Posted on 12/09/2002 5:13:47 AM PST by SJackson
This is an article from yesterday in the (Nashville) Tennessean newspaper that bears directly on the definition and codification of marriage by law:
No marriage, no family rate at Y
By HOLLY EDWARDS
Staff Writer
Efforts by the YMCA of Middle Tennessee to ensure that couples obtaining a family membership are married with children have angered gay rights activists who view the policy as discriminatory and have drawn praise from conservative groups that say it promotes the traditional family.
While the definition of family has not changed at any of the 21 centers in Middle Tennessee, YMCA officials say they decided to step up enforcement of the policy this year, when they noticed membership ''inconsistencies.''
Gay rights activists say many gays and lesbians have enrolled as families and couples at YMCAs throughout the region.
However, while all of the centers are open to gays and lesbians, homosexuals as well as unmarried heterosexuals do not qualify for membership as families or couples, said Phil Newman, a spokesman for YMCA of Middle Tennessee.
''The definition of the family is rooted in the YMCA's historical mission, our community's traditional definition of a family and the state's definition of a family,'' Newman said. ''But we are open to everyone and want to exclude no one.''
Bill Adcock said he and his partner felt excluded last month when they and their 7-year-old adopted daughter were denied family membership at the Margaret Maddox Family YMCA in east Nashville.
Adcock said the three of them went to the center together, filled out an application form and wrote a check for $150 to cover the $100 joining fee and $50 balance for the remainder of the month. The monthly fee for families is $75, while individual membership costs $55 monthly.
The following day, Adcock said, an employee of the center called him and told him he did not qualify for family membership.
Adcock said the rejection was a financial as well as an emotional blow.
''My partner and I have been together for 10½ years, and we are committed to spending our lives together with our little girl,'' he said. ''We don't want special treatment, we just want to be treated like what we are, a family.''
Officials at the YMCA national headquarters say individual YMCAs and associations of YMCAs are free to create any policy regarding family membership. Some YMCAs define families broadly as two or more adults with children, while others specify marital status, said Arnold Collins, YMCA spokesman.
''All 2,400 of our YMCAs are created community by community, and they reflect the values of those communities,'' Collins said. ''We usually advise the centers to start a dialogue with the community and come up with a definition that fits.''
While local YMCA officials said they are simply reflecting the community's values, gay activists said it is not the YMCA's role to define the family for anybody.
''The YMCA's motto is 'We build families' but what they're really building is exclusionary families,'' said Mark Lopez of Nashville, a member of Human Rights Campaign, a national advocacy group for homosexuals. ''If you are excluding people based on your own personal beliefs, that is discrimination. It's not the role of a fitness center to tell me what a family is.''
However, Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, an agency of the Southern Baptist Convention, praised the YMCA's decision. ''No matter how committed or joined at the heart they may be, we clearly do not see homosexual relationships as normal or healthy,'' Land said. ''I think it's important for society to affirm heterosexual marriage as the bedrock institution in society.''
But officials with the YMCA — formerly known as the Young Men's Christian Association — said they do not intend their definition of family to be a condemnation of homosexuals or unmarried couples. ''It's hard to define family as society changes, and we're keeping an eye on that,'' Newman said. ''It's not our intention to judge anyone, but we have to have some kind of membership categories and set standards.''
Newman added that the YMCA has offered to enroll Adcock and his daughter as a couple under a revised definition of ''couple'' that includes a single parent and child. In addition, the center has offered to waive the $100 membership enrollment fee for Adcock's partner and give him a three-month membership for free.
Adcock said that to him the issue is one of justice, not money.
''It's disappointing to feel that society has progressed and then run into something like this,'' he said. ''I don't really care to belong to an organization where my family does not feel welcome, respected or appreciated.''
Your position is in direct opposition to the Bible but is consistent with the dark spiritual forces which have turned America into another Sodom and Gomorrah. The flames may start above, but they will go on forever and ever and ever and ever.
No flaming, just obersavtions.
Of course, there are always exceptions to rules, but exceptions should not define the rules.
Church attendance is another.
Now we've entered definite tinfoil-hat territory. However, I'll agree -- my home is the Church of Steve-B, and I demand credit for going there an average of... carry the two... 17.8 hours per day (i.e. the government is going to owe me money).
It could but it would be a lie. I seem to remember that the difference between the level of promiscuity of a single 'gay' and that of a coupled 'gay' wasn't all that much. Promiscuity is one of the defining characteristics of the SAD disease. Since they willfully (eagerly) violate the social rules against sexual perversion already they will violate the social rules against adultery.
GSA(P)
Marriage between one man and one woman is the basis for our entire culture. We are all better off when marriages are healthy.
You always get more of anything you subsidize. Marriage is one area where the government should subsidize (Of course all other entitlement type programs should be scrapped because they do not contribute to the general welfare of society)
Church attendance is another.
Now we've entered definite tinfoil-hat territory.
We'll just have to disagree. Christian church going people are almost always better citizens than non churchgoing.
GSA(P)
GSA(P)
Or you could forget this foolish troll, already.
Where is equal rights for a church required by the constitution?
God Save America (Please)
"If it hasn't happened already"?!?!
Dude, we call them Unitarians. (Though Trinitarian Christians should not think ourselves too far removed from this folly... not a few Episcopalians, Methodists, Presbyterians, Roman Catholics, and the occasional odd Jimmuh-Cahduh type Baptist are hell-bent in favor of jumping on board the Synagogues of Sodom bandwagon...)
This article is already five years old:
In the past six years I have performed three same-gender marriage ceremonies. All three couples have been women, and two of those couples have purchased homes and remain together and in Hancock County. However, while I can give the blessing of the church to encourage their stable, committed, loving, monogamous relationships, I cannot bestow any of the legal privileges that are given to all of the heterosexual unions that I bless. ~~ excerpt, "The Case for Gay Marriage", a sermon by the Rev. J. Mark Worth April 13, 1997
Whine! Whine! Sodomite Unions should get State Privileges also!!
And, so long as the State is involved, the "good" reverend Mark will always have this argument to make. As always, follow the Money.
Just don't give them my tax dollars to buy their oats.
If there's no financial or legal benefits accruing, and if no one gives a hoot if they're making a "statement," then most of this will just go away anyhow.
41 posted on 12/09/2002 11:29 AM PST by xzins
Render the Holy Rite of Marriage unto the disposition of Caesar, and he will dispose of it however he pleases.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.