| Same-Gender Marriage and Religious Freedom |
 |
 |
 |
|
A CALL TO QUIET CONVERSATIONS AND PUBLIC DEBATES
By The Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy President, Interfaith Alliance 1212 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 1250, Washington, DC 20005-4706 TEL: 202.238.3300 FAX: 202.238.3301 WEB: inferfaithalliance.org My purpose in writing this paper is as simple as the subject of the paper is complex. I want to find a way for people with contradictory beliefs, religions, values and opinions to live together without violating the basic nature of our democracy. I am motivated by confidence in the power of religion to affect reconciliation. I am also a patriot who embodies the unwavering commitment to freedom and justice integral to the American experience. I seek to be involved in attempts to find common ground on which the people in our nation can meet and, through honest, civil debate, find a just solution to a challenge that is splintering our nation and hurting many of its citizens. As President of Interfaith Alliance and as an active Baptist minister, I offer this paper and invite you to a discussion. An RSVP is attached to every personal opinion, inviting your response and a helpful ongoing conversation. C. Welton Gaddy INTRODUCTIONWe need to talk. Then, we need to work cooperatively with each other. Or at least try. Whatever your point of view on the issue of same-gender marriage, likely we can agree that most discussions on this subject fall short of civility, often deteriorate into hostility, fail to move the debate toward a conclusion mutually acceptable amid vastly pluralistic people, and increase division among the American people.The intensity and heat of the debate on this subject are not surprising. Discussions of same-gender marriage necessitate conversations about religion, politics, and government. These are subjects seldom treated without significant differences in opinions and inflammability in accompanying emotions. There is a better way to proceed—a way that involves respect for opinions from gay and lesbian persons as well as from heterosexual individuals, a way that assures appreciation and respect both for religion and religious institutions as well as for those for whom religion holds no sway, and a way that is more consistent with the vision of this nation that birthed the guarantees of individual freedoms in the United States Constitution and guided the formation and development of our government. Interfaith Alliance institutionally and I personally propose that we continue, broaden, and deepen our national discussion on this emotional subject. We envision, encourage, and seek to facilitate dialogue characterized by civility, mutual respect and a focus more on what it means to be an American than what it means to be a heterosexual, lesbian or gay person. DON’T START WITH RELIGIONTypically discussions on same-gender marriage, whether in the chamber of a state legislature or a chair in a hair dresser’s shop, begin with comments related to religion. Seldom, however, is the result a discovery of common ground on which to continue conversations. Let’s face it, dialogues about religion will not forge national consensus on any sociopolitical issue or serve as a source of national unity. The population of our nation is too diverse and the religions in our nation are too different for that to happen. Individual religious traditions are divided from each other externally and, internally, adherents within each of these traditions are divided from each other. Then, too, religious people tend to be divided from the growing number of individuals who favor no religion.Not uncommonly, discussions on same-gender marriage begin with a focus on Holy Scriptures. Within Jewish and Christian traditions, predictable passages of scripture surface immediately: Genesis 19:4-8; Leviticus 18:22, 20:13; Romans 1:22-27; 1 Corinthians 5:10, 6:9; 1 Timothy 1:10; Jude 1:7; and 2 Peter 2:6. Controversy, if not heated debate, erupts rather quickly. At issue is not a particular passage of scripture so much as a particular method for interpreting all scripture. Those who claim to take every word in every passage of the Bible literally declare that the Abraham-centered narrative in Genesis 19 condemns homosexuality. However, reading this same passage of Hebrew Scripture, other people, who employ a different method of biblical interpretation, insist that this passage is about hospitality, not homosexuality. Many students of the Jewish and Christian scriptures point out that though the phenomenon of same-gender attraction was a subject of discussion at least as early as Plato’s Symposium, the actual term homosexuality was not coined until 1869. But, disagreements related to scripture are not a matter of reason alone. Some people feel that to go against a particular interpretation of a passage of scripture is to damn themselves to eternal punishment. Typically, when such discussions of the Bible finally end, no new insights have been discovered and the people in the debate have become more entrenched in their respective beliefs and more avid about, if not angered by, what they perceive as “the error” of the others’ point of view. Such a result is no surprise. Careful research as well as personal experience documents the reality that people’s attitudes toward and positions on same-gender marriage heavily reflect lessons, homilies, lectures and sermons from religious leaders to whom they listen regularly and to whom they ascribe religious authority. 1 Since more conversation is needed in pursuit of finding a solution to the same-gender marriage dilemma and discussions of scriptural teachings tend to end such conversations, we had best find a different starting place for our considerations of this subject. Surely, people of different faiths and no faith can all be Americans. People who recognize the authority of scriptures certainly need not ignore the issues of scriptural teachings both on homosexuality and marriage. Neither, though, do scriptural teachings or religious beliefs belong as topic number one in discussions about the government’s role in this controversy. No individual has to give up a religious conviction in order to extend the government’s provision of the rights and privileges, as well as the responsibilities and accountability, of marriage to people of the same gender. WE HOLD THESE TRUTHSInterfaith Alliance and I are honestly seeking common ground on which we can work together to provide basic civil rights benefits to same-gender couples without violating a religious organization’s right to marry only people whom it judges worthy of its blessing. We don’t believe such common ground ever will be reached by beginning the discussion on the subject of Holy Scriptures or religious traditions. Indeed, since marriage is a civil issue, not a religious issue in the United States, we feel it appropriate to begin discussions from the perspective of religious liberty and with a focus on rights that all citizens should enjoy. We seek to explore whether or not those currently opposed to same-sex marriage are willing to grant constitutional rights to all citizens, knowing their religious institutions are protected by the religious liberty provisions in the First Amendment.
