Religious freedom and marriage equality

[KennF]

I'm posting this here, since I am a little afraid that it is as touchy subject as politics seem to be.

I don't understand. I'm not stupid, and I am highly analytical, but I don't understand.
Maybe someone can explain it to me calmly and connect the dots for for me. Please.

*** I am not trying to be offense, but I am really trying to understand ***

How does the marriage equality issue threaten the tax status of churches?
How does the marriage equality issue violate a government official's duty to grant licenses?
How do we get from two men or two women marrying to a threat on religion?

*** let me clarify me understandings ***

Churches have always refused to marry couples that don't comply with the church's faith. Inter-faith couples always have trouble finding a church or temple or religious place to get married. Nothing ever forced churches to perform marriage ceremonies for non-believers or even non-members of their particular church.

I have a couple of friends who wanted to get married ina greek orthodx church and they were required to join, one of them had to be baptized, and they AND their maid of honor/best man had to tithe for 6 months before the priest would agree.

Clerks and other government officials have always had to perform tasks that they didn't like. After Loving, I am sure most clerks didn't want to grant licenses to inter-racial couples. Building inspectors didn't want to approve construction on low-income minority housing. School boards didn't want to intergrate and some felt VERY strong about it.

When taken in that light...

Help me understand how we get from A to B. (And please keep it civilized.)

Thanks.

 

[StormfrontFL]

I'm posting this here, since I am a little afraid that it is as touchy subject as politics seem to be.

I don't understand. I'm not stupid, and I am highly analytical, but I don't understand.
Maybe someone can explain it to me calmly and connect the dots for for me. Please.

*** I am not trying to be offense, but I am really trying to understand ***

How does the marriage equality issue threaten the tax status of churches?
How does the marriage equality issue violate a government official's duty to grant licenses?
How do we get from two men or two women marrying to a threat on religion?

*** let me clarify me understandings ***

Churches have always refused to marry couples that don't comply with the church's faith. Inter-faith couples always have trouble finding a church or temple or religious place to get married. Nothing ever forced churches to perform marriage ceremonies for non-believers or even non-members of their particular church.

I have a couple of friends who wanted to get married ina greek orthodx church and they were required to join, one of them had to be baptized, and they AND their maid of honor/best man had to tithe for 6 months before the priest would agree.

Clerks and other government officials have always had to perform tasks that they didn't like. After Loving, I am sure most clerks didn't want to grant licenses to inter-racial couples. Building inspectors didn't want to approve construction on low-income minority housing. School boards didn't want to intergrate and some felt VERY strong about it.

When taken in that light...

Help me understand how we get from A to B. (And please keep it civilized.)

Thanks.

As a rational and thinking person I can see how this confuses you. All I can say is that it will be fun to see how the opponents will try to present their weak arguments.

 

[Klingsor]

I can see how devout Christians (and those who claim to be) may have a hard time with same-sex marriage, which breaks from historical precedent in a way that interfaith or interracial marriage does not. To that extent, I sympathize with the cognitive dissonance they feel.

That said, I'm confident this will soon become a non-issue in the U.S., as it has in other countries that have accepted the practice. People will realize that only the married partners are affected by the change.

 

[Greysun]

Your first mistake is trying to attach logic to religion. Attempting to insert rational thought into religious debate is an experience in futility. Ye who believeth is me... shall never have to concern your pretty little head with the reality of the world around you.

 

[Drifterwood]

To many, the "word" of God trumps human reason, human will, human anything.

(Even if humans wrote the word of God.)

 

[bar4doug]

When taken in that light...

Help me understand how we get from A to B. (And please keep it civilized.)

Thanks.

It is my belief that "marriage" should be between a person, their partner, and their maker (if they believe they have one). Civilization fucked up the concept when they attached financial benefits to "marriage", such as rights of survivor-ship, access to the spouses health-care plans, etc... We put government in the way...

If there was no financial benefit for marriage, would same sex couples have pushed for the right to enter into it? Would inter-racial couples sought after it? Would inter-faith couples? Two people wanted it because, hopefully, they loved each other, and wanted the same advantages that hetero-couples had.

So how does one correct the problem?

Simple, but yet drastic.

Government ends the recognition of marriage as we know it, and everyone simply must explicitly enter into secular / business-type contract with their significant other to reap the benefits previously granted to them automatically by marriage. The marriage license itself doesn't grant you any rights. Each person needs to take care of things on their own... Re-title their property... Revise their beneficiary forms... Pay taxes as their own person....

