Religious Freedom Key To Debate On Gay Marriages

By Jack Jenkins
Religion News Service

WASHINGTON (RNS) Senators wrestled with issues of faith and religious freedom on Wednesday (July 20) as they debated a new bill that would allow the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages.

The Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings on the Respect for Marriage Act, which was sponsored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and endorsed by the Obama administration.

If passed, the bill would repeal the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, which defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman, and allows states not to recognize gay marriages performed in other states.

While much of the discussion concerned the legal implications of the proposed bill, witnesses and lawmakers frequently cited their faith as informing their position.

Thomas Minnery, senior vice president of Focus on the Family, said he opposed any repeal of DOMA because of his desire to "build healthy marriages that reflect God's design" so that heterosexual parents can "raise their children according to morals and values grounded in biblical principles."

By contrast, Sen. Christopher Coons, D-Del., also cited his faith as a motivating factor behind his support for DOMA's repeal.

"I am a person of faith. My family and I worship regularly. ... But I don't think that my faith, which informs my politics, empowers me to have a monopoly on the will of God," said Coons, a Presbyterian.

Advocates for DOMA's repeal also repeatedly mentioned the need to respect religious freedom, with Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., telling senators that "the Respect for Marriage Act has the highest conditions of religious freedom."

"Religious views on marriage unquestionably differ, with some religions opposing and others solemnizing marriages for lesbian and gay couples. But the Respect for Marriage Act allows this diversity to flourish ... without government interference," Nadler said.

Feinstein echoed Nadler, noting, "Nothing in this bill would obligate any person, religious organization, state, or locality to perform a marriage between two persons of the same sex."

Not everyone, however, invoked religion to make their point. Austin Nimocks, a lawyer for the conservative Alliance Defense Fund, testified in support of DOMA on the grounds that same-sex couples cannot procreate.

"As put by the famous philosopher, Bertrand Russell, a self-described atheist: 'But for children, there would be no need for any institution concerned with sex,"' Nimocks said.

Comments

[Inannawhimsey]

12:18 AM on 08/28/2011

Huzzah for a secular place like the USA where, say, Catholics are free to practice their religion in safety as well as practitioners of the secular religions of Political Correctness and Pop Ecology. Humanity bless America :3

[tgscott]

04:26 PM on 07/24/2011

"Not everyone, however, invoked religion to make their point. Austin Nimocks, a lawyer for the conservati ve Alliance Defense Fund, testified in support of DOMA on the grounds that same-sex couples cannot procreate."

Yet he doesn't argue against infertile women marrying. Just because he doesn't cite it explicitly doesn't mean his bigotry isn't just as influenced or sourced by his ignorant religious beliefs.

I have yet to meet a single atheist, even agnostic, who is against marriage equality. There's probably a reason for that.

[DTOM1776]

05:25 PM on 07/25/2011

Greetings tgscott

It's relatively easy to understand Austin Nimocks position if you have a passing knowledge of logical reasoning....

Singular exceptions (infertile couples, those that "choose" not to have children, etc) DO NOT nullify the justifications.


Civil society has a vested interest in promoting (and rewarding) those types of relationships that perpetrate, preserve, and protect our survival and way of life. Marriage between one man and one women BEST (not perfectly) provide those outcomes. Same sex marriages provide not one single benefit to society. Therefore, society is not obligated to affirm or recognize those relationships.


Oh, and by the way...you are not at liberty to redefine "bigotry" as the concept that someone happens to DISAGREE with you. Cheers :)

[Misterioso Adversario]

07:21 PM on 07/25/2011

"It's relatively easy to understand Austin Nimocks position if you have a passing knowledge of logical reasoning.­..."

Ironic that you chide someone for this, then go on to show your own lack of knowledge of logical reasoning.

[exxman]

08:53 PM on 07/25/2011

Following your logic, a fertility test should be required in order to obtain a marriage license.
I might even agree with you if Earth were currently experiencing anything like a population shortage but this is not the case. There are already far more mouths to feed than there is food to put into them. That kind of takes the wind out of the sails of your argument in the second to last paragraph of the above.

I wouldn't say you are necessarily a bigot. Narrow minded perhaps is more accurate. Maybe selfishly mean spirited.

[mggwa]

06:43 PM on 08/29/2011

"I have yet to meet a single atheist, even agnostic, who is against marriage equality. There's probably a reason for that. "

I suspect many reasons exist why you are not meeting people; but only you can reveal them.