Prior to writing the first word of this paper, I sought to articulate some of the most important of these principles:
A NEW PLACE TO BEGINLaw, not scripture, is the foundation of government regulations related to marriage in our nation. Presently, the United States government recognizes marriage on the basis of a properly authorized, government-issued marriage license. Inconsequential to the legitimacy and the legality of a marriage recognized by agencies of American government are the ceremonial rites – civil or religious – involved in the wedding that produced the marriage. In the United States, marriages may result from vows stated and pronouncements made in the midst of grand spiritual services conducted by vested clergy in spaces for sacred worship – or in the cramped office of a justice of the peace who offers a simple declaration of marriage after reading lyrics from a Bob Dylan song.Here! Let’s start discussions of same-gender marriage here: focusing on the civil basis of marriage and being ever mindful of the importance this marital relationship may have within various religious traditions. Making religious freedom the starting point of discussions of same-gender marriage can be of inestimable help in broadening our conversations and perhaps even in discovering resolutions.2 WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALLWe must be honest. Debates on the moral acceptability and personal equality of gay and lesbian persons likely will not end soon, if ever. Such is the consequence of vast numbers of people whose judgments about homosexual persons are shaped by vastly different views of religion, religious authority, morality, and theology. People who are condemnatory of homosexuals and/or homosexual behavior seldom change their minds as a result of biblical studies, rational arguments, or theoretical debates. A major shift in opinions or complete changes in people’s minds tend to occur, if at all, as a result of personal experiences with gay and lesbian individuals.3In our nation, however, issues of social acceptability and civic equality have a secure foundation independent of religion. That foundation is called the United States Constitution. Informing that document and standing alongside it is the force of the Declaration of Independence that, as far back as 1776, trumpeted to the world that “all men are created equal . . . endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” The founders of this nation did not encumber basic rights and liberties with a requirement of affirmation from any religion. Their resolute compliance with core democratic values prevailed despite differences in opinions about religion and beliefs shaped by religion. The founders launched this grand experiment in democracy in order to find ways to work together for the betterment of this government and for assurances of liberty and justice for all of their present and future fellow patriots. Our challenge is to live out the vision of our founders and to assure every citizen a realization of the promises of our Constitution. This requires that everyone respect the conscience and convictions derived from the many religious traditions and non-religious people that call this land their home. A free exercise of religion! At a minimum, such work requires the government not to force any religious body to violate its most profound theological, spiritual and moral convictions; nor should any religion or religious institution seek to use the government to impose its particular views on the American public by means of law. No establishment of religion! This also means the government guarantees that all citizens – gays, lesbians, heterosexuals, or otherwise – enjoy the full benefits of American citizenship without compromising the rights of any other person. The application of religious freedom to the issue of same-gender marriage means that government must not discriminate among persons to whom its officers issue licenses for marriage and certificates of marriage. It requires that government, through its elected leaders and chosen authorities, must respect houses of worship and religious traditions that disagree with its provision of liberty and justice for all people. MARRIAGE AT THE INTERSECTION OF RELIGION, POLITICS AND GOVERNMENTGovernment controls marriage in the United States. Despite the religious community’s avid interest in marriage and heavy involvement in wedding ceremonies, legal marriage does not exist in this country without a government-issued license for marriage and certificate of marriage. Indeed, religion has no actual influence, legal or otherwise, on the United States government’s recognition of marriage. Couples do not have to be religious to get married. Religious leaders do not have to preside over marriage ceremonies. Marriage partners do not have to make any pledge to support or be involved in a religious institution. To summarize, in the United States marriage is a legal institution—sanctioned by government and restricted by the government in the number of partners allowed in a marital relationship and the minimum age of those partners.To confuse the civil institution of marriage with a religious institution to be protected by the government is to seriously misunderstand marriage and its relationship to government in the United States! Civil law determines the formation and dissolution of a marriage as well as the duties, responsibilities, rights and benefits of married people: rights related to property, insurance, inheritance, bankruptcy, social security and more; duties related to mutual support, payment of taxes and more; and a variety of privileges. Since the inception of this nation, religious leaders have recognized that the governance of marriage resides with the state. Leaders of religious organizations have complied with state requirements that those who officiate at marriages – even religious marriages with rites performed in houses of worship – be authorized by the government to serve as representatives of the government in the marriage ceremony. Similarly, religious leaders and houses of worship continue to look to the government to decide when marriages should be terminated. Thankfully, the government’s control of marriage is not without limits. The First Amendment to the Constitution prohibits the government from imposing its meaning of marriage on a house of worship. Our constitutional principle of mutual reciprocity is invaluable. The government has no more right to define marriage for a house of worship than any religious body has a right to impose its sectarian view of marriage on the entirety of a government by means of law. As legal scholar Douglas Laycock asserts, “Religious and legal marriage are . . . distinct in conception as well as in origin.”4 In recent court decisions and legislative actions in the states of Massachusetts, California, Iowa and Vermont favoring same-gender marriage, officials stated explicitly that they have no power to redefine a religious institution. Civil marriage is a secular institution. The California Supreme Court even raised the possibility of choosing a word other than marriage to designate the civil relationship. But there is a problem. Exacerbating an already complex challenge posed by same-gender marriage is the involvement of politics – partisan politics – in national discussions. President Bush, in particular, heightened confusion in our nation when, for political reasons, he assumed the posture of a theologian and lectured us about the meaning of marriage. Responding to the Massachusetts decision on same-gender marriage on February 4, 2004, President Bush declared that redefining marriage by recognizing same-sex marriage threatened the “sanctity” of marriage. Of course, there is the question