One problem I see with this proposal is the health care issue, and how one "puts their spouse" on their policy... Also how do you break these contracts? Yet another problem to solve...

I am sure others will find other flaws. I wrote this shooting from the hip. To take religion out of the same-sex marriage equation, just end government and legal recognition of the establishment...

 

[vince]

Government ends the recognition of marriage as we know it, and everyone simply must explicitly enter into secular / business-type contract with their significant other to reap the benefits previously granted to them automatically by marriage.

To take religion out of the same-sex marriage equation, just end government and legal recognition of the establishment...

How would you have people "enter into secular / business-type contract", without legal recognition? This would require government involvement through it's Judicial branch would it not?

Seems to me your solution of ending the recognition of marriage altogether, would open up a bigger can of cultural worms than the issue already is.

 

[KennF]

Your first mistake is trying to attach logic to religion. Attempting to insert rational thought into religious debate is an experience in futility. Ye who believeth is me... shall never have to concern your pretty little head with the reality of the world around you.

I don't think I'm applying it to religion. Or at least that is not the intent.

I cannot even find the irrational connection. And I really want to understand the train of thought that goes from A (my husband and I get married) to B (churches are no longer religious, or clerks/judges aren't bound to their civic duty, or threaten the foundation of religion).

People don't do things for NO reason. I have to believe that. I may not understand the reason, or the reason may be irrational and convolution, but it is still there.

 

[KennF]

@bar4doug Ok. That's a potential solution and there are complications to it. Not sure it would / wouldn't work. It speculates a potential future without the government using marriage status for benefits and responsibiilties.

However, it doesn't get me from A to B.

Under the current backdrop as is, how does two guys or two girls getting marital status threaten tax exemption status of a synagogue? Or how does it justify not doing your sworn civic duty? Or how does it threaten Hindu, or Judiac, or Islamic, or Christianity?

 

[Klingsor]

I think a lot of it is the slippery-slope argument: Once you start redefining marriage, where does it end? Polygamy? Pedophilia? Bestiality?

Of course, the answer is that each of these categories is distinct and needs to be considered on its own merits (or lack thereof). Two men marrying is not the same as a man marrying a dog or a child, and it's disingenuous to pretend otherwise.

 

[KennF]

I think a lot of it is the slippery-slope argument: Once you start redefining marriage, where does it end? Polygamy? Pedophilia? Bestiality?

Ok. I've thought about the slippery slope argument. It is irrational, I accept that. But since I'm looking for a connection either rational or irrational, there is still a missing step for me.

Okay, some woman decides she wants to marry a horse. I don't see it ever happening, but, where does that represent an attack on religion? It certainly doesn't impact my relationship with my husband. And if I were under a civil duty to issue marriage licenses, and it was determined that it was legal, then if I were a clerk, even if I didn't personally approve, wouldn't I still be obligated to perform my legal function?

 

[keenobserver]

I personally oppose tax exempt status for churches, religious groups, charities and the lot. That is another thread for another day.

The right is trying to keep this issue - marriage equity alive as a wedge issue. It plays to people's fears of change. There is no reason for the status of religious bodies to change due to the SCOTUS decision. I can't picture that it will. The specter is raised that gays are trying to force religious people to open their churches to same sex equity - which was never the issue.

The next issue in this will be allowing people working as clerks of the court to opt out of performing ceremonies. In the end, that will not stand.

I generally agree with the consensus that these issues will pass over a short time.

I don't think getting rid of marriage or re-naming it will solve the problem. Marriage was always a civil matter before it was a religious one.

The cause of all of this noise is Fox news. Seriously. Since Fox news has become a force in media the country has become polarized on virtually all issues. There is no discussion by the right or the left anymore. There is no seeking common ground. All of this could have been avoided but for the pundits who have inflamed each side by demonizing the other.

When this debate started some years ago - I asked a question that has never been answered by the people I have engaged on this issue. How will allowing to women or two men to get married hurt your straight marriage? Will you have to divorce? Will your spouse stop sleeping with you? Will your kids develop cavities? WHERE IS THE HARM? Answer - there isn't any.

We won - but we will have to stay vigilant. Logic has long ago been thrown under the bus on this issue - although I think the OP set the table nicely for an intelligent discussion. Sadly too many in the country are not yet ready for that discussion.

