With regards to religion, same-sex marriage, politics, Democracy, and free speech, the following questions were posed to me. Here is my response:
- Do you support the separation of church and state?
I must give a qualified answer to that question: I believe in the Constitution of the United States, and the 1st. Amendment, which says,
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The prohibition against “an establishment of religion” was intended to separate churches and government, to prevent a national church of the kind still found in Europe.”
In other words, I believe in freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.
- If so and you accept that civil marriage is a status granted by the state, what justification do you have for refusing to allow the state to sanction the marriage of two consenting, same sex adults?
In the interests of time, and without re-writing what has already been stated so eloquently, by others, and with which I completely concur, I will quote the following:
“The whole concept of same-sex marriage falsely assumes that men and women are interchangeable and children are so adaptable that there is no desired norm in our society anymore other than the personal pleasure of adults involved in whatever relationship they may choose to form. In reality, however, as Maggie Gallagher has stated:
“Men and women are not interchangeable units. Sex has a meaning beyond immediate pleasure. Society needs babies, children need mothers and fathers; marriage is a word for the way we join men and women together to make the future happen.”
and:
“The Lofton Court explained and cited established constitutional law regarding what is recognized as a “fundamental right.” A fundamental right must be reflected in and be based upon the more than 200 years of legal precedent in this country going back to the Common Law. You must show that the thing you are advocating (such as, the alleged right to marry a person of any gender) is either expressly identified in the language of the Constitution itself, which it is not, or so deeply em- bedded in our tradition, in our culture, in the roots of our nation, that it would be discriminatory to rule other- wise. The Court said that there is no such tradition and no such precedent for same-sex relationships.2
and
“New York’s highest Court has similarly stated, in very significant language, what the California Court did not cite and conveniently overlooked. The New York Court said: “By limiting marriage to opposite sex couples, New York is not engaging in sex discrimination... There are rational grounds on which the Legislature could choose to restrict marriage to couples of opposite sex. Plaintiffs have not persuaded us that this long-accepted restriction is a wholly irrational one, based solely on ignorance and prejudice against homosexuals. This is the question on which these cases turn...,” said the Court. “The traditional definition of marriage is not merely a by-product of historical injustice. Its history is of a different kind.” As the New York Court went on to say, “The idea that same-sex marriage is even possible is a relatively new one. Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who has ever lived, in any society, in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex. A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted. We do not so conclude,” said New York’s highest Court.23”
- In asking this question, I want to make it clear that I condone (but do not respect) your right to oppose same sex marriage. . .
Fair enough--we can agree to disagree; after all, we each have one voice and one vote, so we are on a level playing field. Isn’t Democracy great?
- “. . . And your Church's right to discriminate against homosexuals.
This statement begs for some clarification. The official policy of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, with regards to homosexuality, is, as follows:
“The Church does not have a position on the causes of any of these susceptibilities or inclinations, including those related to same-gender attraction. Those are scientific questions — whether nature or nurture — those are things the Church doesn’t have a position on.”
and,
“The Church has a single, undeviating standard of sexual morality: intimate relations are proper only between a husband and a wife united in the bonds of matrimony.
The Church’s opposition to same-sex marriage neither constitutes nor condones any kind of hostility towards homosexual men and women. Protecting marriage between a man and a woman does not affect Church members’ Christian obligations of love, kindness and humanity toward all people.”
I.E., The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints maintains the same standards of sexual purity for all members, regardless of their sexual orientation, or gender. Fair across the board. The key concept to remember is that the Church distinguishes between a persons nature, and their behavior. That is key. But every civil law on the books, which is fair, and which offers blind justice to all, focuses on behavior. And not all behaviors are equal, acceptable, or legal, in which case we discriminate against them. I might add, too, that the LDS church welcomes homosexuals into full fellowship, including participating in our most sacred ordinances, and sacraments, as long as they are living chaste lives; as stated before, the standards apply to all members, regardless of sexual orientation. Hence, to imply that the LDS Church discriminates against homosexuals is not accurate.
- But that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about the state conferring a right on individuals to marry (which confers rights and obligations) and you want to impose your religious opposition to same sex marriage on the state?
By “imposing,” I must assume that you mean my right to vote my conscience? Please consider the following quote:
“As advocates of the obvious truth that persons with religious positions or motivations have the right to express their religious views in public, we must nevertheless be wise in our political participation. Preachers have been prime movers in the civil rights movement from the earliest advocates of abolition, but even the civil rights of religionists must be exercised legally and wisely.”
Since the United States of America does not promote one religion, or any, over another, or impose mandatory participation in religion, in order to be a legal, voting citizen, and since each citizen gets only one vote, with equal weight, I must ask, do you object to my 1st Amendment right to my religious beliefs, or do you object to my right to freedom of speech, or do you object to the Democratic process of the vote?
What if my religion believes that only homosexuals should be allowed to marry? Surely that should not interfere with heterosexuals’ rights to enter into a civil union?
To be fair, such a redefinition of marriage would need to be voted on by public vote; again, one citizen, with one vote each. Such a thing could, theoretically, be brought to pass. Whether or not such a radical shift in the marriage paradigm could stand the test of time without government sponsorship, is another matter. And, such a choice could not escape natural consequences.
Remember, even if such a vote were accomplished, the definition might change, but the institution wouldn’t follow suit for a long time (if ever), as “marriage” has anthropological, archetypal, civic, and religious underpinnings, which stretch back over several millenia, and which have always included the combination of a man and a woman.
- Please help me out here - I just don't get it. The problem is that your definition of traditional family values may (heck, does) differ from mine. What gives you the right to impose your religious morality on my life?
My definition of “traditional values” can best be summed up by the following:
“Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. “Children are an heritage of the Lord” (Psalm 127:3). Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, and to teach them to love and serve one another, observe the commandments of God, and be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations.
The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities. By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed.”
- What gives you the right to impose your religious morality on my life?
I must answer that I have no power to “impose [my] religious morality on [your] life;” my church doesn’t force baptisms, which is a requirement for membership. Also, my church only accounts for approximately 5-6 million members in the United States of America, and not all of them active, participating members; also, this number includes children 8 years, and older, which means that not all are voting adults. As you can imagine, the number of voting members of my church can only account for a very, very tiny portion of the voting public (except in UT, of course); nationally, we hardly make a dent. Still, one citizen, one vote. Democracy at work. Do my religious beliefs affect my vote? No more than your irreligious beliefs affect yours. I must conclude that since we find ourselves on a level playing field, that if you continue to find objections, then your disagreement isn’t actually with me--it’s with our Federal Constitution, and with Democracy, itself.
The following is a bibliography of the articles from which I have taken my quotes (and I would highly recommend a thorough reading of each), and I must apologize that since this isn’t a graded term paper, and in the interests of time, I’m not going to make it pretty:
"Religious Freedom"
"Same Gender Attraction"
"A Principled Understanding of Same Sex Politics"
"The Family: A Proclamation to the World"
Posts