As for me, I don't remember ever asking this question of an atheist; not that very many actually exist.

It is more likely to provoke un-answerable questions like what exactly is "marriage equality" and whatever it is, next year it will be something else.

[jimtodd]

02:22 PM on 07/24/2011

Christians make me wish their god was real. Imagine St. Peter at the pearly gate explaining to each as they approach that they failed to love all god's children, and there is no place for them in his kingdom.

[gemmax]

06:30 PM on 07/25/2011

that won't be the question, and it won't be Peter asking it.

[DianaLynn1967]

12:15 AM on 07/26/2011

You're half right. It won't be Peter asking it. It will be Jesus saying "that which you did unto the least of these, you did also unto me."

[jimtodd]

10:09 AM on 07/26/2011

By all means, please share.

[kokonutgurl]

09:31 PM on 07/26/2011

For if you live by its dictates, you will die. But if through the power of the Spirit you put to death the deeds of your sinful nature, you will live.
For all who are LED BY the Spirit OF God are children of God.
So you have not received a spirit that makes you fearful slaves.
Instead, you received God's Spirit when he adopted you as his own children.
Now we call him, "Abba, Father."
For his Spirit joins with our spirit to affirm that we are God's children.

You must be born agian of The Spirit (of God).

[Ioan Lightoller]

01:50 PM on 07/27/2011

That's nice. Your belief still doesn't get to say if GLBT people can be legally married.

[MichaelJOConnell]

06:39 PM on 07/22/2011

"Not everyone, however, invoked religion to make their point. Austin Nimocks, a lawyer for the conservative Alliance Defense Fund, testified in support of DOMA on the grounds that same-sex couples cannot procreate."

Uh, I thought this arguement died last year. I guess ADF is using the Resurrection Clause to try to bring it back.

[mggwa]

06:45 PM on 08/29/2011

"I thought this arguement died last year."

Reviving arguments is doubtless as old as humanity itself. You hope for a different audience is all.

[Bearthoven]

02:19 PM on 07/22/2011

If these groups like FoF, NOM, etc. were truly for strengthening the American family and ensuring children were raised in 2 parent homes, then why aren't they extremely vocal against the U.S. involvement in wars that are destroying families? Why aren't they doing more to end divorce? Why aren't they pro-handgun and automatic weapons bans that are killing people? Why aren't they loudly proclaiming the righteousness of adopting children of all ages and ensuring they (the children) are placed into loving and caring homes?

It seems to me that the only agenda any of these groups have is the promulgation of bigotry, dissemination of falsehoods, and the art of fear-mongering, all so they can bring in more donations. If they want to bring religion to the conversation, maybe they should look at how Jesus felt about the religious institution of his time. I think Jesus was pretty direct when he called the Sadducee and Pharisee hypocrites because they loved the power, the money, and the law more than they loved the people they claimed to help and the God they were supposed to serve.

[DianaLynn1967]

12:22 AM on 07/26/2011

You're absolutely right. Let me quote drmindhealer below: "It is easier to impose one's own moral standards upon others than it is to actually live by them yourself." Thus, too many of us modern day Christians are more like the "Sadducee and Pharisee hypocrites" than we are like the Lord Jesus whom we claim to worship.

[mggwa]

06:47 PM on 08/29/2011

There's a few "why aren't they" questions directed in the wrong forum I might suggest. It is very unlikely that anyone here represents those organizations and thus can provide a meaningful answer.

[wbthacker]

11:18 AM on 07/22/2011

"By contrast, Sen. Christopher Coons, D-Del., also cited his faith as a motivating factor behind his support for DOMA's repeal. "I am a person of faith. My family and I worship regularly. ... But I don't think that my faith, which informs my politics, empowers me to have a monopoly on the will of God," said Coons, a Presbyterian.""

Seems to me Coons is saying faith was NOT a motivating factor. Rather, what motivates him is religious freedom, so he puts his faith second to his duty to uphold that Constitutional freedom. That's quite different from Minnerty, who believes his faith is more important than the Constitution and it requires him to impose his religious beliefs on everyone.

[LintLass]

01:30 PM on 07/22/2011

I don't understand why some believe that faith and religious freedom are at odds: faith doesn't have to mean 'I want to make everyone else obey me.'

