Same Sex Marriage and Religion Revisited
Mar. 4th, 2009 09:29 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatRemember that last post, I did? Well, the person I was trying to convince, wasn't. So I did a bit more work and came up with this:
Religion provides comfort to a lot of people and for all the horrors done in its name, a lot of good has been done as well.
Regarding S's belief that churchs are being forced to marry homosexuals? I looked it up, out of curiousity, because it is such a ludicrious point of view. I should take a step back and inform you that I attended law school and took not one, but several courses in Constitutional Law. I don't practice it, but I am familar with the cases, even if it was in the 1990s.
Here's the most reliable link I found. I don't trust the blogsphere or most of the news pundits. But the NY Times tends to be, for the most part, fairly reliable. One of the problems with the information age/revolution - is we have access to a great deal of information, but do not always know how reliable it truly is. My guess, S, is you may be relying on some bad information. It's not your fault and you are not alone. It's the nature of the times that we live in.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/27/us/27right.html?th&emc=th
In regards to churchs being forced to do it, S may be referring to the hubbub in Mass. a few years back - when an Episcople Pastor decided to marry a gay couple against his bosses (not God but the religious leaders of the church) dictates and that marriage counseling and other government funded church programs could fall into jeopardy.
This from an article written on zenit.com or the point of view of the religious conservatives:
Stern noted that already in Canada complaints filed with provincial and federal human rights commissions have led to rulings against ministers and others who had publically criticized homosexuality.
While free speech rights are stronger in the United States than in Europe or other countries Stern did, however, express concern that sexual harassment laws could easily be extended to expressions that oppose same-sex marriage.
Catholic institutions
Stern also raised the issue of what will happen with employees of Church agencies and institutions. Recent court rulings have obliged Catholic institutions to provide healthcare coverage for contraceptives, so problems for churches could well arise when it comes to employees who enter into same-sex marriages.
Marriage counseling agencies, psychological clinics and other similar services offered by some churches may well run into difficulties in obtaining government licensing if they take a stance against same-sex marriage, Stern warned. Moreover, many church agencies receive government funding, which could well place them in difficulties if they oppose same-sex marriage. Stern concluded his paper by saying that opponents of same-sex marriage will certainly be affected if it is legalized and that based on current law there is strong doubt that dissenters will be able to escape the legal consequences.
Jonathan Turley, a professor at George Washington University, argued that the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence in the area of religiously-based discriminatory practices “is now hopelessly confused and contradictory.”
The Court has allowed, for example, the government to punish groups for their religious practices through the denial of tax exemption. On the other hand, however, it has recognized rights of speech and association for some groups."
From : http://www.zenit.org/article-23983?l=english
I think this is mostly fear talking. Also, I'm not sure religions should be granted government funding, regardless of their affiliations. If history has taught us anything, allowing government and religion to mix - can have some negative consequences. We should be permitted to practice whatever religion we choose, but we should not be allowed to use our religion as an excuse to hurt others or infringe on their rights. Also it should be noted that similar occurrences happened in regards to the miscegation laws that were eventually overturned in Loving Vs. Virginia.
Go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia
This a quote from the trial judge at the time that Loving was decided: "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."
Religious organizations viewed that inter-racial and inter-dominational marriages were wrong. Going so far to quote biblical and Torah quotations out of context to support their opinion. Not surprising, considering when Kansas reinstated the Death Penalty in 1994, they were quoting from the bible.
The good news is after the Supreme Court's ruling in the 1960s, religious organizations came around and supported Loving:
In 1966, the Presbyterian Church took a strong stand stating that they do not condemn or prohibit interracial marriages. The church found "no theological grounds for condemning or prohibiting marriage between consenting adults merely because of racial origin".[4] In that same year, the Unitarian Universalist Association declared that "laws which prohibit, inhibit or hamper marriage or cohabitation between persons because of different races, religions, or national origins should be nullified or repealed."[5] Months before the Supreme Court ruling on Loving v. Virginia the Roman Catholic Church joined the movement, supporting interracial couples in their struggle for recognition of their right to marriage.