 

[Klingsor]

Okay, some woman decides she wants to marry a horse. I don't see it ever happening, but, where does that represent an attack on religion? It certainly doesn't impact my relationship with my husband. And if I were under a civil duty to issue c licenses, and it was determined that it was legal, then if I were a clerk, even if I didn't personally approve, wouldn't I still be obligated to perform my legal function?

I think many devout believers would see the above scenario--like they view same-sex marriage--as a further descent into ungodliness. They feel a duty to stand up against the immorality of a fallen world, to the extent of taking a hard-line political position outside the confines of the church. In their minds, they are not just protecting religion, but the world as a whole.

Again, I don't accept their premises, but can see how they would feel justified within their own belief system.

 

[KennF]

In their minds, they are not just protecting religion, but the world as a whole.

They feel a duty to stand up against the immorality of a fallen world

This is certainly a different perspective. Thank you.

So, if I am understanding, they are trying to 'minister' to the souls of the people. That would mean they are looking for any tool they can to 'save us from ourselves'.

But that would also mean that they are ignoring other religions and assuming they know better. Their religion is better than all others. Even the religious leaders don't assume they know everything or that the 'ends justify the means'.

And that doesn't necessarily explain the fear that churches are losing their preferred tax treatment.

 

[KennF]

Again, I don't accept their premises, but can see how they would feel justified within their own belief system.

Oh, I don't agree either, but I am trying to understand the thought process and connections.

I respect everyone's right to have their opinion and to disagree.

 

[keenobserver]

The horse and dog issue is moot. In order to have a legal agreement for anything - including marriage - the parties must be able to give consent ad understand the consequences of that consent. Except for Lassie, Rin Tin Tin, and Mr. Ed. the number of animals that can consent is zero.

To take up the other argument - polygamy is a slightly different issue. It has existed legally in some areas before. I personally have no issue with it except in the matter of consent. Too often polygamy involves child brides forced into unwanted relationships with powerful older men. Bad. If that issue was addressed, I would have no problem with it. Railroad Retirement allows for three ex-wives to get benefits from a retired railroad employee without reducing his own benefit.

I'm all for people following their bliss as long as it does not hurt others.

 

[KennF]

I agreed that the hypothetical is nonsensical. But it is the argument presented for the slippery slope.

 

[Klingsor]

So, if I am understanding, they are trying to 'minister' to the souls of the people. That would mean they are looking for any tool they can to 'save us from ourselves'.

But that would also mean that they are ignoring other religions and assuming they know better. Their religion is better than all others. Even the religious leaders don't assume they know everything or that the 'ends justify the means'.

But same-sex marriage is one issue where all religions and denominations, at least until very recently, have agreed. So a devout Christian would see his condemnation of gay marriage, not in opposition to other faiths, but reinforced by them.

 

[halcyondays]

The problem arises from the incomplete separation of church and state.

When a person's baptism, first confession, first communion, confirmation, and marriage were logged in the records of a Church of England parish they were also recorded with the state because the CofE was the state. Colonial American governments maintained this religious record-keeping as subjects of the British Crown.

When the US enacted a secular constitution, the states dropped all this religious record-keeping except marriage. State licensure of marriage was enacted to avoid inbreeding and to provide the basis for secular divorce law, but the religious requirement that marriage be between a man and a woman remained. This was a clear violation of church-state separation.

In short, marriage became secular, divorced from any religious requirement, but the definition of marriage did not.

Those who are against same-sex marriage confuse secular marriage with the religious sacrament of marriage. Most are conservatives who are happy to ignore the First Amendment to impose their religious morality on everyone. They did the same with slavery.

In my opinion, the states should replace the religious term marriage with civil union when registering & licensing couples for the rights and responsibilities under divorce & family law.

As for the slippery slope, I have no problem with brothers marrying brothers or sisters marrying sisters (same-sib marriages! haha... well they can't inbreed can they), and I'm okay with polygamy as long as polyandry is legal, too. My limit is that anyone who applies for a marriage license must be an adult human.

(My apologies for this US-centric view on the issue, but I understand from friends in other countries that their history is similar--that as their governments have become more secular, the old religious definition of marriage has persisted.)

 

[Klingsor]

But even if church and state are formally separated, people will still want laws to reflect their sense of right and wrong--which for many will be conditioned by their religious beliefs.

So even if religious precepts can't serve as an explicit justification for state policy, they may still inform the actions of politicians, activists, and voters.