[mjeffn]

12:55 PM on 07/23/2011

Faith can mean anything a person wants it to mean. If it means to me that I can make you comply with my wishes through whatever means is most expedient then I am entitled to do that. In faith, the ends always justifies the means. This is the ultimate irony of faith, it makes itself meaningless and inconsequential to rational thought.

[mggwa]

06:49 PM on 08/29/2011

If I were a Congressperson; my religious instruction WILL influence my voting. I believe "thou shalt not steal" and thus if a bill came before Congress cloaked in some fancy language but the intention of which was to just take something, "land" usually, I would likely vote against it.

Other than that, my duty would be to represent my district. Should it happen that my district and I have strong differences, I and they ought to wonder how I came to be elected.

[drmindhealer]

10:50 AM on 07/22/2011

Telling gay couples they cannot marry and share the same rights as straight couples is nothing less than discrimination at the hands of political bobbleheads with a moral superiority complex. It is easier to impose one's own moral standards upon others than it is to actually live by them yourself. Focus on the Family and Alliance Defense Fund are hate groups with a toxic, intolerant message.

[Eclipse33]

03:44 PM on 07/25/2011

So, Telling people of many religious faiths, that they have to change the contextual meaning of a word is NOT imposing a moral standard upon others?

If someone wants to be in a civil union with a dog, cat, amnime cartoon, same sex person or a robot so you can share your property rights or whatever, I do not care.

But do not force me to change the meaning of Marriage, which most admit it is a religious term anyway.
Don't force me, I'll not force you.

[Lawrence Farren]

08:03 PM on 07/25/2011

What!? Has our society come down to morality & ehtics being defined by each administration!!? GOD help us all!

[exxman]

09:45 PM on 07/25/2011

No change in contextual meaning is required. The change is in an assumed meaning which was incorrect and discriminatory. Discrimination is immoral.

The state and federal governments and the judiciary system of this country do not agree that marriage is a religious term. When anyone goes to the department of licensing to obtain a marriage license it says "Marriage License" on it, not “Religious Marriage License” . One can then take that document to the court house and have a Justice of the Peace officiate the exchange of vows. The Justice of the Peace concludes the exchange with words to effect of, "By the power vested in me by the state of ____ etc. Done! Married! Completely, totally and utterly married! No church was never involved in it. There was nothing even vaguely religious about it. God did not come up at all. So, you see it is actually you who is trying to change the meaning of marriage.

No one is forcing you to do anything. You are flinching at shadows. In your fear you are creating a problem where none exists. If you disagree with SSM simply don't have one. If your religious organization doesn't want to recognize SSM that's your prerogative. There are plenty of open and affirming Spiritual communities that we are welcome to worship with and donate our money and service to.

[DTOM1776]

05:28 PM on 07/25/2011

Greetings drmindhealer

"Focus on the Family and Alliance Defense Fund are hate groups..."

Yeah. Right. Simply because they don't AGREE with YOU. That's hilarious.

[Misterioso Adversario]

07:23 PM on 07/25/2011

"Yeah. Right. Simply because they don't AGREE with YOU. That's hilarious."

No, more like because they spend their time and money denying the rights of people who will ultimately have absolutely no effect on their life.

[Greg Shatto]

10:44 PM on 07/21/2011

Can't wait til gays are equal and the Christians stop demonizing them. Shame on them.

[mggwa]

06:53 PM on 08/29/2011

"Can't wait til gays are equal "

I do not understand "can't wait" statements. Are you about to explode?

At any rate, you/they are already equal. It says so in the Declaration of Independence. So what are you waiting for?

[David N Taiwan]

08:06 PM on 07/21/2011

Speaking in opposition, "Thomas Minnery, senior vice president of Focus on the Family, said he opposed any repeal of DOMA because of his desire to 'build healthy marriages that reflect God's design' so that heterosexual parents can 'raise their children according to morals and values grounded in biblical principles.'"

Passage of this bill IN NO WAY impacts, impedes, obstructs, bars, or interferes with heterosexuals "building healthy marriages" or "raising their children according to whatever morals and values they wish, including biblical principles."

Since it has no impact on the ones he's trying to "protect," then why oppose the bill?

[BoscoTheTerrible]

07:57 PM on 07/21/2011

Religious freedom can also mean freedom from religion. It is not right that the government can force their religious ideology onto the people. If two gay people love each other, then they should enjoy the same benefits of marriage as the rest of us. Keep the Bible out of Congress.

