To continue some of the discussion from this thread over here, which really wasn't the place to continue.
I have a few questions for opponents of same sex marriage. I'm not here to start a flame war, I just want to understand this viewpoint.
1) Anne Fausto-Sterling's The Fixe Sexes cites that 4% of children born are intersex (the statistics are from 1993, but that is only the different of one generation). By that, I mean that 4% of people born may have hybrid genitalia, or have the internal genitalia and genes of one sex but the external genitalia of the other (such as a man having a functioning penis out possessed XX chromosomes, a uterus, and ovaries). It is entirely possible (and likely) for a person to be born intersex and not know until they are adults. It is very rare for this to cause health issue (in the case mentioned in the last parenthetical, the young man started internally menstruating, which caused some problems).
Question: Who should they be allowed to marry under this law? How would sex be defined in this case? If one appeared to be male, and believe he was male, married a woman, and later found out he was actually female (as in the previously mentioned case), would he be required to get a divorce?
2) There is a legal definition of marriage that does not include religion. People are married in city halls as often as churches, if not more often. These marriages are not defined by a sacrament in any way; not the Catholic sacrament of marriage, not the Jewish tradition, just the state's. Personally, I want to be married in a church when the time comes, but that's irrelevant.
Question: Why should the sexes allowed to be married by the state be restricted to one or several religions' sacrament, when marriage can and does occur without the involvement of the church?
More might come up, but this is enough to start with.
Sad that my female, unmarried, atheist Prime Minister is anti gay marriage.... If she was pro-gay marriage she would have been one of the greats...
We let the Kiwi's get a head of us again in social reform.
Not cool.
Then again the right wing former trainee monk that is our opposition leader is very 1950's in his outlook on life.
Good questions, Big Lemon. Here's hoping you get the rational, civil discussion that you're after.
1. It would be dependant on geography and whether politics stuck its nose in, but most likely nothing would happen unless that person made an effort to get attention.
2. Tradition. The laws should not intermingle with the religion in so far as the legal effects of state recognized marriage, but you also have to keep in mind the issue involves more than just marriage for some, so how any particular discussion or event plays out will vary.
1. Same as Belazoar's answer.
2. I have no problem with a secular authority stating in a formal legal contract two people of the same gender are married. However, there are people who are threatening to sue churches if they don't allow homosexual weddings there. To which I say "Cool story bro. There's a town hall right over there you might want to try." It's a forcing of ideals on either side of any debate I hate.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am similarly against gay marriage, but not because I think gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry. I'm against telling churches that they have to perform marriage ceremonies for folks that they don't believe should be getting married. Besides, if a church wants to deny a gay couple the opportunity to marry, why would you want to be a member of that church? Even if I was religious (I'm not), I'd find it hard to associate with (or support) a church which doesn't view all people as equal under God.
That said, I believe marriage should be a religious ceremony and nothing more. It shouldn't grant any legal benefits. The fact that it does seems to me to be a violation of the separation of church and state.
All "marital rights" and legal benefits provided by marriage should be provided instead by a civil union. Thus, two people can join, legally, and be recognized by the state, whilst having no association with the church (or any other place of worship). If they'd like a religious marriage as well, they should be free to have one, but would obviously have to find a pro-gay congregation. Now, that's probably a problem for some people depending upon where they live. Pro-gay churches are out there--but they're not abundant in all places.
Sadly, as I don't expect this to happen, I'm in support of gay marriage, because I think all people, regardless of sexuality, are entitled to the same human rights (including the right to "marry" whomever they wish).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am similarly against gay marriage, but not because I think gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry. I'm against telling churches that they have to allow folks to marry that they don't believe should be getting married. Besides, if a church wants to deny a gay couple the opportunity to marry, why would you want to be a member of that church? Even if I was religious (I'm not), I'd find it hard to associate with (or support) a church which doesn't view all people as equal under God.
That said, I believe marriage should be a religious ceremony and nothing more. It shouldn't grant any legal benefits. The fact that it does seems to me to be a violation of the separation of church and state.
