Same-Sex Marriage Threatens Religious Freedom According To Religious Leaders

By David Gibson
Religion News Service

(RNS) A coalition of nearly 40 religious leaders has published an open letter that seeks to recast the battle against same-sex marriage as a fight on behalf of religious freedom.

The religious leaders, predominantly from conservative Christian churches and Orthodox Judaism, say their concern is not that legalizing gay marriage will force their ministers to perform same-sex weddings; they say they doubt that will happen.

Rather, they wrote Thursday (Jan. 12), allowing same-sex couples to marry would wind up "forcing or pressuring both individuals and religious organizations -- throughout their operations, well beyond religious ceremonies -- to treat same-sex sexual conduct as the moral equivalent of marital sexual conduct."

"There is no doubt that the many people and groups whose moral and religious convictions forbid same-sex sexual conduct will resist the compulsion of the law, and church-state conflicts will result," they warn in the letter, titled "Marriage and Religious Freedom: Fundamental Goods That Stand or Fall Together."

The leaders include Leith Anderson, president of the National Association of Evangelicals; New York Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops; and H. David Burton, presiding bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The signers note that religious adoption agencies already have been required to place children with same-sex couples and religious institutions are being told to provide insurance benefits to gay partners.

The signatories also argue that their opposition to same-sex marriage has "marked them and their members as bigots, subjecting them to the full arsenal of government punishments and pressures reserved for racists."

The thrust of the letter is to frame opposition to gay marriage in terms of a battle for religious freedom, an argument that many religious groups believe has a possibility of gaining some traction with an American public, even as Americans increasingly -- and perhaps inexorably -- grow more accepting of same-sex relationships.

The letter also represents an effort by diverse religious bodies to present a united front in opposition to gay marriage. Other signers include Pentecostal church officials and leaders of conservative Baptist, Lutheran and Anglican denominations.

Comments

[shelbychermak1978]

10:55 PM on 01/30/2012

If we can't have marriage, at least give us-- the gay communities--- 'something' that will give us the same benefits as heterosexuals. (for housing, health care benefits, etc.) We need to live, too. Period.

[shelbychermak1978]

10:50 PM on 01/30/2012

For those uneducated people who think that we, gay people, are Godless, sinful people--- Here's a wake-up call for you. That is NOT always true. Straight or gay, one can be religious (or) not. Sexuality has nothing to do with that definition. Please do NOT try to define our religious beliefs based on our sexuality. That is not appropriate or accurate.

[Technomancer]

03:09 PM on 01/19/2012

"There is no doubt that the many people and groups whose moral and religious convictions forbid same-sex sexual conduct will resist the compulsion of the law, and church-state conflicts will result,"
Church-state conflict is, and only has ever been, the result of people (whether it be government, organizations, or individuals) attempting to force the rest of society to live by their religious beliefs. It has never been the result of people seeking freedom from such institutions. It is impossible for us to have freedom of religion if we do not allow others to have freedom from our religion.

[TheNative]

01:56 PM on 01/19/2012

The problem goes away if morality is left out of the equation. Love is a physical state that transcends morality and it doesn't care whether it involves same sex couples or otherwise.

[Blaze Burton]

12:37 PM on 01/19/2012

"marked them and their members as bigots, subjecting them to the full arsenal of government punishments and pressures reserved for racists."


in other words calling a horse a horse

[FaithIsIgnorance]

11:35 AM on 01/19/2012

"We're being oppressed because the group we seek to oppress won't let us oppress them!"

Whiny, petulant, ignorant faith-sucking fools.

[Barbara DeZan]

01:03 AM on 01/19/2012

Geez, I musta missed sumthin'....

I thought same sex marriage threatened "traditional marriage" and famlies.

What happened?

[KaAp]

10:04 PM on 01/18/2012

It seems that fundies of all sorts oppose human rights. Well, that does not come as a surprise.

[clicster]

09:34 PM on 01/18/2012

Question! What does so called equal rights have to do with someones sexual attraction to the same species as themselves? I don't get it.

The above mentioned behavior is known in ethnic circles as the European DISEASE~ in that minority folk did not sign on to it's request for so called equal rights~ thus as it was in Rome so will it be in America~ in that, there is nothing new under the sun~ so what's next ?

As it was in Rome, so shall it be in America~ that is to say, open Pedaphilia
don't think it will happen~ unless reality has escaped you~ if your great grand parents were suddenly resurrected what would they say?

[Blaze Burton]

12:39 PM on 01/19/2012

that judging from your post you must be skitzofrenic (my great grandmother was a registered communist and my great aunt is a lesbian)

[Ernie Evil]

06:11 PM on 01/18/2012

So are we suppose to equate religious freedom as freedom to hate?

