Catholic bishops have been in the news lately saying that the federal mandate that private insurers cover contraceptive services violates religious freedom.
But the Catholic Church also supports policies that compromise the religious and moral freedom of others, namely the non-recognition of gay marriages, says Emory University Professor of Law Michael J. Perry, a senior fellow at Emory's Center for the Study of Law and Religion, in a recent lecture on "Freedom of Religion, Same-Sex Marriage, and the Catholic Church."
"Because the desire to live together with another person in a legally recognized marriage is, for most persons, animated at least in part by one's most fundamental convictions and commitments, and because the 'non-recognition policy' prevents a same-sex couple from living together in such a marriage, the policy implicates the right to religious freedom," Perry says.
It is of course the right of the Catholic Church to define marriage for its members in any way it sees fit, he adds, but "here we're talking about access to civic marriage."
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, signed and ratified by the U.N. General Assembly and most of the countries in the world, including the United States, forbids governments from banning or otherwise impeding practices such as same-sex marriage unless three conditions are satisfied, says Perry.
First, the ban must serve a legitimate government interest. Second, it must be the "least burdensome" way to serve that interest. Third, the ban's advantages to society must be proportionate to its disadvantages to those it impacts.
Perry shows that the ban on same-sex marriage does not meet the legitimacy criteria by examining the "government interests" that supporters of the non-recognition policy have claimed.
For example, claims based on morality -- including that same-sex sexual conduct is contrary to the will of God, or that sex not leading to procreation is hostile to one's moral health -- contradict the right to religious and moral freedom, since governments would be answering religious questions in a non-pluralistic manner.
Perry also explored claims based on non-religious premises, including one that argues the non-recognition policy protects the welfare of children and the institution of traditional marriage.
"There is no credible support for these claims," Perry says. "There is no evidence that any country or state that has so far granted access to civil marriage for same-sex couples has imperiled either the institution of marriage or the welfare of children."
Indeed, denying access to marriage for same-sex couples imperils the welfare of "those many children who are now being raised by same-sex couples," he adds.
Such a ban is more likely to corrode than to nurture the strength of any democracy that is religiously and morally pluralistic, Perry says, if one is to take the right of religious and moral freedom seriously.
"And the bishops, as well as everyone else, should want that right to be taken seriously," he concludes.
Peter G Tatchell: Catholic Archbishops Have Misled People on Gay Marriage
Religion is a man-made power tool fueled by fear and need and greed.
Anything that threatens the power the Catholic church has had over people will be condemned by it.
5. "Gays can't get married because I just don't like it."
WRONG (you're not doing too well here, are you?) My right to marry has nothing to do with your right not to feel uncomfortable. Some people don't like the fact that women now have equal rights with men. Tough. My human rights are not dependent on your comfort level.
6. "Gays can't get married because then people would marry children, or pets"
Wow, STILL wrong! Marriage is a voluntary contract between two consenting adults. When your dog can sign his name, get back to me.
7. "Gays can't get married because it would detract from the sanctity of marriage’
You guessed it … WRONG. Straights did that all by themselves long ago. Allowing more people to commit to lifelong, loving monogamous marriages will ENHANCE the sanctity of the institution, not diminish it.
8. "Gays can't get married because they can have civil unions and there needs to be a difference between straight and gay couples."
Could it be … yes! This one's WRONG too! That's pointless apartheid. It creates two classes of citizens for no good reason, and does nothing but legally entrench prejudice & discrimination.
Oh for crying out loud, are we still on this? For those who haven't been following, let me summarise the case against gay marriage.
1. "Gays can't get married because they can't have children"
Ah, sorry, this is WRONG (on two counts).
(a) Actually, gays can, and do have children. [I know! Shocking, isn’t it??]
(b) Unless infertile, post-menopausal and child-averse straight people are also banned from marrying, this one doesn't make much sense.
2. "Gays can't get married because they SHOULDN'T have children"
Also WRONG: All reputable studies show that it is the quality of parenting, and not the gender, which counts.
3. "Gays can't get married because God says so”
WRONG: Marriage is a civil, not religious contract. No-one is trying to force churches to marry gays, and most marriages are performed by civil celebrants. Religion is an optional extra - we're talking about secular LAW.
4. "Gays can't get married because marriage has always been between a man and a woman and you just can’t change language."
WRONG again. Marriage has had various definitions and purposes over the years. It used to be a contract between the parents. It used to mean people of the same race only. In several countries it even means a contract between any two consenting adults regardless of gender. Meanings change (see: "gay". Also "voting" and "mouse").
When my wife and I got married 8 years and 1 day ago, we had gone to the local Pastor at our church and asked him to conduct the ceremony. He said yes, provided that we paid him (or rather, the church...) $50, and attend I think either 3 or 4 sessions of pre-marriage counseling with him... NEITHER of those were written into the laws regarding marriage, and we had every right to refuse both his restrictions. And had we done so, he would not have performed our wedding. And nobody could have done anything to anyone else in a legal sense.
The same holds true for same sex couples. They can ask a religious leader to perform their wedding ceremony, and that religious leader can say no, and NOBODY can force anyone else.
So wait, are you upset with the pastor for requiring a $50 payment and 3-4 counseling sessions? I don't see anything wrong with that.