All "marital rights" and legal benefits provided by marriage should be provided instead by a civil union. Thus, two people can join, legally, and be recognized by the state, whilst having no association with the church (or any other place of worship). If they'd like a religious marriage as well, they should be free to have one, but would obviously have to find a pro-gay congregation. Now, that's probably a problem for some people depending upon where they live. Pro-gay churches are out there--but they're not abundant in all places.
Sadly, as I don't expect this to happen, I'm in support of gay marriage, because I think all people, regardless of sexuality, are entitled to the same human rights (including the right to "marry" whomever they wish).
I'd like to internet-applaud you for this. You have views that conflict with the world around you, insofar as the realities of the world make it impossible for your views to be implemented in a reconciled fashion (for instance, that gay people should be afforded all the rights of straight couples, but that churches shouldn't have their rules made by the state, coupled with marriage not being limited to a state institution) and you were still able to reason out that it is more important that people receive equal treatment under the law than it is that churches have absolute freedom on the matter. This is a genuinely well-reasoned position that demonstrates a mature set of priorities, and it deserves to be highlighted.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am similarly against gay marriage, but not because I think gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry. I'm against telling churches that they have perform marriage ceremonies for folks that they don't believe should be getting married. Besides, if a church wants to deny a gay couple the opportunity to marry, why would you want to be a member of that church? Even if I was religious (I'm not), I'd find it hard to associate with (or support) a church which doesn't view all people as equal under God.
That said, I believe marriage should be a religious ceremony and nothing more. It shouldn't grant any legal benefits. The fact that it does seems to me to be a violation of the separation of church and state.
All "marital rights" and legal benefits provided by marriage should be provided instead by a civil union. Thus, two people can join, legally, and be recognized by the state, whilst having no association with the church (or any other place of worship). If they'd like a religious marriage as well, they should be free to have one, but would obviously have to find a pro-gay congregation. Now, that's probably a problem for some people depending upon where they live. Pro-gay churches are out there--but they're not abundant in all places.
Sadly, as I don't expect this to happen, I'm in support of gay marriage, because I think all people, regardless of sexuality, are entitled to the same human rights (including the right to "marry" whomever they wish).
This highlights how I feel as well on the issue though said far more eloquently than I could even begin to. Bravo!
Thanks! I appreciate that, Scott. I editted a bit of it near the top to better explain my position (namely that churches shouldn't be forced to perform marriage ceremonies, rather than "allow" marriage; it's a noteworthy distinction).
|
2. I have no problem with a secular authority stating in a formal legal contract two people of the same gender are married. However, there are people who are threatening to sue churches if they don't allow homosexual weddings there. To which I say "Cool story bro. There's a town hall right over there you might want to try." It's a forcing of ideals on either side of any debate I hate.
I know of no such cases. I suspect that media opponents of gay marriage are spreading this fear.
If such a case went to court, it would be summarily dismissed. The courts have repeatedly upheld religious institutions' rights to practice their sacraments as they see fit. This is the way it should be.
Either way, I would be interested if you know of such a case pending.
2. I have no problem with a secular authority stating in a formal legal contract two people of the same gender are married. However, there are people who are threatening to sue churches if they don't allow homosexual weddings there. To which I say "Cool story bro. There's a town hall right over there you might want to try." It's a forcing of ideals on either side of any debate I hate.I know of no such cases. I suspect that media opponents of gay marriage are spreading this fear.
If such a case went to court, it would be summarily dismissed. The courts have repeatedly upheld religious institutions' rights to practice their sacraments as they see fit. This is the way it should be.
Either way, I would be interested if you know of such a case pending.
Yeah, Cobolt, can you please cite your claims?
Either way, I would be interested if you know of such a case pending.
I highly doubt that Cobalt's assertion is true, since the only even remotely comparable case that I can think of was a county clerk in Maine who refused to issue marriage licences to same-sex couples. He was obviously fired and then sued to get his job back, citing "religious concience" or some such thing. He obviously lost.