of “how.” More importantly, protecting the sanctity of marriage is not the business of the President of the United States or of any branch or officer in our government. Their responsibilities are to protect the Constitution and assure that their administration of government provides constitutional services to people with equity and justice. “Sacred” and “sanctity” are words related to holiness. Government does not have the capacity to create holiness or to sanctify anything, including marriage. Unfortunately, President Bush assumed that the courts of Massachusetts were redefining a religious institution. The courts of Massachusetts were clear: they were dealing with law as assigned by the government. As pointed out above, agencies of the state governments that have expressly supported same-gender marriage stated explicitly that they have no power to redefine a religious institution. The debate on marriage equality would be enhanced considerably and perhaps aided in its progress in finding solutions if all politicians recognized that civil marriage is a secular institution. Politicians are doing no favor to our nation by confusing the public on the issue of same-gender marriage. Speaking with one voice, voters should say to their government representatives: “Stop playing politics with marriage!” The manner in which the government handles divorce can be instructive regarding the manner in which government should handle marriage. The United States government does not look to majority religious opinions to inform the justifications for which it grants divorces. Indeed, the government’s action on divorce often conflicts with the values of some religious traditions. Catholics, for example, believe marriage is forever, beyond dissolution. Yet states grant divorces. Ponder the principle involved here. A house of worship does not have to recognize divorce, but the government does. And, a divorced person can secure a marriage license to marry again; the government makes that provision regardless of several different religions’ opposition to divorce and remarriage. Additionally, the government respects a house of worship’s right to refuse to participate in the remarriage of a divorced person. I repeat: the manner in which the government handles divorce can be instructive regarding the manner in which government should handle marriage. Historically, the government’s control of marriage is clear. As recently as 1987, in a unanimous decision on a case giving prisoners the right to marry, the United States Supreme Court ruled that marriage is such an important institution that prohibitions to marry cannot be arbitrarily established by the government.5 Of course, the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution cites no gender-based exclusion when extending “equal protection of the laws” to all citizens. A marriage certificate is a civil document issued by an agency of government on the basis of a decision about the civil rights of two people. MARRIAGE AND CIVIL RIGHTSCognizance of historical precedent and governmental declarations related to civil rights and marriage evokes the question of why any citizen in our nation should not be granted freedom to marry. How can sexual orientation be made a legitimate disqualifier for couples interested in the civil institution of marriage? If marriage is primarily a civil institution, as regularly illustrated in the attitudes and actions of religious leaders, why should marriage not be available to all citizens? Must gay and lesbian people be considered less worthy of civil rights than criminals?Some anti-same-gender-marriage activists adamantly argue that sexual orientation cannot be treated in the same manner as race because a choice is involved in sexual orientation. Such thought represents faulty science as well as deafness to the voices of civil rights leaders. Commenting on African-American civil rights leaders’ support for same-gender marriages, D. James Kennedy and Jerry Newcombe wrote with no equivocation: “Blacks resent this notion.”6 I assume that not all African-American civil rights leaders support same-gender marriage. However, the distinguished civil rights leader John Lewis, who is now an influential member of the United States Congress, left no doubt about this matter in a speech calling for defeat of the “Defense of Marriage Act.” Lewis said, “This is a mean bill. It is cruel.” He called it a “slap in the face of the Declaration of Independence” and asserted, “Marriage is a basic human right.” Reflecting on the civil rights struggle, Lewis continued, “I have fought too hard and too long against discrimination based on race and color not to stand up against discrimination based on sexual orientation.” In conclusion, the congressman declared, “This bill stinks of the same fear, hatred, and intolerance” as racism. 7 Early in my professional career, I tried to make a sharp distinction between rights for gay and lesbian people and civil rights for African-American people. But the burden of the argument became too heavy (even as the flawed reasoning defied defense). As Lewis Gates points out, African-Americans were denied the right to marriage as a means of emphasizing their lack of full humanity. 8 I wanted, and I want, no part of such bigoted thought. Civil rights exist to assure equality under the law for everybody. Respected author and religious leader Peter Gomes has questioned why our government subjects enforcement of the civil right of marriage to electoral referendum. The only reason why our government would hold a referendum on a right guaranteed in the Constitution, Gomes asserts, is because of the influence of powerful special interest groups. He remembers similar occurrences along the path to guaranteeing full civil rights for women and for African Americans.9 Legal scholar Evan Gerstmann declares, “The Constitution guarantees every person the right to marry the person of his or her choice.”10 Thus, as with other rights, the right to marry applies to gay and lesbian people as it does to every other citizen. The government’s provision of same-gender marriage does not require a change in the Constitution, only a change in the will of politicians who hold public offices. Our nation’s understanding of marriage would be helped immensely and advancement of the right of all people to marry extended significantly if leaders in our government would rise above partisan politics, eliminate unnecessary confusion by articulating the truth about the government’s singular control of marriage, and announce their intent to comply with the Constitution such that the right of every person to marry is fundamental. MARRIAGE AT THE ALTARS OF RELIGIONIf government officials and religious leaders distinguished the differences between legal marriage and religious marriage, they could greatly reduce the amount of conflict in public discussions on same-gender marriage. Many people seem either to ignore or to be unaware of the fact that, despite the soaring language and lofty images used to describe marriage in most religious traditions, in the United States marriage is a civil institution. Decisions about who is married and who is not married are the prerogative of the government, not a house of worship, a spiritual leader, or a religious tradition. Lawful marriage does not occur in the United States without a marriage license and a certificate of marriage, both of which must be acquired from an agency of the civil government.The government of the United States recognizes marriage completely without reference to religion. In the United States, marriage is a legal institution—sanctioned and restricted by government. To confuse the civil institution of marriage with a religious institution to be protected by the government is