A lot of people think that racism and homophobia have nothing in common. And homosexuals have not been discriminated against in the same way as people on racism grounds. Yet, history tells us otherwise. The Nazi's exterminated along with the jews, millions of homosexuals. Homosexuals were sent to the death camps.
After World War I, in the period known as the Weimar Republic, the homosexual movement flourished in Germany, especially in Berlin.[1] However, upon the rise of Adolf Hitler, gay men and, to a lesser extent, lesbians,[2] were two of several groups targeted by the Nazi Party and were ultimately among the roster of Holocaust victims. Beginning in 1933, gay organizations were banned, scholarly books about homosexuality, and sexuality in general, were burned, and homosexuals within the Nazi Party itself were murdered. The Gestapo compiled lists of homosexuals, and they were compelled to sexually conform to the German norm. An estimated 1.2 million men were openly homosexual in Germany in 1928.[citation needed] Between 1933-45, more than 100,000 men were arrested and registered by police as homosexuals ("Rosa Listen" or "Pink Lists"), and of these, some 50,000 were officially sentenced.[3] Most of these men spent time in regular prisons, and an estimated 5,000 to 15,000 of the total sentenced were incarcerated in concentration camps. It is unclear how many of these 5,000 to 15,000 eventually perished in the concentration camps. The leading scholar Ruediger Lautman however believes that the death rate in concentration camps of imprisoned homosexuals may have been as high as 60%. Homosexuals in camps were treated in an unusually cruel manner by their captors, and were also persecuted by their fellow inmates. This was a factor in the high death rate for homosexuals, compared to other "anti-social groups".
Go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_homosexual_people_in_Nazi_Germany_and_the_Holocaust
Here's a wiki article on the same sex issue:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States - it includes some interesting links.
After I looked it up, the evidence supports same-sex marriage, and demonstrates that outside of "government funding being removed" - religions are not being discriminated against. By the way, no where in the Constitution does it state that religions have the right to government support. If anything the Constitution says the opposite - that there is a separation between church and state.
Go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state
... no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
In the United States the "Separation of Church and State" is generally discussed as a political and legal principle derived from the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . ." The concept of separation is commonly credited to the combination of the two clauses: the establishment clause, generally interpreted as preventing the government from establishing a national religion, providing tax money in support of religion, or otherwise favoring any single religion or religion generally;and the free exercise clause, ensuring that private religious practices are not restricted by the government. The effect of prohibiting direct connections between religious and governmental institutions while protecting private religious freedom and autonomy has been termed the "separation of church and state."
In short - the right to religious freedom goes both ways. Yes, you can celebrate and have your private religious practices without any government interferrance. But this does not grant you the right to enforce them on the public at large or tell the public that this is the only valid religion. You can preach on your soap box, but you have to also put up with someone you don't agree with preaching on theirs. You can get married in your church, but you also have to deal with someone you don't approve of getting married in theirs or in a civil union. That's what the clause above means.
And here's the response I got from that letter from S, the individual who up to this point was arguing and somewhat vehemently that gay marriage was a violation of free speech and religious rights, which made my day:
It truly, was an honor to read your last letter! Now, I may have nothing but, respect for your point of view! You took the time to see both, sides of the issue and why, people stood on each side -more, than, that you took it above and beyond and found correct information for both sides! Color me impressed!! The warning you gave about, there being bad sites out there is really helpful. If, there was a reward for the best debater, concerning this topic - I'm sure you would receive it! Regardless, of education -you did what it took in a polite and honest way - to get your point across- and, you did it better than, anyone! (at least in my opinion). Congratulations, you have won my vote! Thank-you for taking the time to convince me(and, possibly others) that your side is the correct side. It was done so, eloquently!!! (It has been a long time since, I have been so, impressed -thanks!)
Religion provides comfort to a lot of people and for all the horrors done in its name, a lot of good has been done as well.
Regarding S's belief that churchs are being forced to marry homosexuals? I looked it up, out of curiousity, because it is such a ludicrious point of view. I should take a step back and inform you that I attended law school and took not one, but several courses in Constitutional Law. I don't practice it, but I am familar with the cases, even if it was in the 1990s.