This kind of thing might be were Cobalt is getting his scare scenario from, but it is not at all comparable to suing churches.
Yeah, Cobolt, can you please cite your claims?http://www.redstatereport.com/2012/01/gay-marriage-forced-on-churchs/
"Ocean Grove, a United Methodist Church in New Jersey, was successfully sued by a lesbian couple for not allowing them to be married on Ocean Grove’s grounds. The site in question is Ocean Groves’ seaside pavilion which is used in worship ceremonies. Ocean Grove argued under the First Amendment they have the right to not allow marriages they do not recognize on their grounds, the judge did not agree. Judge Solomon Metzger ruled Ocean Grove had to allow such marriages then went one step further and revoked Ocean Groves tax-exempt status on the pavilion and surrounding grounds. "
There are some other, similar cases. A Yeshiva was sued for not providing married-student-housing to a same-sex couple, and there's a current case where a florist is being sued for refusing to provide flowers to a wedding (in the teeth of a state nondiscirimination statute, I believe). Hotels have been sued for failure to rent rooms to same-sex couples. Rare cases. I doubt the combined forum could find more than a dozen or so such suits. But they exist.
|
I am similarly against gay marriage, but not because I think gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry. I'm against telling churches that they have to perform marriage ceremonies for folks that they don't believe should be getting married. Besides, if a church wants to deny a gay couple the opportunity to marry, why would you want to be a member of that church? Even if I was religious (I'm not), I'd find it hard to associate with (or support) a church which doesn't view all people as equal under God.
That said, I believe marriage should be a religious ceremony and nothing more. It shouldn't grant any legal benefits. The fact that it does seems to me to be a violation of the separation of church and state.
All "marital rights" and legal benefits provided by marriage should be provided instead by a civil union. Thus, two people can join, legally, and be recognized by the state, whilst having no association with the church (or any other place of worship). If they'd like a religious marriage as well, they should be free to have one, but would obviously have to find a pro-gay congregation. Now, that's probably a problem for some people depending upon where they live. Pro-gay churches are out there--but they're not abundant in all places.
Sadly, as I don't expect this to happen, I'm in support of gay marriage, because I think all people, regardless of sexuality, are entitled to the same human rights (including the right to "marry" whomever they wish).
Pretty much this here. I'm all for churches telling people they won't perform a service if for them that's fine, not a big deal to me.
I'm not ok with the government allowing hetero marriage but not gay marriage. Way too many benefits to those there things. I don't care what the government calls it. Marriage, civil unions, whatever so long as people have equality in such matters. Heck there's a lotta nice benefits financially from marriage after all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, Cobolt, can you please cite your claims?http://www.redstatereport.com/2012/01/gay-marriage-forced-on-churchs/
"Ocean Grove, a United Methodist Church in New Jersey, was successfully sued by a lesbian couple for not allowing them to be married on Ocean Grove’s grounds. The site in question is Ocean Groves’ seaside pavilion which is used in worship ceremonies. Ocean Grove argued under the First Amendment they have the right to not allow marriages they do not recognize on their grounds, the judge did not agree. Judge Solomon Metzger ruled Ocean Grove had to allow such marriages then went one step further and revoked Ocean Groves tax-exempt status on the pavilion and surrounding grounds. "
There are some other, similar cases. A Yeshiva was sued for not providing married-student-housing to a same-sex couple, and there's a current case where a florist is being sued for refusing to provide flowers to a wedding (in the teeth of a state nondiscirimination statute, I believe). Hotels have been sued for failure to rent rooms to same-sex couples. Rare cases. I doubt the combined forum could find more than a dozen or so such suits. But they exist.
I do agree a church should not be forced to perform a marriage it doesn't not believe in, but this is by no means something that will be forced on Churches everywhere. This is the only case I have ever heard of, and if other cases even came up in other states, they were rejected by the state courts and didn't make any headlines. Al a slight tangent, as someone who lives in New Jersey I also don't think the seaside pavilions/boardwalks should be privately owned anyway since they're trafficed by hundreds of people a day (and thus they shouldn't be able to restrict who can and cannot do what there), but that is another matter.