to seriously misunderstand marriage and its relationship to government in the United States. Religious freedom protects every house of worship from government intrusion to impose a particular view of marriage or to demand a religious blessing for a special kind of marriage – like same-gender marriage. The United States Constitution provides a way for the government to keep its promise of guaranteeing equal rights for all people while, at the same time, protecting the freedom of religious institutions to practice their respective doctrines and values. Both religious bodies and governmental institutions can function with integrity while supporting liberty for everybody. ENDURING ASSURANCESAmericans’ attitudes toward same-gender marriage are changing. That should be no surprise. Changes in attitudes toward marriage can be documented throughout secular history and even in sacred scriptures. A recent poll indicates “A majority of Americans support either allowing gay couples to legally marry (29%) or form civil unions (28%).”11 According to this poll, 57% of the American people favor a legal recognition of same-gender unions. How best to translate that public will into law is a question without a consensus answer.Disagreements on the best way forward exist even among those who agree that some form of legal recognition for same-gender unions is needed. New proposals for such a provision are emerging regularly. While opinions are coalescing around details on how to proceed, however, certain assurances rise above debate. Any policy on same-gender marriage that is proposed for adoption as a legal statute must contain certain key provisions. First, the same benefits should be guaranteed to same-gender marriages that are provided to marriages between men and women. Currently at least 1,138 statutory provisions are available to people who can marry that are unavailable to same-gender couples who are denied marriage.12 The outcome of the current debate on same-gender marriage will impact significantly the benefits, rights and privileges available to same-gender couples related to housing, employment practices, public accommodation, medical and pharmaceutical services, licensing, government funding, access to civic property, membership in private clubs, freedom of speech, death, debts, divorce, family leave, health, immigration, inheritance, insurance, parenting, portability, privilege, property, retirement, taxes and more—legal provisions rightly expected by all married persons, regardless of their respective sexual orientations, in a democracy committed to equality and justice.13 Second, and more difficult to assure, same-gender marriages should enjoy a status that commands the same recognition and respect as that extended to marriages between men and women. This may prompt memories of protests against racial integration and the passage of civil rights legislation. “You can’t make me love anybody by passing laws!” segregationists shouted. And, they were right. However, in that turbulent, focused period of civil rights struggles and its immediate aftermath, our nation learned that social attitudes were positively affected by federal legislation. Once civil rights legislation had been enacted, law-abiding citizens strove for more peaceful and respectful relationships across racial lines. Predictably, people who believe that the legalization of same-gender marriages will erode the stability and sanctity of heterosexual marriages will have trouble with this provision. The logic involved in that argumentative assertion is questionable. Why would anyone decry a marital relationship that exhibits fidelity and community between two people across scores of years? As Gomes observed, “To extend the civil right of marriage to homosexuals will neither solve nor complicate the problems already inherent in marriage . . . what it will do is permit a whole class of persons . . . deprived of a civil right, both to benefit from and participate in the valuable yet vulnerable institution which in our changing society needs all the help it can get.”14 Third, the legalization of same-gender marriage can and should be accomplished in a matter that poses no threat to religious bodies that oppose this action. Assuring this provision, though, is more difficult than may be apparent at first. At a minimum this guarantee must assure houses of worship that they will not have to offer rituals or blessings for marriages they do not condone. Consideration also must be given to the advisability of religious exemptions related to fair housing laws, public accommodation laws, and employment laws to name only a few realms of challenge. This may not be easy. Indeed, Marc D. Stern argues that “if there is to be space for opponents of same-sex marriage, it will have to be created at the same time as same-sex marriage is recognized, and, probably, as part of a legislative package.”15 Assuring justice is worth the effort. Fourth, movement toward same-gender marriage can provide an opportunity for our nation to engage in a serious reconsideration of the place of marriage in government and in religion. Fearing second-class citizenship for same-gender couples, Evan Wolfson insists on the use of the term marriage for same-gender couples, anticipating that the term “civil unions” will bear the stigma of provisions of tolerance rather than conveying genuine acceptance.16 Fifth, in the United States, a marriage recognized in one state should also be recognized in every other state. As a basic right provided by the Constitution, same-gender marriages should not be restricted to only specific locales in the nation. Recognition of marriage in one state by another state would fulfill the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution and underscore the fact that ours is one nation as opposed to a loose confederacy of independent states. Marriage for everybody ought to be available everywhere anybody lives. FORWARD MOVEMENTSignificant change, especially when prejudice and religion are involved, is always accompanied by challenges and difficulties. But promise is also present. Alterations in our nation’s current marriage policies certainly reflect the reality of that principle. Change is underway. Various proposals for a way forward appear regularly.Two highly visible proposals illustrate current efforts to temper the vitriolic debate over same-gender marriage and move forward in a manner that would civilize dialogue on the subject, provide same-gender couples the legal recognition they desire, and ease the anxiety of houses of worship that fear a government mandate to perform marriages that they oppose. In an essay printed in USA Today in the spring of 2006, Jonathan Turley urged the government to drop the term “marriage” in its licensing laws for all couples and to use instead the term “civil union.”17 Turley also would leave the use of the more religion-oriented term “marriage” to religious organizations. Under this arrangement, like any heterosexual couple, same-gender couples desiring life together would sign a civil union agreement establishing their legal obligations to each other and to their progeny. They would have no reason to feel a sense of inferiority or discrimination stemming from being denied “marriage” by the government – because nobody would receive “marriage” from the government. After entering a civil union, same-gender couples, again like heterosexual couples, if they so willed, could seek marriage in a house of worship. Whatever one thinks of this proposed arrangement, it wisely acknowledges that all couples have the same rights, that the government has no business in determining the moral credibility of a couple’s union, and that houses of worship can choose whom they will and will not bless