[Eclipse33]

07:57 PM on 01/18/2012

You do understand the difference between hating the sin vs hating the sinner?

[KaAp]

10:02 PM on 01/18/2012

No, because there is no difference at all ... it is just obfuscation ....

[Maezeppa]

10:10 PM on 01/18/2012

Homosexual sex is not a sin.

[girlpatriot]

10:08 PM on 01/18/2012

How do you come up with the conclusion this is equal to freedom to hate?

[Blaze Burton]

12:40 PM on 01/19/2012

its allows institutions to discriminate

[Jamal Alexander]

12:31 PM on 01/18/2012

Religion is a failure in of itself. This institution cannot use homosexuality as an excuse for its failures.

[bluespagan]

12:12 PM on 01/18/2012

All I want to know is since when did a family consisting of a husband, wife and children become the prescription for nurturing children properly? Furthermore how does allowing people who love each other to marry stand in the way of religious freedom? By speaking out against this are these people not also trying to stomp on sam sex couples Constitutional rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Hypocrites, all of them.

[Rev Barbara]

10:09 AM on 01/18/2012

No one I know wants to be married in or by a place or person that does not honor and respect their marriage. And there are plenty of churches (like mine) who do honor and respect ALL couples. This is a dumb argument by a very small group of people who want to pander to fear and ignorance in order to keep their pulpits and keep money flowing. Practicing (and preaching) love and acceptance takes nerve- look at what they did to Bishop Carlton Pearson. But it's the right thing rather than the easy thing.

[TarzanaGirl]

01:58 AM on 01/18/2012

O.K., so they don't like the word BIGOT. No Problem. Here's a list of similar words:

Cold, Heartless, Mean-spirited, Degenerates, Uneducated, Unintelligent, Uninformed, Misinformed, ill-informed, ill-advised, Ignorant, Dumb, Clueless, Naive, Backwards, Stupid, Dense, Dolts, Morons, Obtuse, Dim-witted, Half-witted, Simpletons, Brainless, Brain-dead, Brain-washed, Imbeciles, Idiots, Prejudiced, Cretins, Intolerant, Immoral, Confused, Thick-headed, Block-headed, Pudding Heads (lol), zealots, extremists, hypocrites, militants, hate-mongers and of course Jack-offs.......

[adamRI]

04:16 PM on 01/28/2012

I'm opposed to their opposition to gay marriage too.

But coming up with a bunch of negative sounding words to describe them is doing a disservice to clear thinking.

To me, I see that list of words not as an actual description of them, but as emotional signals to let us know 'they are the enemy'. Do we have any reason to think the signatories are degenerate? Simpletons? Really?

No. They're not uneducated, unintelligent, simpletons, or brainless, nor hate-mongering. They're expression is tied to intelligent, well-formed beliefs.

Being wrong doesn't make you evil.

[TarzanaGirl]

07:30 PM on 01/29/2012

"SOMEONE" needs to not take everything so literally and get a sense of HUMOR! LOL

[AsherJudah]

01:04 AM on 01/18/2012

What a load, everyone clearly understands that a religious organization cannot be forced to perform a marriage ceremony for any couple, not to even mention a same sex couple. To even infer that same sex marriages somehow are a threat to religious freedom is insulting to anyone with intelligence. The fact that religious organizations that are involved in adoption, supposes that they are doing such work as an adjutant organization to State agencies, and therefore required to follow what laws exist. If they find they cannot follow such laws, then they have to step back and not offer such service. As for being labeled as "bigots" if they don't follow such laws - well, that is the price you pay for being a bigot. And the dear old Pope's pronouncement that gay marriage somehow threatens the future of humanity is a joke - the Catholic Church itself has a hold on that. I'm not aware that a same sex marriage ever caused the death of thousands of people over the centuries - the same cannot be said of the Church.

My suggestion would be to do make only civil marriage ceremonies legal - religious marriage kept strictly as a religious rite. In Europe many countries require that a couple be civilly married - religious marriage takes place after and is only a religious matter. Then, those religious institutions that want to perform same sex marriage can do so

[gmd1952]

04:03 AM on 01/18/2012

If a church uses it's sanctuary to host weddings can it be forced to provide the facility to those that want to use the facility, not the pastor, to host a same sex ceremony? In NJ the answer is yes.

[funkylass]

09:13 PM on 01/18/2012

actually, you are wrong about the NJ case. The court did not hold that a Church must host a wedding. It concerned a pavilion on the boardwalk in Ocean Grove, which is owned by the Camp Association but it was not the church or sanctuary.

[Barbara DeZan]

01:06 AM on 01/19/2012

Er, you're off base here.

This was a pavillion on the Boardwalk in Ocean Grove....not a church sanctuary....