Since civil unions were brought up,
The list of legal benefits includes a lot of things you would not consider such, including:
Joint parental rights of children
Joint adoption
Status as "next-of-kin" for hospital visits and medical decisions
Right to make a decision about the disposal of loved ones remains
Immigration and residency for partners from other countries
Crime victims recovery benefits
Domestic violence protection orders
Judicial protections and immunity
Automatic inheritance in the absence of a will
Public safety officers death benefits
Spousal veterans benefits
Social Security
Medicare
Joint filing of tax returns
Wrongful death benefits for surviving partner and children
Bereavement or sick leave to care for partner or children
Child support
Joint Insurance Plans
Tax credits including: Child tax credit, Hope and lifetime learning credits
Deferred Compensation for pension and IRAs
Estate and gift tax benefits
Welfare and public assistance
Joint housing for elderly
Credit protection
Medical care for survivors and dependents of certain veterans
There are total of 1,400 benefits that do not apply to civil unions or domestic partnerships (the latter being different from state to state).
Aside from it being much more complicated to get all of these benefits legally granted to civil unions on an individual basis than it would be to simply expand the state's definition of marriage, even if it did, we would have two legal statuses that would be effectively the same, only differentiated because of one religion's definition of what marriage should be, which feels like more of a combined Church and State to me.
Counter-offer: Because we have a legal form of marriage that does not include the Church, why doesn't the church simply refer to their sacrament as Matrimony 100% of the time instead of only sometimes, and let marriage be the generic term, instead of creating a separate but equal institution.
1. It would be dependant on geography and whether politics stuck its nose in, but most likely nothing would happen unless that person made an effort to get attention.
But if nothing would happen, does that not mean the law draws an arbitrary distinction? One that only applies based on how someone looks, and has no bearing on what they actually do? It is, apparently, very important for some people that adults of the same sex not be allowed to marry, but medically this isn't even a strictly defined term.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is, apparently, very important for some people that adults of the same sex not be allowed to marry, but medically this isn't even a strictly defined term.
If this debate could be solved by cold logic and facts, I believe that we would not see such heated arguments, demonstrations and violence about it.
I am against any marriage being a legal issue. if marriage is a religious thing then none should be governmentaly recognised
Unfortunately, that ship has long since sailed.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I used to be an opponent of same sex marriage, based soley on religious reasons. Then I realized that my religion did not dictate I was to make other people's lives more difficult, or support laws (or lack thereof) that do so. So, I changed my mind.
On the civil liberty side, all citizens are entitled to equal treatment under the law. Homosexuals are not, currently. Fix it.
|
As in, before marriage became a religious thing.I am against any marriage being a legal issue. if marriage is a religious thing then none should be governmentaly recognisedUnfortunately, that ship has long since sailed.
Im pretty sure marriage was religious long before any gov bothered to get into the marriage business.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Question: Why should the sexes allowed to be married by the state be restricted to one or several religions' sacrament, when marriage can and does occur without the involvement of the church?
This one bothers me, with the correlating question: my church marries both opposite sex and same sex couples. Why is only one union considered legally valid? (In my state, as of January, both unions are now considered legal, but that doesn't help federal issues. And it didn't help my friend several years ago when his husband died and the state could not recognize him as a valid next of kin [my friend who died left a will, but his parents contested it, which was a nasty awful legal battle that didn't need to happen and only could have happened because their marriage in our church was not acknowledged as legal]).
It seems that if the government is going to acknowledge church marriage as a legal means of recognizing domestic partnership, then it should acknowledge ANY and ALL marriages. Otherwise in the U.S. anyway this violates our purported separation of church and state, not only because it is letting religious views influence legislation, but also because they are favoring one religious view over another (favoring the religions who condemn homosexuality over the religions which marry same sex couples).
Alternately, NO church marriages whatsoever should be considered legal and all adults wishing legal domestic partner status with another consenting adult will have to seek civil unions in a court of law. They can get married by their church if they have one as a separate but not legally acknowledged ceremony. This might even be the best solution. Unfortunately, while technically we are a secular nation, the actions and beliefs of our representatives often prove themselves to the contrary.