with the term “marriage.” Until recent years, the government has stringently sought to avoid involvement in religious institutions or conflict with houses of worship. But, as Turley observed, marriage always has been “a conspicuous door placed in the wall of separation between church and state.”18 More recently, a supporter of same-gender marriage and an opponent of same-gender marriage co-authored an op-ed in the New York Times to plead for a pragmatic solution to end the escalating debate on same-gender marriage.19 David Bankenhorn and Jonathan Rauch call for the United States Congress to give federal endorsement to civil unions for same-gender couples, conferring on them all of the rights and benefits of marriage. But, there is a caveat. The writers think the federal government should recognize only unions licensed in states that have strong religious conscience exemptions. Such an arrangement, they argue, would alleviate same-sex couples’ fear of a double standard in the granting of benefits and rights to unions not called marriages. At the same time, religious organizations would be allowed to treat same-gender couples differently than they treat heterosexual couples. The authors explain, “Linking federal civil unions to guarantees of religious freedom seems a natural way to give the two sides something they would greatly value while heading off a long-term, take-no-prisoners conflict.”20 An interesting and insightful response to this particular proposal appeared in the Associated Baptist Press. A former Southern Baptist pastor, Benjamin Cole, complains that both writers miss the fundamental point at the center of the current debate—the nature of marriage. “It is a question of ontology rather than theology,” Cole writes, “The reason that many conservatives do not approve of same-sex marriage is not because we wish to deny basic liberties to gays and lesbians. It is because we do not believe such relationships constitute marriage.” What do you think? How do you propose we move forward? A PERSONAL CONCLUSIONWhen I began writing this paper on behalf of Interfaith Alliance, I had no intention of sharing a proposal in my conclusion. However, my studies related to this project have eradicated old presumptions and prompted the development of new ideas. I share my thoughts as an example of what a careful study of this issue did to one person. What such study will do for others, I dare not judge. I hope for helpful actions.For me, a close look at the meaning of religious liberty, the necessity of disentangling the institutions of government and the institutions of religion and the respective responsibilities of government and houses of worship in relation to marriage suggested the possibility that religion, government and all citizens would be best served by the government getting completely out of the business of marriage. In such a scenario, the government would be responsible for issuing licenses for civil unions for any couple seeking a legal relationship. The matter of marriage would be left to houses of worship. Couples who had entered into a civil union and wanted the blessing of a house of worship could request marriage. Each house of worship, in turn, could decide on which relationships it would bless and to those extend its blessing of marriage. Such a plan seemed to serve the joint causes of liberty and justice for all. However, the more I tried to live with that conclusion, the more I realized the distinct possibility of civil unions being considered a status secondary to that of marriage. I must admit also that I was continuing to give credibility to the idea that marriage always has been the prerogative of religious institutions. Of course, that is not the case. Government officials can perform marriages in the United States. Civil marriages and religious marriages have existed side by side for an untold number of years. Both civil marriages and religious marriages have been recognized, respected and treated equally in our society. I see no reason for that situation to change. Only days before sending this paper to members of a peer review committee, the Supreme Court of Iowa affirmed the constitutionality of same-gender marriage in the Iowa Constitution. What’s more, the opinion of the justices, who ruled unanimously in favor of same-gender marriage, read like the principles presented in this paper. Acknowledging that most of the opposition to same-gender marriage in their state was rooted in religion, the Iowa justices addressed the implications of their ruling for the religious community. Writing with respect for religion and avoiding even the hint of a denigration of religion, the justices explained that they approached the issue of same-gender marriage as “civil judges, far removed from the theological debate of religious clerics” and cognizant that the Iowa Constitution defines marriage as a “civil contract.”21 “State government can have no religious views, either directly or indirectly, expressed through its legislation,” the justices declared, explaining that “civil marriage must be judged under our constitutional standards of equal protection and not under religious doctrines or the religious views of individuals.”22 The justices explicitly vowed to protect “the free exercise of religion in Iowa” and thus the right of a religious organization to “define marriages it solemnizes as unions between a man and a woman.”23 According to the justices of the Supreme Court of Iowa, their historic ruling was a result of their interest in protecting constitutional rights for all people without intruding into the beliefs and practices of any of the religions in their state. Here is a perfect example of civil marriage offered to all couples by the government and religious marriage offered by houses of worship only to those couples whose relationship a house of worship wants to bless. Regardless of what happens next in Iowa or in any other state, I remain committed to dialogue about and efforts to find support for two fundamental convictions related to the assurance of equality in law and independence for religion: all citizens should have equal access to civil marriage and to the benefits of marriage provided for citizens in this government. Couples who desire religious marriage can seek a house of worship in which to receive that blessing. But, as is the case now, no house of worship would be legally obligated to provide marriage for a couple whom it does not want to bless. All houses of worship should be free to advocate for, defend and perpetuate the view of marriage that is consistent with their religious traditions and convictions. AN INVITATION TO ENGAGEThe Introduction to this paper expresses how I feel about the need for all of us to talk and, then, try to work cooperatively with each other. It is offered as a serious reflection intended to evoke and encourage extended conversation. As I near the end of this paper, I am more convinced than ever of the importance of its observations and the invitation to dialogue inherent in them.Debate on its major points is as desirable as it is predictable. This paper is the product of a person who, like scores of other people, wants to be religiously faithful, politically responsible, socially compassionate, and appropriately influential as a patriotic citizen. I dare to be hopeful of encouraging, if not enabling, readers to take a step forward toward achieving mutual understanding and advancing social justice. Interfaith Alliance is eager to help facilitate such discussions. The subject of marriage equality merits our best thoughts and influential actions as United States citizens, whether or not we are religious people or individuals who adhere to no religion. Please send your critique, commendation, questions or