The Atlantic - Latest Comments in The difficult case of Tony Dungy

Re: The difficult case of Tony Dungy

eric k — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 12:58:12 -0000

Russd,

this statement "Your example actually confirms the logic of my argument. While the civil marriage of the divorced Catholic is not recognized by the Church, the couple do enjoy all the rights extended by the law of the land to the couple." makes no sense.

My argument is that civil marraige as defined by the state has nothing to do with the religious aspect, in other words the marriage of divorced catholics is legal and has all the rights of marriage even though the church doesn't recognize it. How does that prove your point? We still call it marriage and we don;t force the church to recognize it, how would Gay marriage be any different?

Re: The difficult case of Tony Dungy

Juba — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 11:45:28 -0000

"The state has no interest in the religious aspects of marriage"

Actually I believe Proposition 8 shows that the state (of California) DOES have quite the interest in the religious aspects of marriage, because thats the only real argument against it: 'Its forbidden by natural (my religion's) law.'

The question then becomes: is it Constitutional for the state (and its voters) to take any sort of interest the religious aspects of marriage?

I believe it isnt. I love the idea of taking away the Church's duty to certify the marriage and separating the dual application of the ceremony.

Could be exactly the compromise needed to move forward.

Re: The difficult case of Tony Dungy

russd — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 09:24:08 -0000

Eric,

Please do ignore any perceived condecension because none was intended. I really was trying to be respectful of your position.

However, I would disagree with your assertion that I am correct and incorrect simultaneously. Your example actually confirms the logic of my argument. While the civil marriage of the divorced Catholic is not recognized by the Church, the couple do enjoy all the rights extended by the law of the land to the couple.

Re: The difficult case of Tony Dungy

eric k — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 18:59:45 -0000

Teh atlantci needs an edit feature,

obviously my sentence should read:

The state shouldn't be involved in the religious side and conversely the church should have nothing to with the legal side

Re: The difficult case of Tony Dungy

eric k — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 18:57:46 -0000

Russd,

I'll ignore the condenscension where you assume what I do or don't believe.

Your right and wrong at the same time.

The problem is the term marriage in the US means two things, from a legal standpoint it is a civil union, the religious side of it carries no legal significance. For example if a Catholic gets divorced they are perfectly free to get remarried legally, the church may not recognize that as a marriage and won't let a priest perform it, but as far as the law is concerend it is a marriage. All of the legal rights ascoiated with marriage are part of the civil aspect, not the religious aspect.

Your post highlights the problem's we've created by mixing civil/legal and religious marriage. The state shouldn't be involved in the legal side and conversely the church should have nothing to with the legal side.

The ideal solution would be to redefine all legal marriage as civil unions. The state has no interest in the religious aspects of marriage, within your church your free to have any ceremony you want and restrict it however you want (no gays, no divorcees etc.)

Re: The difficult case of Tony Dungy

russd — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 16:54:02 -0000

Eric sez,

The difference is Obama supports civil unions, which anyone with half a brain (so certainly Obama) knows is just semantics to make religious people happy. If a civil union has all the legal rights of a marriage it is a marriage

The problem with unbelievers trying to argue points of fatih is that they are talking about something they know little to nothing about. To a Christian, marriage is very much different from a civil union. For the Christian, marriage has its origins in Genesis chapter 2 ("For this reason a man shall leave His mother and cleave unto his wife, and the two shall become one flesh., For what the Lord has joined, let no man separate"). Marriage means a covenant relationship between husband, wife, and God with no clause for terminating the contract other than adultery. God is very clear about His views on divorce. Malachi 2:16 says "For I hate divorce," says the LORD".

On the other hand civil union is based on a contract between two people that can be voided in a court of law for nothing more than the fact that two people are tired of looking at each other. There are no moral requisities that go along with a civil union -- it merely sets up the framework for how two people who cohabitate deal with their property and with no regard to their gender.

So you see Eric, from the perspective of believers the semantic difference between marriage and civil union is a lot bigger than you understand because from the perspective of an unbeliever, the significance of the believer's relationship with the Lord is not part of the equation.

Re: The difficult case of Tony Dungy

John — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 16:03:35 -0000

Unfortunately, the word of the law and the spirit of the law are not matching - see the DMA if you want a very clear example of what I'm talking about.

As I said, refusing to recognize the marriages performed in say, Unitarian churches, just because they're between two men or two women, is DE FACTO establishment of religion. I understand that it's not seen as a de jure establishment.

