This is very good, and very important, and the AU had a great press release, so here it is.
Religious Groups Remain Free To Make Decisions About Marriage In Keeping With Their Theology, Says AU’s Lynn The California Supreme Court decision in favor of same-sex marriage respects the boundaries between religion and government, says Americans United for Separation of Church and State In a May 15 decision, the court majority held that the state constitution mandates that same-sex couples have the same right to the benefits of civil marriage as opposite-sex couples. The justices made clear, however, that the ruling applies only to civil marriages. Religious communities remain free to marry same-sex couples or not, in keeping with their theology. Said the court, ?[A]ffording same-sex couples the opportunity to obtain the designation of marriage will not impinge upon the religious freedom of any religious organization, official, or any other person; no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs.? The court cited Article I, Section 4 of the state constitution, which says in part, ?Free exercise and enjoyment of religion without discrimination or preference are guaranteed? and ?The Legislature shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.? The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director, said, ?This decision is an important victory for church-state separation. The court majority made it very clear that civil marriage is a secular institution governed by principles of freedom.? ?The court also made it clear that no congregation can be forced to marry people in violation of their theological standards,? Lynn continued. ?That?s a strong reaffirmation of religious liberty.?
One important note that I feel has been ignored in the issue: If churches can not be forced into marrying gay couples because it violates their religion, cannot the same be said for churches that WANT to marry gays? Shouldn’t the Unitarians (or someone else) be speaking up here, demanding the right to marry gays, under their Constitutional right to freedom of religion?The only true solution to the Gay Marriage issue is to separate a religious institution from a civil one. Any church should be able to marry anyone, or refuse to do so, based on religious grounds. But the STATE MUST “join” any two adults who so desire. That’s the only way everyone gets what they want.
You, mein freund, are a chinless fuckwit. Obviously, ‘debating’ w/you is a serious waste of time.
It’s ‘radical’ that someone wants to be accepted by society as a whole? Have the same rights, treatment, etc?
To not be discriminated against?
Are you in anyways related to the guy who shot MLK?
KnowledgeIsPower,
But that’s just my point, marriage has always been a civil instution in the sense of a society codifying rights.
For example, if a state such as California has enumerated a right for two people to marry, then that is a civil right.
I guess when you get down to it, it’s a matter of interpretation when it comes to judges!
KA,
I never said that it was wrong for homosexuals to want to be accepted – just that they are going about it the WRONG way!
Do you feel better now after spewing such invective?
As in how? Stay in their little corner? Keep their grubby hands off YOUR definition of marriage?
Ever heard the term, ‘gay ghetto’?
KA,
Never heard of the term, but I’m sure you will enlighten me!
Look, I know that I sound harsh and uncaring at times, particularly when discussing this topic. All I can say is that it’s not personal with me. I accept people for who they are, despite the fact I disagree with them.
I’m not some raving “homophobe” that makes life miserable for gays. I’m just a person who holds strong beliefs about moral issues as they relate to our society.
Tim:
Little invention they just came up w/…Google it.
But you’re willing to slap constraints on them.
Well, for #1, you’re implying that homosexuality is immoral.
#2, you obviously have some ‘vision’ of the seamless society, which is pretty much a crock.
#3, I’m really curious just exactly WHAT you would prefer gay people do to gain acceptance.
#4, again, you’re insisting that marriage be granted to everyone except homosexuals. How is that not discrimination?
& I repeat: the majority doesn’t decide what’s right, it decides what’s acceptable.
The 2 are not synonyms.
KA,
I agree with your last statement to a degree, but the foundation is that people hold beliefs of right vs. wrong. What is moral vs. immoral and therefor acceptable to the society as a whole.
To your points:
#1 I do believe that homosexuality is immoral. Others may not and that’s O.K.. It may be that sometime in the future, society as a whole may come to acccept it as being equal to heterosexuality.
#2 Not sure what you mean, but my vision of society might be considered antiquated by the new generation.
#3 Well, I think that we all operate under a value system; both our own personal values and what is acceptable in society. What you are asking me to do is define a path for people to follow so I will accept them. I can’t really do that because I have a fundamental disagreement with their lifestyle in regards to their sexuality. I can be co-worker or acquaintance, but I can’t be a close friend. Sorry.
#4 I’ve already covered this a few posts back. In essence, we are not in the realm of “discrimination” in the commonly defined sense. To be guilty of discrimination you would first have to define homosexuality as an immutable, unchangeable human characteristic, like gender or race. Another way to do it would be to grant a civil right to homosexual marriage such that it is coded in the U.S. or a state’s constitution. It would then be unlawful discrimination to deny marriage to homosexuals.
-Tim
Tim:
But the majority is wrong w/such regularity, it’s commonly regarded as a logical fallacy.
Why do you regard it as immoral? It’s a minority normative behavior.
I can hear Cher singing “If I could turn back time” in the background.
Again: why?
I refer you to the movie, “Protagonist”. It charts the lives of 4 males. 1 was a “rescued” gay man (Mark Pierpont), who got married & began an evangelical career preaching religion. In the midst of preaching gospel to a huge congregation in Asia, he realized he was gay. Ended up divorcing the woman & entering into a civil union, another guy.
For the larger part of the population, it seems that it’s not a choice.
Dissecting your logic, by its application, you could say that religion/worship isn’t an ‘immutable, unchangeable human characteristic’ (people change religions all the time), so ergo, the right to worship isn’t a civil right. Or politics, for that matter. Any sort of ideology, because after all, 1 can change 1’s mind, no?