suggestions for expansion to Interfaith Alliance, 1212 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 1250, Washington, D.C. 20005 or visit interfaithalliance.org. PRINCIPLED DEBATEInterfaith Alliance enters into our discussion about same-gender marriage upon a framework of the following ethical principles:PRINCIPLE: Government should provide basic rights, freedom, and justice to every person without regard to an individual’s religion, race, or sexual orientation. State and local governments should offer to all citizens the civic rituals and arrangements, including marriage, that are offered to any citizens. PRINCIPLE: No house of worship should have to perform a marriage ceremony against its will, and never because of the intrusion and/or compulsion of government. Guided by the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom, government should not try to define persons suitable for marriage in houses of worship. However, governments can and should define persons to whom civil licenses for marriage will be made available. The primary concerns of government are legal. Houses of worship share an interest in what is legal while focusing more intensely on what they consider moral. PRINCIPLE: A house of worship should be able to bless and perform a marriage ceremony for couples whom it deems marriage appropriate. When a house of worship bases its blessing of a marriage on the government’s criteria for recognition of a marriage, the house of worship consents to a compromise of the free exercise clause related to religion and participates in a violation of the Constitution’s prohibition of government establishing religion. PRINCIPLE: Members of a committed same-gender couple have the same right to be faithful to their moral integrity as do religious institutions respectfully disagreeing with the couple’s moral integrity. Neither, however, has the right to seek to impose its moral values on the other, though both have the right to benefit from the government’s constitutional commitment to the values of equality, freedom, and justice for all citizens. PRINCIPLE: “Some aspects of human identity are so fundamental that they should be left to each individual, free of all non-essential regulation, even when manifested in conduct.”24 PRINCIPLE: An individual should not be penalized personally or prohibited socially from enjoying basic rights and freedoms because of religious beliefs or sexual orientation unless that person’s behavior inflicts harm on other people. PRINCIPLE: To ban civil marriage to couples based on gender denies them access to civil rights and undermines their civil liberties. Gay and lesbian persons deserve all of the same rights and privileges enjoyed by all other citizens of the United States. PRINCIPLE: Religion, government and all citizens would be best served by the provision of civil marriages and religious marriages that receive recognition, respect and equal treatment without regard to the gender or sexual orientation of the marital partners. Again, we welcome your critique, commendation, questions or suggestions. Interfaith Alliance, 1212 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 1250, Washington, D.C. 20005 or visit interfaithalliance.org. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThe Arcus Foundation and the E. Rhodes and Leona B. Carpenter Foundation provided generous financial support that made the research, writing and publication of this paper possible.A prestigious peer review panel provided helpful counsel to the author. The distinguished members of this panel included Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Bishop Tonyia Rawls, The Right Reverend Jane Holmes Dixon, Rabbi Elliot Dorff, Mitchell Gold (philanthropist), Ruth Davis (constitutional expert), Chrys Lemon (attorney), Jonathan Stoller (TAO Management), and Tom Minar (American University). Additionally, my wife, Judy, other staff members at Interfaith Alliance and a wide circle of friends and colleagues offered questions, challenges, suggestions, ideas, and encouragement that strengthened the substance of the content and sharpened the clarity of the paper. Among these contributors are D. H. Clark, Craig Henry, Sharon Gedan, Nelrose Sims, Greg Lebel, Patti Pate, Paul Barby, Matt Dorf and Steve Rabinowitz. Donna Red Wing, Senior Advisor for Program and Development at Interfaith Alliance, excelled in bringing together all of the elements necessary to give this initiative an opportunity to succeed. Other staff members at Interfaith Alliance who provided helpful critique and counsel include William Blake, Jonathan Craig, Ari Geller, Isa Hyde, Jay Keller, Francilla Laville, Julie Mashack, Jessalyn Pinneo and Julius Weiss. Special thanks go to James Semmelroth Darnell who served as a research assistant for the project and to Thaler Pekar of Thaler Pekar & Partners, LLC for her editorial expertise. The staff of Interfaith Alliance will now implement the primary purpose of this paper – facilitating civil dialogue among numerous voices representing diverse perspectives in search of common ground. ABOUT THE AUTHORThe Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy is president of Interfaith Alliance. Dr. Gaddy also serves as the Pastor for Preaching and Worship at Northminster (Baptist) Church in Monroe, Louisiana, and he is the author of more than 20 books addressing religion in America.Every week, he hosts State of Belief on Air America Radio, where he explains and explores the role of religion in the life of the nation. Dr. Gaddy provides regular commentary to the national media on issues relating to religion and politics. Dr. Gaddy is recognized as a leading advocate for protecting the boundaries between religion and government. He has been a forceful critic of the faith-based initiative and has been at the forefront of efforts to pass comprehensive hate crimes legislation, end religious profiling and keep religion out of public classrooms. Dr. Gaddy is a graduate of Union University in Tennessee. He received his doctoral degree and divinity training from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. ABOUT INTERFAITH ALLIANCEInterfaith Alliance celebrates religious freedom by championing individual rights, promoting policies that protect both religion and democracy and uniting diverse voices to challenge extremism. Founded in 1994, Interfaith Alliance has 185,000 members from 75 faith traditions as well as those with no a faith tradition.While many faith traditions have grappled with issues of equality, including same gender marriage, much of that work has been viewed through a scriptural lens. Interfaith Alliance seeks to shift the perspective on LGBT equality from that of problem to solution, from a scriptural argument to a religious freedom agreement, and to address the issue of equality as informed by our Constitution. Same-Gender Marriage and Religious Freedom: A Call to Quiet Conversations and Public Debates by Interfaith Alliance President, Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy, offers a diversity of ideas based on Interfaith Alliance’s unique advocacy for religious freedom and interfaith exchange. This projects’s cross-denominational nature is at the core of Interfaith Alliance’s effort to spark national conversation and action. This project is made possible through the support of the Arcus Foundation and the E. Rhodes and Leona B. Carpenter Foundation. 