Separating the ceremonies is fine; however, the only argument against gay marriage is one based in the Old Testament of the Bible. If you separate the ceremonies, gays can get married. If you refuse to separate them, then you are discriminating against denominations who believe GLBT unions to be part of their holy sacrament.

The government just has to pick it's poison. It's wrong that I can get married but the state won't recognize it, just because it's run by Southern Baptists and other evangelical nutjobs. My relationship AND my Christianity deserve respect from the government, and equal opportunity under the 1st amendment.

Re: The difficult case of Tony Dungy

MAJeff — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 15:22:30 -0000

*The issue is that for 20 years GLBT people have been able to get sacred marriages in established Christian churches, but those churches are discriminated against by the government, who refuses to give their sacrament the same recognition as the sacraments of, say, the Baptist church or the Mormon church.*

John, there is no religious discrimination occuring because the state does not recognize any marital sacraments. The state isn't recognizing a Catholic marriage but not a Unitarian one. It recognizes civil marriages and allows clergy to perform two ceremonies simultaneously. Maybe, as a way of getting rid of this nonsensical religious confusion we should just stop allowing clergy to certify civil contracts. I say, separate the ceremonies.

Re: The difficult case of Tony Dungy

eric k — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 15:16:42 -0000

Juba,

Your right, we don't know, maybe he is, but based on the fact that he is a fundamentalist Christian who would counsel gay players about the sin of homosexuality it is highly unlikely.

Re: The difficult case of Tony Dungy

John — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 11:41:34 -0000

RE: Obama

Gays have been fucked by politicians for as long as politicians have been fucking constituents.

We expect it. Someday, I hope, we will come to enjoy it.

Re: The difficult case of Tony Dungy

anonymous — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 11:19:14 -0000

" sure the Rick Warren's and Tony Dungy's will never come around, but the majority of the country will..."

I gather this is a common problem in science where (you'd hallucinate) emotional investment in falsehood would be a bit less compelling.

But it's not.

I read an essay a long time ago where somebody pointed out that, as a practical matter, pretty much nobody is ever "convinced" of some new theory. Kepler and Galileo didn't persuade anybody who had accepted the Ptolemaic system that the sun revolved around the earth that they were wrong; Darwin didn't persuade his critics natural selection was real; Einstein didn't win over people who rejected his rejection of Newton.

IIRC, the guy had a long list of the Powers that Be (um, that Were) at the moment of great innovations and advances, and tracked 'em -- and virtually all of 'em continued to reject whatever it was that was new and true until the day they died.

But their successors didn't.

What made the Keplers, Galileos and Einsteins of the world into the new conventional wisdom, wasn't simply that they were more demonstrably correct than what had gone before, it's that BECAUSE they crossed that threshold, everybody coming up was first taught 'the controversy', and within a generation or so, it was 'the historical controversy': which is how they won.

Just an example for folks who think the keys to the kingdom are in the wrong pockets.

Re: The difficult case of Tony Dungy

marc — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 09:49:58 -0000

I think that too many people use the term 'bigot' incorrectly.

I mean according to some people and their definition of bigot on this post being anti-bigot is being bigoted against bigots.

And it's laughable that the same people who trip over themselves to condemn Dungy for his views, excuse Obama for his, even though they are the same, expressed unashamedly and in public. Support for civil unions is parsing, plain and simple.

Re: The difficult case of Tony Dungy

Juba — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 09:17:55 -0000

Eric,

How can you be sure Dungy isnt as open to civil unions as Obama is? Have you asked him? Has anyone?

Re: The difficult case of Tony Dungy

anonymous — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 09:00:50 -0000

Eric answers what John avoids -- that's why I asked the question.

A better illustration of the diminished role of the purely religious marriage is polygamy: there are a few sects that perform marriage rites for guys with multiple wives, but so far as the state is concerned, they are not legal marriages. The Mormons pioneered this more than a hundred years ago -- it is an odd fact of progressive politics that Mormons originated the right of married women to inherit and own property exclusive of their husbands, precisely because it's the only way to make polygamy work: civil and religious rules are different in kind. The way it's done these days in Utah, for example, is the FIRST marriage is the legal one, and after that the others are religious marriages without legal standing. (That's why so few polygamists are actually prosecuted -- they're not breaking the law.)

In fact, the NY Times did a marvelous bit of reporting about 14 years ago on the principal legal problem Big Love marriages have: zoning. Go figure.

