As I am sure you have seen, there’s lots of talk about Judge Walker’s ruling yesterday that California’s Prop 8 is unconstitutional. I have just have to pass on an editorial in the hard copy edition of the San Francisco Chronicle by a “gay devout Christian”:
“..Ten countries–Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain and Sweden allow same sex marriage. We have a scant six states that allow it, the most surprising being Iowa. Why is our marriage right not a big deal in these countries, especially heavily Roman Catholic countries such as Spain, Portugal, and Argentina?
The answer: Marriage is a civil institution. Religious institutions have no authority to legally marry anyone. The Unites States is alone among Western nations that give clergy the power to legally marry because they hold civil title, not sacramental, of the Justice of the Peace.
In Western countries, if a couple wishes to have a sacramental marriage blessing, the church can choose to perform it or not; but the couple is legally married when the two walk into the church.
As a gay devout Christian, I say get religion out of the marriage business. It is mucking up our constitutional rights.”
I could not agree more. It should be a constitutional right for anyone. Sacramental marriage blessing optional.
Bottom line on this-the separation of church and state. This line of thinking also relates to abortion. People’s religious beliefs on when life begins should not be in bed with protecting women’s privacy and endangering their reproductive health. But that is for an upcoming post that’s about how Christians are claiming the pill “causes” abortion…!
On separating sacramental and civil unions…what do you think?
August 5th, 2010 at 6:08 pm
Part of the problem is that marriage is a religious right in and of itself, when you choose to call it marriage. It is like the difference between a coming of age party and a bar mitzvah. I eloped with a man and I call him my husband, but because we did a justice of the peace and not a church wedding, I consider it a legal partnership. We haven’t had the religious rights, it isnt a marriage. Christianity, Judaism, Islam etc do not grant the privilage of the religious right of marriage to homosexual couples. Therefore any ceremony performed makes them legally partnered an not married. Many gays know this and insist upon calling it marriage to annoy the religious factions and continue to act like martyrs about not getting everything handed to them.
August 5th, 2010 at 7:27 pm
I am no expert but I believe some religions allow same sex marriage such as Unitarians and some forms of Protestant. Part of the problem too is that the word “marriage” is written in and recognized under law as well as religiously speaking. I wonder if gays call it marriage not so much because they want to annoy religious factions, but many times it may just be that because “marriage” is used in federal law when talking about marital rights, they want to be called that like everyone else and want rights that go along with it just like everyone else. ~L
August 5th, 2010 at 7:58 pm
I am not married but I have never considered marriage a religious right. What about all the people who get married by a justice of the peace in a civil, non-religious setting? When my cousin got married in the 1990s, he (jewish) married an Asian woman and the ceremony was conducted by a JotP at the catering hall. That marriage was just as legitimate as any marriage performed in a religious setting as far as I was concerned. They enjoyed the same legal rights as any other married couple married in a house of worship.
Just as the state can’t force a house of worship to marry a couple they don’t want to, the religious people can’t prevent a couple (different religions, races, same sexes, etc.) from marrying at city hall by a JotP, either.
My next comment is the same as one I posted on an atheism message blog. It is below.
The two arguments against SSM which anoy me the most are (1) those religiously oriented (because I am atheist and don’t want to have someone else’s religious views rammed down my throat using the power of government) and (2) those which say marriage is to raise children (because I am childfree; also, elderly people even if opposite-sex would have to be banned from marrying).
This will get to the SCOTUS eventually (hopefully sooner rather than later) and it will come down to Justice Kennedy who has shown to be aligned with the liberal wing (Lawrence v. Texas, Romer v. Evans – he wrote the 6-3 majority opinions for both) on this issue.
August 5th, 2010 at 11:13 pm
Well said Deegee :”Just as the state can’t force a house of worship to marry a couple they don’t want to, the religious people can’t prevent a couple (different religions, races, same sexes, etc.) from marrying at city hall by a JofP, either.” Amen!