Of course no law should force any church to perform a marriage they do not wish to perform--but I've never seen any proponents of same sex marriage or unions suggest such a thing, personally, and would think it ridiculous if someone did. After all, a church can refuse to marry anyone based on any number of reasons--for example, we usually only marry a couple if at least one is a member of the meeting. But the government acknowledging some church marriages and not others, that's just unfair and, IMO, unconstitutional.
And the U.S. needs to acknowledge same sex marriages. A friend's South African wife was deported when her work visa expired, and she had no path to applying for citizenship especially as she was not considered legally married to my friend. Even if our state now acknowledges same sex marriage, that doesn't stop stuff like that from happening.
|
|
Im pretty sure marriage was religious long before any gov bothered to get into the marriage business.
Marriage and religion are both believed to predate recorded history, so it is impossible to say which came first.
I'm not sure if you are just making a point about government and marriage, or if you are making a point about marriage historically always being a religious institution.
The latter point (if you were making it!) would not be correct.
There are numerous examples of non-religious marriage throughout history. For example, Common Law marriage - which is effectively marriage without any ceremony whatsoever, religious or otherwise, was recognised in England & Wales (not sure about Scotland) for centuries, only being abolished in the 1870s.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Obviously marriage has had legal significance for centuries -- certainly predating a legal separation of church and state. Which is unfortunate, but that's the hand we're dealt.
But here's the thing: We (explicitly) don't have a state religion. Government has no business placing religious restrictions on legal constructs. Period. Yes, it happens. That doesn't make it Constitutional, and it doesn't make it right.
No reasonable person thinks that the government, the ACLU, or anyone else should be forcing a private group to perform same-sex marriages. Do whatever you want in your church. But when it comes to the law, please keep your religion to yourself.
The problem with same sex marriage is that, with nobody imagining the possibility of two members of the same sex marrying until very recently, there are some aspects of marriage laws that need to be rethought to accommodate that possibility. There are two aspects of marriage that have to be considered:
1) Partnership: This aspect is the one that most people are aware of. Obviously, any two consenting adults should be able to form whatever arrangements they want to. Over 90% of the legal considerations of marriage fall into this category.
2) Procreation: On the other hand, there are a few considerations (such as the presumption that the male spouse in a marriage is assumed to be the biological as well as legal father of any offspring of the female spouse) that fall apart in the case of a same sex marriage. A blanket endorsement of same sex marriage brings all such laws into question, including the whole idea of the government giving tax benefits to married couples (since it could be argued that they are based on the idea that the government wants to encourage couples who have children together to live together in a legally recognized partnership that legally ties the father to the children with a legal obligation to support them). Once we as a society totally accept same sex marriage, we will have to figure out how to deal with those details -- and we really should think them through and resolve them in a deliberate manner rather than the haphazard manner we seem to be going about it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
IMO the need for presumption of parenthood is obviated by the advent of genetic testing.
|
|
The problem with same sex marriage is that, with nobody imagining the possibility of two members of the same sex marrying until very recently, there are some aspects of marriage laws that need to be rethought to accommodate that possibility. There are two aspects of marriage that have to be considered:
1) Partnership: This aspect is the one that most people are aware of. Obviously, any two consenting adults should be able to form whatever arrangements they want to. Over 90% of the legal considerations of marriage fall into this category.
2) Procreation: On the other hand, there are a few considerations (such as the presumption that the male spouse in a marriage is assumed to be the biological as well as legal father of any offspring of the female spouse) that fall apart in the case of a same sex marriage. A blanket endorsement of same sex marriage brings all such laws into question, including the whole idea of the government giving tax benefits to married couples (since it could be argued that they are based on the idea that the government wants to encourage couples who have children together to live together in a legally recognized partnership that legally ties the father to the children with a legal obligation to support them). Once we as a society totally accept same sex marriage, we will have to figure out how to deal with those details -- and we really should think them through and resolve them in a deliberate manner rather than the haphazard manner we seem to be going about it.