1 A 2009 Public Religion Research poll found that three of the six most powerful independent influences on people’s views on same-gender marriage were related to religion – people’s view of the Bible, religious affiliation, and attendance in a house of worship. Individuals’ opposition to or support for same-sex unions tends to be determined, in large part, by the messages they hear in their houses of worship. For example, 58% of white evangelicals oppose legal recognition for same-sex couples as compared with only 26% of white mainline Protestants expressing similar opposition. (Robert P. Jones and Daniel Cox, American Attitudes on Marriage Equality: Findings from the 2008 Faith and American Politics Study. Public Religion Research, LLC, February, 2008, pp 4, 14.) Another Public Religion Research poll, discovered that a whopping 65% of mainline clergy favor either same-sex marriage (33%) or civil unions (32%). (Robert P. Jones and Daniel Cox, Clergy Voices: Findings from the 2008 Mainline Protestant Clergy Voices Survey. Public Religion Research, LLC, March, 2009, p 25.) (back) 2 Significant encouragement for my proposal can be found in the American Attitudes on Marriage Equality poll released early in 2009. Based on their expert analysis of that polling data, Robert P. Jones and Daniel Cox found: “Addressing religious liberty concerns significantly increases support for same-sex marriage.” Assurance of religious liberty guarantees raised support for legalized marriage equality from 29% to 43%. (American Attitudes on Marriage Equality, p 4.) (back) 3 American Attitudes on Marriage Equality, p 4. Not surprisingly, the Public Religion Research poll found that 48% of the people who have close relationships with individuals who are gay or lesbian support same-sex marriage. That number drops to 14% among individuals who have no relationship with gay or lesbian persons. (back) 4 Douglas Laycock, “Afterword,” Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty: Emerging Conflicts. Edited by Douglas Laycock, Anthony R. Picarello, Jr., and Robin Fretwell Wilson, (The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and Rowman & Littlefield) (back) 5 Turner v. Safely, 482 U.S. 78 (1987). (back) 6 D. James Kennedy and Jerry Newcombe, What’s Wrong with Same-Sex Marriage? (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2004) p. 37. (back) 7 John Lewis, “House Debate on the Defense of Marriage Act, Same-Sex Marriage: Pro & Con, A Reader, Andrew Sullivan, editor, revised edition (New York, Vintage Books, 1997, 229-230), p 229-30. (back) 8 Evan Wolfson, Why Marriage Matters: America, Equality, and Gay People’s Right to Marry, (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2004), p 110. (back) 9 Wolfson, p 167. (back) 10 Evan Gerstmann, Same-Sex Marriage and the Constitution, second edition (Cambridge University Press, 2008), p 73. (back) 11 American Attitudes of Marriage Equality, p 7. (back) 12 In 2004 in a letter to Senator Bill Frist, who was at that time the majority leader in the United States Senate, Associate General Counsel Dayna K. Shah cited a 1997 report in which 1,049 federal statutory provisions in the United States Code that were contingent on marital status. That figure was updated to 1,138 in light of statutory provisions involving marital status that were enacted between September 21, 1996 and December 31, 2003. See the United States General Accounting Office’s document GAO-04-353R entitled Defense of Marriage Act. (back) 13 A particular outrage of justice arises when same-gender couples who have lived together faithfully for many years are deprived certain benefits that, especially in times of crisis, deprive a couple of togetherness and opportunities for mutual love and support. This concern is not about an abstract debate regarding law; it is about flesh-and-blood human beings who are experiencing debilitating discrimination. I have a close personal friend who has been in a committed lesbian relationship for 23 years. Her former husband has more rights related to my friend than does her partner for nearly a quarter of a century. Several years ago when my friend faced the necessity of a major surgical procedure with a lower-than-usual success rate, she not only had to deal with the anxiety related to her physical well-being but also with worry related to her wishes being carried out in the case of death. The law offered her little assurance that her partner would be recognized as the caretaker of her body or the recipient of her inheritance. My friend was especially panicked because five years prior to that crucial moment in her life, she had seen a tragic situation unfold for a lesbian couple who were her friends. One of these women took a hard fall and was afflicted by an aneurism. The hospital would not allow her partner any privileges without a document establishing her power of attorney. The couple had no standing as a family. While one member of the couple was attempting to get legal paperwork faxed to her at the hospital, the partner in physical distress died alone, without her partner by her bedside; the hospital had kept the couple separated. Sadly, only by securing help from the dead woman’s former husband, was the grieving partner allowed to help make funeral arrangements for her deceased lover/partner. This is wrong! On May 19, 2009 the New York Times reported on a recent case in which a trauma center in Miami, Florida denied visitation to a woman whose partner of eighteen years was a patient there as a result of an aneurysm. Visitation also was denied to the two women’s adopted children. (Tara Parker-Pope, “Kept From a Dying Partner’s Bedside,” New York Times, May 19, 2009.) (back) 14 Peter J. Gomes, “A Chance and a Choice,” Same-Sex Marriage: Pro & Con, A Reader, Andrew Sullivan, editor, revised edition, (New York, Vintage Books, 1997, 348-353), 353. (back) 15 Marc D. Stern, “Same-Sex Marriage and the Churches,” Same- Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty: Emerging Conflicts. Edited by Douglas Laycock, Anthony R. Picarello, Jr., and Robin Fretwell Wilson (The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and Roman & Littelfield Publishers, Inc., 2008, 1-57), p 57. (back) 16 Wolfson, Why Marriage Matters p. 123-144 (back) 17 Turley, “How to End the Same-Sex Marriage Debate” (back) 18 Turley (back) 19 David Blankenhorn and Jonathan Rauch, “A Reconciliation on Gay Marriage,” New York Times, February 22, 2009. (back) 20 Bankenhorn and Rauch (back) 21 Varnum v. Brien, No. 07-1499 (Iowa 2009). p 65 (back) 22 Varnum v. Brien, p 66 (back) 23 Varnum v. Brien, p 65 (back) 24 Laycock, “Afterword,” p. 184. (back) Join the Conversation
Posted by Mary Martin Koski
, May 21, 2010
Is this radicalism funded by my tax dollars? It is well known that anyone can sin as they please...as long as it doesn't hurt others...but, it always does hurt others! This site is so wrong in attempting to brain wash Americans and Judeo-Christians into believing that homosexuality is an OK option! You are guilty of causing children and adults to sin by doing this! And I don't agree with using my money to cause others to sin and lead an unholy life! God knows what is best for His children and he said has and will destroy nations who promote these unatural affections! I will work as hard as I can and pray to God that this interfaith alliance actually reads Gods' laws, promises and learns who the real God is! It's not you or the government! God is God...and I will follow His laws...not yours! God is opposed to homosexual marriange....you talk to Him, not me. And my children are my own..not the governments..to feed these lies into their minds through the public schools. Gays chose not to have children when they chose their lifestyle...so leave mine alone! They are mine and Gods and the schools cannot and will not teach them that having sex with their same sex partner is OK~ Homesexuals cannot have chidren...that is the punishment for their sinful ways! Feel free to attempt to contact me and brainwash me....it won't work...I will stear you to Gods' laws and His word...end of story. Fight God not me!