We know that infants and small children define their early gender identities through mimicry and observation. These early experiences literally shape who we are. They end up defining what we perceive as desirable qualities in a mate which is why people tend to subconsciously seek partners that are similar to their fathers/mothers. It is also why children who grow up in abusive households are almost 25 times as likely to become abusive parents themselves.
At present there is enough societal cross-fertilization for children being raised by same-sex parents to “figure out” what a normal relationship looks like.
But what if this were not the case and “alternative” parenting styles became widely accepted or even encouraged? Over time, the concept of male & female may gradually fade from society and be replaced by an aimless, androgynous preference that emphasizes neither sex.
It is like making photocopies of a photocopy. The first copy seems fine, but after the fourth or fifth copy, you can hardly recognize the original document.
You cannot attribute the historical deeds of a religion/government/organization to its current state. Nobody would seriously attribute the atrocities of WWII to a contemporary German.
One must analyze historical deeds within the context of the time period in which they took place. If you do this, you will find that corruption, greed, and torture were common practices by nearly all authoritative bodies. This does not make them excusable, but you cannot hold the descendants accountable.
It's all the precedent that popes need.
I don't believe in a Deity of just Christians, only 1/3 of the world are Christians (not even that) - what about the other 2/3?
I believe in a Deity of all people.
Also, I'm not calling all religions Christian. My belief in a Higher Power is not to do with Christianity. I believe all religions lead to the same path.
However, you make the assumption that the Christian God is incompatible with deism or any other religion, which is not entirely true.
And while the catholics whoop and holler about their religious freedoms being denied in this country, they deliberately denied religious freedoms to others (oh, those crazy hypocritical catholics once again!).
Many churches and denominations will now happily marry gay couples.
But via Prop 8, the catholics and their equally evil co-conspirators, the mormons, deliberately engineered a program to deny gay couples the right to practice their religion -- if their religion would marry them.
So, the catholics deny religious freedoms to others -- then run around with a hair-on-fire persecution complex about their rights being denied.
Such hypocrites.
The Catholic Church believes that same sex relationships are wrong. They always have and probably always will. They can still believe in God and practice a religion. No one is stopping them. They could technically even be Catholic, albeit living in mortal sin. So how is it that the Catholic Church is denying them their religious freedom?
Give children adoptive homes? Unmarried gays already can adopt in most states.
Promote heterosexual marriage? Does anybody still believe that canard?
Encourage responsible procreation? Same-sex couples getting married does not harm that goal.
Save money? Rights are not given based on what's economically convenient.
The impetus to present the details of these studies is somehow forced on the people who form their opinions based on these research but if these opinions are based on beliefs then we are supposed to take it at its face value... no matter how antiquated those beliefs are or how much they reek of hypocrisy?
I don't want to know how you formed your opinion and I won't waste your time telling you how I formed mine because I know you won't be able to influence mine and I won't be able to change your's. But if I decide to go out of my way to spend my money, time or energy on issues that doesn't even remotely concern me then I definitely need to do some introspection to figure out what it is really about. Unless I am somehow able to convince myself that I am doing this to save the Unicorns. Are you??
If you want to know whether there is any psychological difference between straights and gays, go read about the great studies by Dr. Evelyn Hooker back in the 1950s. (Hooker, E. (1957). "The adjustment of the male overt homosexual. Journal of Projective Techniques", 21, 18-31.)
See also Bohan, J. S. (1996). "Psychology and sexual orientation: Coming to terms". New York: Routledge.
Other research worth reading about:
"Brain response to visual sexual stimuli in heterosexual and homosexual males."
Paul T, Schiffer B, Zwarg T, Krüger TH, Karama S, Schedlowski M, Forsting M, Gizewski ER.
Source
Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Neuroradiology, University Hospital Essen, Germany.
"Sex differences in affective responses to homoerotic stimuli: evidence for an unconscious bias among heterosexual men, but not heterosexual women."
Mahaffey AL, Bryan A, Hutchison KE -- Department of Psychology, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO
"Neural Correlates of Sexual Arousal in Homosexual and Heterosexual Men"
Adam Safron, Bennett Barch, J. Michael Bailey, Darren R. Gitelman, Todd B. Parrish, and Paul J. Reber -- all of Northwestern University
See also research conducted by Kooden. JD. Morin, SF, Riddle. DI, Rogers, M., Sang, BE, & Strassburger, F -- and especially John C. Gonsiorek.
There's much, much more -- but that should serve as a good start.
And quite ironic, isn't it?
The catholics are screaming and hollering this week about their religious rights being infringed upon.
But they have deliberately denied others their religious rights.
Catholics -- about the best example of hypocrisy as exists today.
Marriage is a state where two people are identified as having rights and responsibilities both in law and tradition. This recognition of rights is automatic in peoples minds and that body of rights cannot be more clearly communicated by any other word used in substitution. In fact using any other word would marginalize the people and couple it would be applied to. It is very much like the principle of "separate but equal", it is separate but not equal at.
To deny "marriage" to two people, you are saying that they are less than human and that is not right or constitutional.
Yes, it's easy to mindlessly bleat "marriage has always been one man and one woman", but that is a completely untrue statement. It has, and will, change over time.