My wife and i cannot have children, how are we so different than a gay couple?
That was just an example -- and the presumption comes into play even today if nobody bothers to do the testing. It is obviously negated in the case where one member of a lesbian couple becomes pregnant without the involvement of a sperm donation -- you don't even need to do a genetic test to be sure that the mother's spouse is not the father. In any case, genetic testing is just as modern an idea as same sex marriage -- and our legal system has barely caught up with genetic testing.
But the basic argument against government recognition of same sex marriage boils down to why the government cares about marriage in the first place. If the government's goal is to encourage the natural parents of children to be legally bound to their children and each other, then one could rightly ask why they should encourage relationships that cannot promote that goal.
The procreation factor could be introduced as an argument against polygamy. If a woman has two husbands, there would be no way short of genetic testing to establish which one has paternal obligations towards her children. If a woman having two husbands is outlawed for this reason, then equality would demand that a man having two wives also be outlawed (even though parentage of any children born is completely clear in this case).
The reasoning behind laws against incest also becomes important. Is the issue genetic health (prevention of inbreeding) or social (a disapproval of the idea of a family relationship growing up becoming sexual)? The former would not apply to same sex couples, but the latter would.
When opponents of same sex marriage say that they are against "redefining" marriage, these are some of the issues that they have (or should have) in mind.
In France, a religious marriage has zero legal weight. Only the civil marriage (performed by a sworn functionary of the state usually, such as the town's mayor) is recognized by the law.
It seems to be different in the US from some posts above. How does it work there ?
There is no legal distinction between a religious and civil marriage, and the vast majority of marriages are performed by priests of one sort or another.
|
|
1) Partnership: This aspect is the one that most people are aware of. Obviously, any two consenting adults should be able to form whatever arrangements they want to. Over 90% of the legal considerations of marriage fall into this category.
Not so obvious as you state. In France, to enter a marriage, or even a civil union (for example, between same-sex partners), you must not be related to the other person. The law does not encourage incest, even between consenting adults.
|
|
In France, a religious marriage has zero legal weight. Only the civil marriage (performed by a sworn functionary of the state usually, such as the town's mayor) is recognized by the law.
It seems to be different in the US from some posts above. How does it work there ?
There is no legal distinction between a religious and civil marriage, and the vast majority of marriages are performed by priests of one sort or another.
Thanks for the info. Having been raised in a country with a very strong separation of church and state, I had not even imagined that such could be the case in other western countries.
This makes the debate far more tricky and convoluted than in France IMO.
Not saying that it is an easy topic in France either though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
David:
Incest is a cultural taboo for a very good reason -- inbreeding is bad for the gene pool. I'd also like to underscore that incest is just as taboo out of wedlock -- marriage is irrelevant.
Arguments against same-sex marriage predicated on encouraging reproduction are equally applicable to marriages involving, say, the majority of woman aged 50 or older. I don't think we want to go down that path. Even if we did, with a global population of 7 billion no longer have any reason to encourage reproduction.
|
|
If the government's goal is to encourage the natural parents of children to be legally bound to their children and each other, then one could rightly ask why they should encourage relationships that cannot promote that goal.
Alternately, if the government's goal is to encourage the official parents of children to bear such bounds, then the point becomes moot.
Also, putting the accent on "natural parents" opens several other cans of worms (adultery, for example). Not to mention that it would put other parents in a wide "unnatural parents" category.
Thanks for the info. Having been raised in a country with a very strong separation of church and state, I had not even imagined that such could be the case in other western countries.
If only. Unfortunately, people advocating a robust separation are typically pegged as repressing Christianity, making it politically unsavory.
I happen to think that the foes of same-sex marriage have already lost this one (though many have yet to realize it).
In France, a religious marriage has zero legal weight. Only the civil marriage (performed by a sworn functionary of the state usually, such as the town's mayor) is recognized by the law.
It seems to be different in the US from some posts above. How does it work there ?