Here's the most reliable link I found. I don't trust the blogsphere or most of the news pundits. But the NY Times tends to be, for the most part, fairly reliable. One of the problems with the information age/revolution - is we have access to a great deal of information, but do not always know how reliable it truly is. My guess, S, is you may be relying on some bad information. It's not your fault and you are not alone. It's the nature of the times that we live in.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/27/us/27right.html?th&emc=th
In regards to churchs being forced to do it, S may be referring to the hubbub in Mass. a few years back - when an Episcople Pastor decided to marry a gay couple against his bosses (not God but the religious leaders of the church) dictates and that marriage counseling and other government funded church programs could fall into jeopardy.
This from an article written on zenit.com or the point of view of the religious conservatives:
Stern noted that already in Canada complaints filed with provincial and federal human rights commissions have led to rulings against ministers and others who had publically criticized homosexuality.
While free speech rights are stronger in the United States than in Europe or other countries Stern did, however, express concern that sexual harassment laws could easily be extended to expressions that oppose same-sex marriage.
Catholic institutions
Stern also raised the issue of what will happen with employees of Church agencies and institutions. Recent court rulings have obliged Catholic institutions to provide healthcare coverage for contraceptives, so problems for churches could well arise when it comes to employees who enter into same-sex marriages.
Marriage counseling agencies, psychological clinics and other similar services offered by some churches may well run into difficulties in obtaining government licensing if they take a stance against same-sex marriage, Stern warned. Moreover, many church agencies receive government funding, which could well place them in difficulties if they oppose same-sex marriage. Stern concluded his paper by saying that opponents of same-sex marriage will certainly be affected if it is legalized and that based on current law there is strong doubt that dissenters will be able to escape the legal consequences.
Jonathan Turley, a professor at George Washington University, argued that the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence in the area of religiously-based discriminatory practices “is now hopelessly confused and contradictory.”
The Court has allowed, for example, the government to punish groups for their religious practices through the denial of tax exemption. On the other hand, however, it has recognized rights of speech and association for some groups."
From : http://www.zenit.org/article-23983?l=english
I think this is mostly fear talking. Also, I'm not sure religions should be granted government funding, regardless of their affiliations. If history has taught us anything, allowing government and religion to mix - can have some negative consequences. We should be permitted to practice whatever religion we choose, but we should not be allowed to use our religion as an excuse to hurt others or infringe on their rights. Also it should be noted that similar occurrences happened in regards to the miscegation laws that were eventually overturned in Loving Vs. Virginia.
Go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia
This a quote from the trial judge at the time that Loving was decided: "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."
Religious organizations viewed that inter-racial and inter-dominational marriages were wrong. Going so far to quote biblical and Torah quotations out of context to support their opinion. Not surprising, considering when Kansas reinstated the Death Penalty in 1994, they were quoting from the bible.
The good news is after the Supreme Court's ruling in the 1960s, religious organizations came around and supported Loving:
In 1966, the Presbyterian Church took a strong stand stating that they do not condemn or prohibit interracial marriages. The church found "no theological grounds for condemning or prohibiting marriage between consenting adults merely because of racial origin".[4] In that same year, the Unitarian Universalist Association declared that "laws which prohibit, inhibit or hamper marriage or cohabitation between persons because of different races, religions, or national origins should be nullified or repealed."[5] Months before the Supreme Court ruling on Loving v. Virginia the Roman Catholic Church joined the movement, supporting interracial couples in their struggle for recognition of their right to marriage.
A lot of people think that racism and homophobia have nothing in common. And homosexuals have not been discriminated against in the same way as people on racism grounds. Yet, history tells us otherwise. The Nazi's exterminated along with the jews, millions of homosexuals. Homosexuals were sent to the death camps.