[Ioan Lightoller]

09:07 PM on 07/21/2011

Fanned and faved. Yes, keep the Bible out of our Congess and all other government.

[LintLass]

01:31 PM on 07/22/2011

You can't have freedom *of* religion, ..Any religion... If you can't say "no." To *any* of them.

[mggwa]

06:55 PM on 08/29/2011

"If you can't say 'no.' To *any* of them. "

Speech impediment?

[Watching rock grow]

06:36 PM on 07/21/2011

Religious Freedom renewed in the land of the free what a pleasure that would be.

Psalm 123 A song of ascents.

1 I lift up my eyes to you, to you who sit enthroned in heaven.

2 As the eyes of slaves look to the hand of their master, as the eyes of a female slave look to the hand of her mistress, so our eyes look to the LORD our God, till he shows us his mercy.

3 Have mercy on us, LORD, have mercy on us, for we have endured no end of contempt.

4 We have endured no end of ridicule from the arrogant, of contempt from the proud.

Shame on those that refuse the good they claim of God for themselves and forbid even the crumbs to those they consider less than themselves.

[Ioan Lightoller]

06:59 PM on 07/21/2011

Beautiful quotes, Watching rock grow and very germaine to us indeed. I have always found it interesting that those who oppose us on religious grounds lay burdens on us that they would not willingly bear.

[wbthacker]

11:23 AM on 07/22/2011

Flowery words, but the sentiment seems pretty ugly to me. Doesn't it boil down to

"Almighty God, we are your obedient slaves. Please don't hurt us. We get enough of that from our neighbors who look down on us because we're slaves."

?

[DianaLynn1967]

12:45 AM on 07/26/2011

"I have always found it interestin­g that those who oppose us on religious grounds lay burdens on us that they would not willingly bear." You are absolutely right. It is this that makes heterosexual opposition to homosexuality (whether religiously based or otherwise) so wrong. How dare we lay burdens on another that we are unable or unwilling to carry ourselves. Thus, the biblical saying "Judge not that ye not be judged."

[Libby123]

09:32 PM on 07/21/2011

Ironic that this is the text I hear most often from the religious extremists of my acquaintance when they see other people living their own lives in peace and perceive it as an attack on their religious beliefs. This was the Bible reading a few days ago in "Our Daily Bread," a daily devotional geared toward Christians. Every day there's a little lesson/story that the author usually manages to twist around to portray A) poor downtrodden Christians as persecuted at every turn or B) how far above mere mortals the born-agains believe themselves to be. Then there's a suggested Bible passage that is supposed to explain how to handle it just like somebody who lived thousands of years ago did. Monday's reading was of the A) stripe.
Funny how these folks think that marriage needs to be "defended" from people who wish to live committed, monogamous lives or its very foundation will crumble like week-old bread.

[Watching rock grow]

08:03 AM on 07/22/2011

If their version of life as Christians is based more upon Psalm 123 than 23 then I shudder to think of Judgment day upon them. There does seem to be a great amount of delusion in modern day Christianity. It explains to me why they need so many social laws to protect their religious beliefs and lifestyle. I remember those devotionals; my mother always had a few laying around. I read scripture myself.

[Ethan Reynolds]

05:48 PM on 07/21/2011

Let me break some news to religious conservatives: There are gay people (men who love men) and lesbians (women who love women). And in the year of our lord 2011, instead of burning them at the stake, we discuss whether they can marry each other. On the whole, I would say this is progress.

If god did not want gay people on Earth, isn't that up to HIM to decide?

Even so, when religious people say "this is sinful," what EXACTLY does that mean?

That is sinful for the gay person to be gay or for YOU if they are gay? In the first case, isn't that strictly a matter of the gay person and their religion, and if the latter, a violation of the gay person's fundamental right to religious freedom?

For some inexplicable reason (mostly) Christians seem to be under the misapprehension that they have the right to determine or circumscribe another peron's religious beliefs. I thought only the Taliban thought that, and that was part of what we were fighting for "over there." I thought we had an amendment to our constitution that allows even non-Christians to determine their own personal religious beliefs.

Tell me. By WHAT RIGHT do Christians have to tell another person what is SINFUL?
Maybe in the days when Popes could shake courtrooms with a word, but hey, we had a revolution to disavow ourselves of that nonsense.

