mean polygamy, you are really just intolerant and like racists of old. After all, this country once prohibited Black and White marriages so prohibiting polygamy is really nothing different – racist bastards, those opponents of polygamy are! ;)

  • 29 Mayor Tony will marry ‘ya! // May 17, 2008 at 12:26 pm

    [...] unending war in Iraq, one would think that gay marriage would be a non-issue. I have blogged about this before. Personally, I feel that gay and lesbian Americans should have the same rights as their straight [...]

  • 30 YolandaR // Sep 1, 2008 at 11:26 pm

    Well….Well….Well….Ricky Martin had a surrogate mother to deliver his twin offsprings. Now Ricky isn’t married is he? Oh my God he is going to go to hell or do you think he has changed his mind about same sex marriages too?

Leave a Comment