As the campaign to legalize same-sex civil marriage gains momentum across the country, opponents are employing new tactics to defend the status quo. Chief among those is the claim that legalizing same-sex marriage will infringe on the religious freedom of those who oppose the practice on theological grounds.
As a both a devout Catholic and a supporter of marriage equality, I would like to believe that the rights of my more conservative co-religionists and my lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender friends can be reconciled through careful legislative draftsmanship. However, the bishops of my church and their allies have demonstrated no interest in reconciliation. Rather, they have taken an uncompromising stand based on principles that they readily ignore at other times, and blurred the distinction between freedom and entitlement in troubling ways.
To be taken seriously, appeals to religious freedom must be rooted in consistent teaching and practice. The arguments advanced by opponents of marriage equality do not meet this standard.The Catholic Church, for instance, recognizes only marriages conducted under its own auspices. It does not recognize marriage after divorce, unless the partner seeking to remarry has obtained an annulment. By Catholic standards, then, most of the marriages in this country are null and void.
Yet the bishops, bankrolled in large measure by the Knights of Columbus, have spent millions of dollars to keep gay and lesbian couples and their children from achieving equality under American law, while maintaining a discreet silence about the rights of heterosexuals whose marriages do not conform to church teaching. It is easy to grasp the political reality that informs this strategy: gays and lesbians are few, while what the church regards as unsanctioned marriages are legion. But in deploying arguments rooted in religious liberty only when they are politically advantageous, the bishops have diminished the currency in which they trade.
Religious conservatives also argue that they will no longer be able to help provide essential social services if they are forced to treat same-sex couples in the same way that they treat other clients. They cannot, in good conscience, offer adoption or housing to same-sex couples, they argue, and if compelled to do so, would have to cease providing such services entirely. Intentionally or otherwise, opponents of same-sex marriage present public officials with a choice between marginalized populations -- the poor and the orphaned on one side, lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgender people on the other.
But my bishops and their allies are not being forced to conform to laws they find morally repugnant. Rather, they are being asked to decide whether they will continue to accept significant government subsidies that come with certain strings attached. Religious organizations that do not accept such funding do not have to abandon their ministries to the poor and the needy. They can follow the lead of the Mormons -- or our own Catholic history -- and finance their ministries themselves. Nor will their refusal of government subsidies fray the social safety net, as other less ideologically rigid groups, which already compete for the same grants, will take up the slack.
In the literature on religious liberty and same-sex marriage cited by religious conservatives, several cases stand out. These tend to involve a small businessperson who has been sued for refusing to provide services at the wedding, or commitment celebration of a gay or lesbian couple. In reading these cases, one is struck first by the wish that everyone involved had used better judgment, and second by how the use of a high-flown term like religious liberty distracts from the wild asymmetry of what is at stake for the various parties. Perorations on the First Amendment notwithstanding, opponents of marriage equality are arguing that same-sex couples should be denied the emotional and legal benefits of marriage to spare theologically conservative bakers the ordeal of making them wedding cakes.
One would like to think that sufficient protections for pious cakesmiths and other interested parties could be written into law if religious conservatives were clear and candid about the ways in which their freedom might be infringed. But such clarity would open a path to the speedy legalization of same-sex marriage, and so my bishops and their allies play the victim card instead. In doing so, they demonstrate that they are not interested in protecting liberties, but in denying them.
Marianne Duddy-Burke is executive director of DignityUSA, a member of the Equally Blessed, a coalition of Catholic groups that work on behalf of LGBT people and their families.
James Peron: How Texas May Accidentally Legalize Some Same-Sex Marriages
Same-sex marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Gay Marriage Effort Taps GOP Strategists - WSJ.com
Same-sex marriage - The Big Picture - Boston.com
But if a church doesn't want to marry a same-sex couple, they shouldn't have to. To force it leads to a nasty situation for all concerned. Perhaps there needs to be some protection in place for those instances, to protect from lawsuits. But there also has to be awareness of alternatives. Many churches perform marriage/commitment ceremonies. You have to do your homework to find them. Start with the Episcopal Church, Unitarians, some Disciples of Christ congregations, and the United Church of Christ.
We perform commitment ceremonies for same-sex couples and it's a delight and a joy! I look forward to the day when same-sex marriage is again legal in my state.
I probably have way more issues with the society bride who wants to book the facility because it looks like a real church and will make a great photo setting. :-/
And why are we even talking about the Catholic Church? Don't they have their own issues of dealing with their worldwide systemic problem of their own people molesting, abusing and raping children? Once the Church empties the Vatican coffers and gives that money to all their victims, and those responsible for carrying about the abuse and covering it up get arrested and spend time in prison, then we can start to listen to what they want to say. Until then, they don't deserve a voice.
Under the reasoning that a picture is worth a thousand words here is a brief synopsis of "Bible based marriage"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw
My religion, paganism, would gladly offer legal marriage to same-sex couples, but cannot because of discriminatory laws. Where is THEIR religious liberty?
However, while the average Catholic thinks that birth control is an individual's choice, that same sex marriages can contribute to the betterment of the world, that people should be able to marry and participate as a religious, and a host of other reforms, no one is driving us out of our churches. The American Catholic hierarchy hid horrible pedophiles by sending them to different parishes instead of submitting them to justice. No one is telling the average Catholic that any human creation is without flaw.
There are Catholics who are married in God's eyes, even if not in our Church. Same sex marriages will probably be allowed after married men are allowed to become priest, but before women can do the same.
Meanwhile, when I die, if there is God and an afterlife, I plan to take great pleasure in kicking St. Paul's woman- hating ass.
There are some married priests, you know. The Pope has approved many; I was taught theology in a Catholic university by a married priest. He was married and a minister before he converted. He was quite normal, and when I talked with him it was usually about running shoes.
As long as the priest/minister/rabbi is there only to witness and officiate as a proxy for the government, he/she should abide by the marriage laws of the state.
People against two consenting adults entering into a contract need to learn to mind their own business.
When you say, "People against two consenting adults entering into a contract need to learn to mind their own business," I totally agree with you.
Because the anti-Gay christianists believe it IS their business, I feel it's important to take them to task. I used to be one of them until I came out about 33 years ago. I may not be able to change their bias, but I refuse to let their bigotry in the name of God go unchallenged.
Oh, I almost forgot to say, “Fanned and Faved!â€
--ez
Too often we succumb to the american adage that everyone is entitled to their opinion. But when their opinion, as you point out, is about how you or I may live our own private lives,they have gone too far.
The christianists are taking over so much of our nation and imposing their will on the rest of us. Not content with being anti-gay, they are anti-science, anti-choice, etc.
But I'm bi-sexual...today, anyway...so why can't I marry a man and a woman? I was born this way, I'm sure, and if I'm not sure I'm very sure I can find some "scientist" to say I was.
The same reason you can't marry two women: because the legal protections of marriage break down when it's not a couple. For different reasons you can't marry a child, an adult whose business is in the hand of a conservator, or an animal - because they are unable to consent.
Can you explain how your religious belief is not an infringement on the rights of gay people to marry?
Telling gay people they can’t marry because it’s against “your†religion is no different than Jews telling Christians they can’t believe in Jesus because it’s against “their†religion.
Which part of that is not understood?
There is no "right" for marriage.
Your problem, like so many on the left, is the reference material some use to make up their minds. I'm sure I would object to the crazed nonsensical writings you might use to make up your mind on the issues.
Not much can be done to regulate how people reach their conclusions.
As in the Constitution's Equal Protection clause?