It seems the easiest way to do the living arrangements for families like this -- REALLY extended families -- is a big common area with various independent residences, which looks (and is legally defined) like a hotel. Since these pose utility issues (water, sewer, electricity, gas lines, fire lanes) that are problematic in residential areas, there's a guy in the Salt Lake City planning and zoning office who has to adjudicate 'em.

I wonder what Brigham Young would've thought of that.

One hard core, Reaganista conservative I know has a lesbian sister in law who is married. He refers to the "partner", and salvages his principles by insisting that what they have is a 'civil union', not the equal of his Catholic marriage: BFD.

So I'm a big believer in the old political advice: "ALWAYS concede on principle." I like practical solutions that get us what we want; the other side can be happy rationalizing that they won on rhetoric.

Re: The difficult case of Tony Dungy

eric k — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 03:27:26 -0000

Juba,

The difference is Obama supports civil unions, which anyone with half a brain (so certainly Obama) knows is just semantics to make religious people happy. If a civil union has all the legal rights of a marriage it is a marriage. I understand the position of someone like Andrew Sullivan who argues that you need the term "marriage" as a sign that Gays are full memebers of society. And I recognize that as a straight guy it is easy for me to say (since it's not my relationship being treated as different) "be real, take what you can get, baby steps, once people see that civil unions don't lead to the demise of western civilisation full acceptance will come" sure the Rick Warren's and Tony Dungy's will never come around, but the majority of the country will.

Re: The difficult case of Tony Dungy

John — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 00:39:14 -0000

Anonymous,

The issue is that for 20 years GLBT people have been able to get sacred marriages in established Christian churches, but those churches are discriminated against by the government, who refuses to give their sacrament the same recognition as the sacraments of, say, the Baptist church or the Mormon church.

This whole issue falls right in the center of the 1st amendment - it seems fairly clear that the government is picking sides in a theological discussion, and some denominations are being penalized for that. De facto, they are encouraging the establishment of those denominations who discriminate against gays vs. those who do not, by offering special benefits (i.e. marriage licenses) to those churches who refuse to marry GLBT couples.

Under the US constitution, whether it be separation of church and state ("your religion should not be legislated") or the anti-establishment clause ("the government shouldn't act to establish one religion as the state religion") bigots against gays LOSE. I think, though, we need to kick them where it hurts, and start making this a religious issue rather than a sex or civil rights issue. That's the fast track to gay marriage.

Re: The difficult case of Tony Dungy

anna perez — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 23:42:15 -0000

TNC, Anyone who would use the subjugation and murder of their fellow human beings for political gain and still expect to be lauded for their "tolerance" because they didn't send post cards to their friends and family celebrating scenes of the lastest lynching may be worse than the most candid racist. I'm an optimist, especially now. I really believe that today in this country, most racism (we are talking anti-Black people racism, but this is generally applicable to human society) is ignorance, the fear of the "unknown" aided and abetted by the volume and volacity of today's media and this nation's history. Ignorance can be fixed by personal experience and information. That's at least one of the reasons our next president is an African American man named Barack Hussein Obama.

I guess the question is "what's worse, being a racist or using racism?" The former is usually ignorant or stupid, the later is always cynical. The answer is all of the above.

Re: The difficult case of Tony Dungy

morzer — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 22:45:55 -0000

But it's a very Republican thing to do.

Posted by gwangung | January 14, 2009 9:02 PM

Pssst.. I want to win over Republicans, not become them *s*.

Re: The difficult case of Tony Dungy

unclesmedley — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 22:45:33 -0000

bigot...homophobe...infidel...nigger...fanatic...

All this infantile name calling and I've-counted-all-the-words-in-the-bible certainty as to who's who, what's what and who's allowed to say what, makes for a pretty ridiculous conversation.

Re: The difficult case of Tony Dungy

D-Sel — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 21:53:42 -0000

Green,

I'm not sure your response has a lot of substance to it, at least as I interpret it (please correct me if I misunderstand). I understand you to say that some people have a sincere conception of marriage as consisting exclusively of one man and one woman. Point given. I just don't see how having a clearly defined and sincere conception of some right absolves one of blame if he or she seeks to arbitrarily exclude another from that right. If a person wants to exclude a group of people from a fundamental right, like marriage, the next question should be why. If the best answer is "well, I just always understood that it should be limited in such a way that you're excluded but I have no good reason to exclude you other than my subjective understanding of the right," well, I'd submit that is not a very compelling answer. And if the person actually believes the law should reflect his own personal conceptions of what a right should be even if it means arbitrarily excluding a group of people from enjoying that right, I would consider that person to be, in some fashion or another, a bigot. It may not be the most malicious example of bigotry out there, but it is bigotry nonetheless.