[Balancement]

06:33 PM on 07/21/2011

How many gay people does God have to make before people start getting the message?

[Contact1972]

07:48 PM on 07/21/2011

:-)

I love that

[Pembrokelib]

01:26 PM on 07/24/2011

For straights who discriminate against gays- stop having babies. They might be gay!

[LoyalBob]

08:46 PM on 07/21/2011

Amen!

F and F'd!

[HarleyOpenRoad]

05:24 PM on 07/21/2011

Churches are not required to sanctify any marriage.

This is purely a legislative issue, nothing to do with the Church. Human rights should not be subject to any religious opinion.

However, Churches are well within their rights to enforce their beliefs within the membership and expel anyone for violating said beliefs.

[Ioan Lightoller]

06:57 PM on 07/21/2011

And I am agreed with that. Even if I don't agree with the line of thought in some cases, the churches absolutely have the right to enforce beliefs within their memembership. If a member does not agree, he or she might want to think about finding another religion or church.

In the same way a church is free not to sanctify any marriage, the couple concerned can seek to be married elsewhere.

[Pembrokelib]

01:30 PM on 07/24/2011

Right, providing that they do not interfere with non members in any way. Sadly, too many do try to prevent others from exercising their right to believe otherwise.

[Aryeh Melaris]

05:20 PM on 07/21/2011

If Jesus were alive today, I am pretty sure that he would officiate at gay weddings. Heck, he would probably be first in line at city hall next week. Long hair, fancy robe, best friend ran a bath house, major tension between him and Judas. Classic.

[Ioan Lightoller]

07:01 PM on 07/21/2011

Fanned and faved. I suspect that St. John would be right there beside him.

[David N Taiwan]

07:42 PM on 07/21/2011

Yup. Just as it says in the buy-bull, "with his head upon his breast."

[Libby123]

09:35 PM on 07/21/2011

The disciple whom Jesus loved...

[mggwa]

07:03 PM on 08/29/2011

"If Jesus were alive today, I am pretty sure that he would officiate at gay weddings. "

Not really. Jesus is usually tending the grounds. I didn't see him today and that's a bit unusual. He does not speak English very well so after a friendly greeting we each go about our business.

[Angie Tyne 1]

05:20 PM on 07/21/2011

"Austin Nimocks, a lawyer for the conservative Alliance Defense Fund, testified in support of DOMA on the grounds that same-sex couples cannot procreate.

"As put by the famous philosopher, Bertrand Russell, a self-described atheist: 'But for children, there would be no need for any institution concerned with sex,"' Nimocks said."

Nice way to misinterpret the point. Procreation is not and has never been a requirement for marriage in the US. Period. As such it should not be a concern whether the parties can procreate. Go ahead & tell Granny she can't get married because she is now 'barren.'
********
- Marriage at its core is a contract that defines property rights and has not changed in this over time. Who can marry has varied wildly over time. It did not originate w/any one religion and in fact the RCC didn't mandate it until the 1500s as a way to combat the Protestant reformation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#Europe
http://marriage.about.com/cs/generalhistory/a/marriagehistory.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

- Religious beliefs are not applicable to anyone who does not share them.

- If they really wanted to create strong marriages they would push for universal health care, better education and support for parental leave for childbirth. When your basic needs are taken care of you can do better in all other aspects of your life including marriage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy_of_needs

- Biblical marriage chart: http://i.imgur.com/4BWCh.jpg

[Misterioso Adversario]

06:01 PM on 07/21/2011

"- Religious beliefs are not applicable to anyone who does not share them. "

And sometimes not even applicable to people who are supposed to be of the same faith.

[Angie Tyne 1]

06:29 PM on 07/21/2011

It makes my head hurt to try to count all the various sects that think they have the true direct line on God. One estimate is around 38,000 different denominations. Each one thinking that the rest are going to hell. And that’s only the Christians!

Add in the various other Abrahamics and it gets even more messy. Between them they can’t figure out which day should be the Sabbath much less anything important. (Sabbath: Muslim = Friday, Jewish = Saturday, Christian = Sunday :P)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations
http://christianity.about.com/od/denominations/p/christiantoday.htm

[DianaLynn1967]

12:52 AM on 07/26/2011

There you go being logical again! Of course, you're absolutely right.

[Angie Tyne 1]

02:04 PM on 07/26/2011

:D