There is no legal distinction between a religious and civil marriage, and the vast majority of marriages are performed by priests of one sort or another.
Thanks for the info. Having been raised in a country with a very strong separation of church and state, I had not even imagined that such could be the case in other western countries.
This makes the debate far more tricky and convoluted than in France IMO.
Not saying that it is an easy topic in France either though.
One of the greatest delusions of many Americans is that they have separated church and state.
Sorry if that offends any US citizens, but it's blindingly obvious to everyone else in the world that your governments have historically been massively guided by the most powerful religious (typically Christian) views in your country.
*ducks and covers
|
|
Thanks for the info. Having been raised in a country with a very strong separation of church and state, I had not even imagined that such could be the case in other western countries.If only. Unfortunately, people advocating a robust separation are typically pegged as repressing Christianity, making it politically unsavory.
Thread derail for the benefit of increasing understanding :
In France, the strong separation of church and state has been used in recent years to promote anti-islam stances under the guise of "the state should not help build houses of worship for any religion" when at the same time churches dot our countryside. In this way, conservative Christians bend the state doctrine of laicity/secularism to use it against Muslims, temporarily aligning with hard-stanced secularists.
I have the wishful thinking that a visionary politician could decide to take some of the (state-owned) churches and refurbish them as mosques. I have the feeling people might object to this simple and logical decision though ;-)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of the greatest delusions of many Americans is that they have separated church and state.
Sorry if that offends any US citizens, but it's blindingly obvious to everyone else in the world that your governments have historically been massively guided by the most powerful religious views in your country.
*ducks and covers
Sadly you are right. There can be no religious test to hold office by our laws, yet there is no need as damn near no one can get elected if not christian or maybe jewish.
|
|
One of the greatest delusions of many Americans is that they have separated church and state.
Sorry if that offends any US citizens, but it's blindingly obvious to everyone else in the world that your governments have historically been massively guided by the most powerful religious views in your country.
*ducks and covers
I would rather say that matters of belief/religion are a VERY important part of the US society. It is only logical that it is reflected in its government.
I believe that, due to its history (ie, the Founding Fathers and later the Pioneer Spirit : both "an equal chance for anybody to start anew" and "God will provide"), the USA are based on two imperatives that may seem at odd : the importance of faith and the importance of tolerance.
Based on this, I better understand why US atheists can be in really hot waters.
I have the wishful thinking that a visionary politician could decide to take some of the (state-owned) churches and refurbish them as mosques. I have the feeling people might object to this simple and logical decision though ;-)
Heh.
The real question is why are there any state-owned churches? Sell 'em off and get out of the whole business.
...the USA is based on two imperatives that may seem at odds: The importance of faith and the importance of tolerance.
That's one (often promoted) perspective.
Personally, I've not seen evidence that the founders were particularly concerned with faith, beyond ensuring that it was kept out of government.
Common Law marriage - which is effectively marriage without any ceremony whatsoever, religious or otherwise, was recognised in England & Wales (not sure about Scotland) for centuries, only being abolished in the 1870s.
It's still legal where I am at.
Edit: On a state level anyway.
No one reasonable is suggesting a specific denomination be forced to perform a same-sex marriage or administer other sacraments if this goes against that denominations beliefs. This is the same as no one reasonable would expect a Roman Catholic Church to perform a Baptist or Jewish or Muslim or whatever wedding. Everyone reasonable agrees that no one religion or religious denomination holds the exclusive rights to determine what marriage means for other religious entities and worshipers. Similarly, in the U.S. and most Western countries, the Roman Catholic Church's (for example) stand against divorce does not stop other secular and non-secular marriages from being legally dissolved by the consenting parties.
So why do the religions and denominations who are opposed to same-sex marriage get to tell the Unitarians, the liberal Jews, and other religions/denominations who support same-sex marriage that they can't perform them? Why does any religious (or secular) group get to tell secular people that they cannot receive a secular same-sex marriage?
---
And for those that cite religious institutions being forced to perform same-sex marriages, please cite specific instances.