After World War I, in the period known as the Weimar Republic, the homosexual movement flourished in Germany, especially in Berlin.[1] However, upon the rise of Adolf Hitler, gay men and, to a lesser extent, lesbians,[2] were two of several groups targeted by the Nazi Party and were ultimately among the roster of Holocaust victims. Beginning in 1933, gay organizations were banned, scholarly books about homosexuality, and sexuality in general, were burned, and homosexuals within the Nazi Party itself were murdered. The Gestapo compiled lists of homosexuals, and they were compelled to sexually conform to the German norm. An estimated 1.2 million men were openly homosexual in Germany in 1928.[citation needed] Between 1933-45, more than 100,000 men were arrested and registered by police as homosexuals ("Rosa Listen" or "Pink Lists"), and of these, some 50,000 were officially sentenced.[3] Most of these men spent time in regular prisons, and an estimated 5,000 to 15,000 of the total sentenced were incarcerated in concentration camps. It is unclear how many of these 5,000 to 15,000 eventually perished in the concentration camps. The leading scholar Ruediger Lautman however believes that the death rate in concentration camps of imprisoned homosexuals may have been as high as 60%. Homosexuals in camps were treated in an unusually cruel manner by their captors, and were also persecuted by their fellow inmates. This was a factor in the high death rate for homosexuals, compared to other "anti-social groups".
Go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_homosexual_people_in_Nazi_Germany_and_the_Holocaust
Here's a wiki article on the same sex issue:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States - it includes some interesting links.
After I looked it up, the evidence supports same-sex marriage, and demonstrates that outside of "government funding being removed" - religions are not being discriminated against. By the way, no where in the Constitution does it state that religions have the right to government support. If anything the Constitution says the opposite - that there is a separation between church and state.
Go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state
... no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
In the United States the "Separation of Church and State" is generally discussed as a political and legal principle derived from the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . ." The concept of separation is commonly credited to the combination of the two clauses: the establishment clause, generally interpreted as preventing the government from establishing a national religion, providing tax money in support of religion, or otherwise favoring any single religion or religion generally;and the free exercise clause, ensuring that private religious practices are not restricted by the government. The effect of prohibiting direct connections between religious and governmental institutions while protecting private religious freedom and autonomy has been termed the "separation of church and state."
In short - the right to religious freedom goes both ways. Yes, you can celebrate and have your private religious practices without any government interferrance. But this does not grant you the right to enforce them on the public at large or tell the public that this is the only valid religion. You can preach on your soap box, but you have to also put up with someone you don't agree with preaching on theirs. You can get married in your church, but you also have to deal with someone you don't approve of getting married in theirs or in a civil union. That's what the clause above means.
And here's the response I got from that letter from S, the individual who up to this point was arguing and somewhat vehemently that gay marriage was a violation of free speech and religious rights, which made my day:
It truly, was an honor to read your last letter! Now, I may have nothing but, respect for your point of view! You took the time to see both, sides of the issue and why, people stood on each side -more, than, that you took it above and beyond and found correct information for both sides! Color me impressed!! The warning you gave about, there being bad sites out there is really helpful. If, there was a reward for the best debater, concerning this topic - I'm sure you would receive it! Regardless, of education -you did what it took in a polite and honest way - to get your point across- and, you did it better than, anyone! (at least in my opinion). Congratulations, you have won my vote! Thank-you for taking the time to convince me(and, possibly others) that your side is the correct side. It was done so, eloquently!!! (It has been a long time since, I have been so, impressed -thanks!)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-03-05 02:57 am (UTC)(now can you work on his/her commas?)
(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2009-03-05 06:17 am (UTC)not just with your research and writing skills, because I knew you could do that...
that you actually succeeded in getting S to hear what you were saying.
So many of the arguments against Gay marriage have tried to instill fear in people, and it is hard to get people to let go of that fear once they have given into it. It is a huge accomplishment to get someone to step back and realize that they are really not threatened.
Congratulations!
(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2009-03-05 03:47 pm (UTC)I must say I'm surprised, discussions on the internet usually aren't so much discussions as people doing monologues at each other.
Good for you.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2009-03-05 05:29 pm (UTC)Re the Zenit article linked to...anyone else find it funny that it mentions a guy called Laycock? Just me? Yes I am five....
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From: