Gay marriage is still banned in the Navajo nation

marvin martian

Diamond Member
Sep 29, 2020
33,947
50,701
2,788
Texas Hill Country
Interesting piece here.

I didn't know the Navajo support traditional marriage so strongly.



Donna Nez, who pastors the Hard Rock Community Church in northwest Arizona, also opposes the bill. She said she worries it will weaken families and does not believe Navajo, or Diné, tradition approved of same-sex relationships.

"If it was our tribal way, Diné way, I didn't know about it," said Nez, 56, whose surname is common among Navajos. Her great-grandparents and grandparents "were all medicine men and medicine women, and I never heard of them say there's a man and a man to be married and a woman and a woman to be married."
 
Yeah, it should be banned because marriage is a holy union between and a man and a woman. Not between two women or two men or one or both of the partners going through an identity crisis and not sure what the heck they are. 🙄
 
Yeah, it should be banned because marriage is a holy union between and a man and a woman. Not between two women or two men or one or both of the partners going through an identity crisis and not sure what the heck they are. 🙄

If you want to have a "holy union", go ahead. Other people don't want "holy unions", my marriage is not a "holy union" and never will be. And I'm not gay.
 
If you want to have a "holy union", go ahead. Other people don't want "holy unions", my marriage is not a "holy union" and never will be. And I'm not gay
I fully support marriage as a religious expression of one’s love and civil unions as a governments version having both treated equally
 
I fully support marriage as a religious expression of one’s love and civil unions as a governments version having both treated equally

Well, marriage is what it is in the current day. You don't have to agree that Islam is true, you don't have to agree that marriage is between two consenting adults and is a a civil union first....

but they are that....

you want your marriage to be religious, then make it religious. My non-religious marriage doesn't do anything to you and your religion....
 
Well, marriage is what it is in the current day. You don't have to agree that Islam is true, you don't have to agree that marriage is between two consenting adults and is a a civil union first....

but they are that....

you want your marriage to be religious, then make it religious. My non-religious marriage doesn't do anything to you and your religion....
Your civil union is cool, hope it makes you happy. But a marriage has always been a religious affair
 
Your civil union is cool, hope it makes you happy. But a marriage has always been a religious affair

No, it hasn't "always" been a religious affair, my grandparents got married and weren't religious in the slightest. They probably got married in the 1930s....
 
Yeah, it should be banned because marriage is a holy union between and a man and a woman. Not between two women or two men or one or both of the partners going through an identity crisis and not sure what the heck they are. 🙄

A "holy union" is a religious connotation; and as such, can be banned by religions. But in the U.S., which is not a theology, nor claims an official religion, but does sanction and license marriage, has no choice, as bound by the U.S. Constitution, to treat same sex marriage exactly the same as it treats traditional marriage.

On Indian land, not bound by the U.S. Constitution, they are free to do whatever they want.
 
Interesting piece here.

I didn't know the Navajo support traditional marriage so strongly.



Donna Nez, who pastors the Hard Rock Community Church in northwest Arizona, also opposes the bill. She said she worries it will weaken families and does not believe Navajo, or Diné, tradition approved of same-sex relationships.

"If it was our tribal way, Diné way, I didn't know about it," said Nez, 56, whose surname is common among Navajos. Her great-grandparents and grandparents "were all medicine men and medicine women, and I never heard of them say there's a man and a man to be married and a woman and a woman to be married."

That's some fascinating shit right there :dunno:
 
A "holy union" is a religious connotation; and as such, can be banned by religions. But in the U.S., which is not a theology, nor claims an official religion, but does sanction and license marriage, has no choice, as bound by the U.S. Constitution, to treat same sex marriage exactly the same as it treats traditional marriage.
then show us where in the constitution it states that
 
Secular marriage is a relatively modern affair. It’s always been a religious tradition

Well... firstly the term "marriage" comes from the 1200s-1300s.

This came from the French, marier (to marry) which came from Latin, maritare...

"In a 1955 article in Man, Leach argued that no one definition of marriage applied to all cultures. He offered a list of ten rights associated with marriage, including sexual monopoly and rights with respect to children, with specific rights differing across cultures. "

And none of them include the term "religion". Religion was a power base in the past, and a lot of these would have been religious marriages, however that doesn't necessarily mean all marriages were religious.

Marriage has been so many different things over the course of History, to suggest it's ONLY a religious affair would almost certainly be wrong. To suggest that civil marriages have never existed before a certain date in the near past would also be wrong.


"According to the book The History of Human Marriage, in the early Christian era, marriage was considered a private matter not regulated by the church or the state. In fact, the church didn't fully take over the business of marriage until 1563 at the Council of Trent. Religion and marriage, in the context of history, seem to be newlyweds. "

So, even within Christianity it's most likely that religious marriages are a "new thing".
 
Not the gay marriage crap again. California Dems votes to ban gay marriage, mostly blacks and Hispanics were against it. Dems sued in court and overturned the will of the people I thought that was the end of it.
 
I am an Orange broker. Yes I sell Oranges. But Lemons sell for more money than Oranges. So from now on I will sell my Oranges as Lemons. It is only fair. You do not get a choice, so that things are equal. You must buy Lemons from me even though they are Oranges. It is my right to get as much money for an orange as people do for lemons.

According to democrats, they get to change the meaning of words to suit their politics.

If todays democrats can change the meaning of words, tomorrows republicans can change the meaning as well.

It really does not matter if words no longer describe a man joined with woman, or something as simple as an orange.
 

Forum List

Back
Top