I'm not at my most eloquent (it's been a long day). Here's someone else making the case far better than I ever could,if you have an hour to spend reading up on it:

http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~usclrev/pdf/074401.pdf

Re: The difficult case of Tony Dungy

gwangung — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 21:02:39 -0000

Being this aggressive and denunciatory about his faith will hardly help to open dialogue with him.

But it's a very Republican thing to do.

Re: The difficult case of Tony Dungy

morzer — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 20:33:23 -0000

On Dungy, the man's prejudiced and irrational. God is his excuse for holding those beliefs, so he's free in this great country to shout those beliefs from the rooftops.

Posted by PhoenixRising | January 14, 2009 8:23 PM

It seems unfair to assume that Dungy's faith is simply an excuse. I don't find it congenial, but that doesn't make it insincere or less than deeply felt. Being this aggressive and denunciatory about his faith will hardly help to open dialogue with him.

Re: The difficult case of Tony Dungy

PhoenixRising — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 20:23:54 -0000

N, you might try this with your evangelical friend: If you're using state law to save people from hellfire, consider whether that's an appropriate tool from your role not as a Jesus-following man but as an American. It is fundamentally unpatriotic to use your vote to force your neighbor to live as you think best.

It's also impious. The Romans who crucified His Son had the same plan as your friend: If only we can shut up this weirdo with his dangerous ideas about love and tolerance, our religion will continue to dominate and its spiritual demands will be fulfilled. Now, the Romans' beliefs required the inequity in their society that Jesus preached against. So the state tried to stop His message. So how did that work for them?

Finally, the separation of church and state was designed to benefit churches. Is it really a good idea to bend the power of the state to fit the present-day norms of one religion? What if the majority were Muslims, Jews or atheists?

On Dungy, the man's prejudiced and irrational. God is his excuse for holding those beliefs, so he's free in this great country to shout those beliefs from the rooftops. Yet his right to swing his fist ends where my nose begins, and his persuasion is damaging real families.

Unless he has put as much time, energy, and fame behind the cause of getting civil not-marriages for same-sex couples as he has into objecting to gays geting married--he's a bigot. I don't give a damn what a man believes if it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket, as the man said. When you start doing both, while claiming your moral beliefs as cover for the immoral results*, that we've got bigotry.

*All major religions require believers to protect the widow and orphan, and to be kind to neighbors. Violating that requirement is immoral. Some of today's Christians (GLBT rights, women's health), Jews (Gaza) and Muslims (al-Qaeda actions) seem to have a common stumbling block about who the neighbors and widows and orphans can and can't be.

Re: The difficult case of Tony Dungy

Darkrose — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 20:07:38 -0000

Green: Opposition to same sex marriage does not in itself imply any sort of hatred or intolerance of gay people, it, by itself, means just that- the indiviual doesn't support changeing the way they define marriage to the way you'd like them to define marraige.

The problem is that while an individual person may be able to reconcile opposing same-sex marriage and not hating gay people, for those of us who happen to be gay, the result is the same regardless of how you personally feel. You can love the gay people for days, but if you voted for Prop 8, then you actively support writing discrimination into the CA state constitution, and you are saying that I do not deserve the right to make the same legal committment to the person I love as someone who is heterosexual, solely because of my sexual orientation.

There's no way for me to parse"You don't deserve the same rights I do because of [insert characteristic here]" as anything other than "you are less-than", and that, to me, is the essence of bigotry.

Re: The difficult case of Tony Dungy

morzer — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 19:16:13 -0000

It seems possible to me to say that Dungy has bigoted views on a specific topic without regarding him as a bigot in his overall view of society or the conduct of his life. I can't tell you that I know a huge amount about the man, and have never interacted with him personally, but it seems a little silly to worry too much about the opinions of one former NFL coach as opposed to a multitude of priests, politicians and people of greater influence.

I would further suggest that each of us probably holds views on some social issue that others might consider bigoted, whether we are honest about this or not. I support a woman's right to choose - which, to pro-lifers, might seem bigotry from their point of view. Why does the man hate the unborn etc etc?

Frankly, I worry more about the bigoted views of someone like Rick Warren who has a mega-church taking its theology from him, rather than those of Tony Dungy, which seem to me to have rather less impact on society as a whole. This is not to agree with Dungy, just to say that there are probably limits to the value of picking him out as the focus of such a discussion.