What is Marriage.

[Gordon Nore]

Carol,

You're quite right. I was being glib, and just a tad irreligious. Yes, the state has a responsibility to protect rights. Morality definitely comes into play. I think it is immoral not to share rights based on same or different-sex couples; others believe it is immoral for that state to sanction the same thing I defend.

In this instance, the hair that I am splitting is that we can have same-sex marriage, and churches and the faithful who are so inclined are free to dissent. Marriage certificates come from city hall and not the Almighty. If a preacher won't sign 'em, a judge will.

The churches organizing against this change are not forced to sanction these relationships. They seem to insist that homosexuality is a choice, and thus all they need do is teach their own children not to exercise that choice.

Originally Posted by Gordon Nore
The problem for me is that moral/religious filter is being used by the state. That's the church's job.

It can be very difficult to draw the line as to where the state should be silent upon an issue of morals.

To me, the concept of same-sex marriage is a matter of human rights, and I do think the state can play a role in protecting or sanctioning human rights. If the state does not take a stand and depends solely on the democratic process...then that can lead to a situation like we currently have in California, where the voting public voted to remove a right that was previously given to the people.

 

[Carol]

Carol,

You're quite right. I was being glib, and just a tad irreligious. Yes, the state has a responsibility to protect rights. Morality definitely comes into play. I think it is immoral not to share rights based on same or different-sex couples; others believe it is immoral for that state to sanction the same thing I defend.

In this instance, the hair that I am splitting is that we can have same-sex marriage, and churches and the faithful who are so inclined are free to dissent. Marriage certificates come from city hall and not the Almighty. If a preacher won't sign 'em, a judge will.

Sorry Gordon! Engineer's disease, I tend to take words literally

The churches organizing against this change are not forced to sanction these relationships. They seem to insist that homosexuality is a choice, and thus all they need do is teach their own children not to exercise that choice.

Some churches know that if gay marriage becomes legalized, there will likely be someone amongst the congregates that asks to have such a wedding sanctified in the church. And that leaves the churches in a bind...they may lose members if they do, they may lose members if they don't. I empathize with the folks trying to run a religous community in times like today...it cannot be an easy task.

However...the I don't think the answer is turning to the government for help. Personally, I have more respect for the religious communities that stick by what they believe in because they feel it is the right choice no matter what, without turning to another entity for support or reinforcement.

 

[celtic_crippler]

An antiquated ritual carried over from a more primitive era.

 

[kidswarrior]

An antiquated ritual carried over from a more primitive era.

I see some of you have been talking to my wife behind my back. :lol:

 

[Ceicei]

In this instance, the hair that I am splitting is that we can have same-sex marriage, and churches and the faithful who are so inclined are free to dissent. Marriage certificates come from city hall and not the Almighty. If a preacher won't sign 'em, a judge will.

The churches organizing against this change are not forced to sanction these relationships. They seem to insist that homosexuality is a choice, and thus all they need do is teach their own children not to exercise that choice.

I agree with you that people should have a choice, whether same-sex or not, to be with those who they love.

That said, I can see how the various religious organizations are worried that once the government allows same-sex marriages, how long will it be before the government may mandate that any religion cannot discriminate by refusing to marry same-sex couples? It is the function of most religions to define what is good and evil. Many people want, and need, the boundaries that define what is good and evil, or what is and is not. The government is supposed to be neutral. That is why America is built upon the premise this nation does not have a government-sponsored religion.

I think many religions do not trust the government to say that this governmental interference with religious practices will never happen.

- Ceicei

 

[Carol]

I agree with you that people should have a choice, whether same-sex or not, to be with those who they love.

That said, I can see how the various religious organizations are worried that once the government allows same-sex marriages, how long will it be before the government may mandate that any religion cannot discriminate by refusing to marry same-sex couples? It is the function of most religions to define what is good and evil. Many people want, and need, the boundaries that define what is good and evil, or what is and is not. The government is supposed to be neutral. That is why America is built upon the premise this nation does not have a government-sponsored religion.

I think many religions do not trust the government to say that this governmental interference with religious practices will never happen.

- Ceicei

On what legal precedent?

Religions can deny sacraments (including marriage) to their congregates for nearly any reason they see fit.

Some won't allow marriage based on occupation (priest).

Some won't marry a couple because one or both people have not been deemed to be a member of the church in good standing.

Some won't marry interracial couples. Some won't marry disabled couples. Some won't let an individual partake in other sacraments or honors of the church for similar reasons.

 

[elder999]

That said, I can see how the various religious organizations are worried that once the government allows same-sex marriages, how long will it be before the government may mandate that any religion cannot discriminate by refusing to marry same-sex couples? It is the function of most religions to define what is good and evil. Many people want, and need, the boundaries that define what is good and evil, or what is and is not. The government is supposed to be neutral. That is why America is built upon the premise this nation does not have a government-sponsored religion.

I think many religions do not trust the government to say that this governmental interference with religious practices will never happen.

- Ceicei

A little perspective for both sides of what you (and Carol-Hi, Carol!) have posted.

My Dad was an Episcopal priest-over the 23 or 24 years I can recall observing him at work, he refused to marry quite a few couples, for a variety of reasons-it was his perogative.

Catholics were even more selective when I was a kid-forget about interfaith marriages,or interracial ones, or sometimes ones where the bride to be was pregnant.

And, not to belabor a sore point or anything, but, for years your religion (Ceicei) denied people sacraments based upon the color of their skin, right into the late 70's. The flip side of this is that while there was no government mandate for this to change, there is some (anecdotal) evidence that government pressure led to the revelation that made that change.

Additionally, we've seen in Canada that leaders of faith communities have been cited for "hate speech" for speaking against "gay lifestyles." While the laws that led to this haven't become law here in the U.S., this is an understandable fear, as is the possibility (likelihood?) of the subject coming up in elementary school-at the very least because it becomes more prevalent, and something children are exposed to by other children, if not because it's being taught about in one way or another in school.

Lastly, and mostly for Carol (Hi, Carol!) I'll point out that the U.S. government almost whollly controls, or tries to control, who can practice American Indian religion, and those who practice it-that it is illegal in several (most) states for most of you to participate in ceremonies that I participate in on a regular basis. That I , and many others, are required to have appropriate paperwork to possess the instruments and sacraments for someof those ceremonies, in some cases licenses from the federal government, and in some of those cases we're expected to actually be rationed those instruments by the federal government. That a number of those rituals were illegal even for Indians, by federal law, for a very long time-right into my lifetime, and some of them, in some places, still are.

Fear of government control of religion is no less a legitimate fear than that of losing gun rights, or the right to due process, or unreasonable search and seizure, or the loss of free speech......we really don't have to worry about it, though-at least, not until we've started to lose those, right?

 

[elder999]

The flip side of the whole "religious concern oer gay marriage," is that some churches are moving towards some sort of rite or blessing for gay unions. The Episcopal dioscese in California, for instance, as well as several individual churches in a variety of denominations across the country.

How long is it before these unions take place, and the couples involved sue the state for not recognizing their marriage, and violating their right to freedom of religion?