Posted by Rev. Leynda Erwin, The Kirk O' the Way
, May 11, 2010
Alas, the one point no one seems to want to face: Marriage, by the defining means of any Prophet, is a union of two hearts and souls. Period. Just because the celebrants are Adam and Steve means naught. Were the "union of two bodies" the real point, there are many whom I'd have never put together, not even as friends. If a soul is true to the emotion, and a heart sharing all it may, who are we to say Annette and Stephanie should not enjoy the unique position of matrimony? As the heart, so the love and the life. As the soul, so the faith in each other to truly make two hearts one. Else none should enjoy the place of marriage, and none should enjoy the secular benefits inherent. How would some like being told today they were not allowed to marry because they were Black/Indian/Chinese/Japanese/"retarded"/"deformed"/or any of several hundred Ethnicities or physical conditions? If this is how the worlds religions wish to be about the people in their congregations, especially those who are "a little bit different", it's no wonder they're moving to a faith that recognizes them as people, hearts and souls first. I happen to be one of those who found a faith that works for me. Happily preaching a message taken from all the new Prophets. And I am one of the "little bit different".
Posted by Harold Bentley
, April 30, 2010
Sure would cut down on unwanted pregnancies wouldn't it?
Harold
Posted by MB
, March 26, 2010
For those that say homosexuality is a choice, I have a son and a sister who are both gay and I can assure you it is genetic, although we obviously do not understand the genetic code that has caused this to occur for centuries.
For those that point to God's word and say it is "in black and white" and wrong, I also point to the wise words of Rev. Oliver "Buzz" Thomas in his book "10 Things Your Minister Wants to Tell You": "So, is homosexuality a sin? Is that what the Bible really says? Certainly the writer of Leviticus thought so...The book of Leviticus is filled with laws imposing the death penalty on everything from eating catfish to sassing your parents. If you're going to accept one as the absolute, uneqquivocal word of God, you'd better be prepared to accept them all." Take the following questions he features as an example: 1. "When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice (remember, sacrifices are mandatory), I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Leviticus 1:9) The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?" 2. "I would like to sell my daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?" 5. "I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath (literally Saturday). Exodus 35:2 clearly states that he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself? Must I also kill his offspring? There are many other examples but I think the idea is clearly communicated with these examples. As Rev. Thomas indicates, mainstream religion moved beyond animal sacrifice, slavery, and the host of primitive rituals described in Leviticus centuries ago. Selectively hanging onto these ancient proscriptions for gays and lesbians exclusively is unfair according to anybody's standard of ethics.
Posted by Robert
, March 17, 2010
I do not buy the arguement that homosexuals are simply born that way, and therefore should be allowed to act out their desires with like minded folk. All heterosexual men are born with the instinct to spread their seed as much as possible, into every attractive woman who walks by. Because that is how I am born, does that give me license to act on my feelings? Crack your Bible folks. The answers are in black and white.
Posted by sudad
, January 03, 2010
why dont you start a medicin treatment for the people who feel that they are deferent from others like hormons or somthing medical anyway for me i respect all mankind and wish everybody goodness but i dont feel good when i look at two person who are the same sex getting married something wrong it is out of nature and against it so why we support something not naturally and against our nature this is wrong thing you are doing thank you
Posted by Bruce McGilvray
, December 11, 2009
It's obvious that many of you have fallen for the (what has yet NEVER been proven) idea that homosexuality is genetic. I do not share such a notion and believe that it's a preferance and a choice. Even though I believe being gay is not genetic, I do believe a person's choice is theirs alone. Saying that, I have to say some things that many may not share about this subject.
First, anyone who makes such speculations about the Bible that is truely baseless shouldn't make the Bible into an unfounded justification for thier personal views. I believe TK made a statement that marriage is not mentioned in the Bible and Sarah Laducer-Pierson used the relationships between both King David and Johnathan as well as the relationships of Ruth and Naomi to excuse here sexual preferances. As is often said in the daytime talk shows "Don't get it twisted".King David having a homosexual relationship with Johnathan would have left David dethroned and painfully killed right beside his supposed lover Johnathan. The Bible mentions many scandals and a homosexual "bromance" would've been mentioned. In the Bible, King David lamented about the loss of Johnathon where he states " I grieve for you, Johnathan my BROTHER; you were very dear to me." Your confusion might be where right after, David continues lamenting by saying " Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of a WOMAN." This is more of a "Bro's before Hoes" declaration, not a justification for homosexuality (Please forgive the "Bro's before Hoes" statement. It was the easiest way to explain the point). As for Ruth and Naomi. Naomi was Ruth's mother-in-law. After Ruth married Boaz (See TK? There's marriage in the Bible!) she later gave birth to a son, Ruth gave her son to Naomi to take care of, but, that's as far as the relationship was. They were family. Second, did anyone consider this as a cultural problem? People which I've talk to take this as an actual attack on those who embrace a traditional life style. I would argue that marriage was not primarily a pagan civil matter, nor was marriage first embraced by the church in the 8th Century. Christians had secret marriages performed in secret way before it was leagle to be Christian. Before Christ was even promissed in prophacy, for thousands of years, marriage was used as a means to procreate and enlarge the family. This would raise the status of a man's family and keep a man's name in tact. If a man had a daughter, many times that daughter would be married off in a form of trade giving another man's name a chance to prosper and grow while gaining some form of gift (such as a herd of lambs or some grain or [if the trade is with a man of riches] gold and/or jewels). However, if the man has a son, a reversal of gifts may be offered. Also, if the man was important, he was offered many gifts if he decides to let his son marry the other man's daughter. Many cultures have tied marriage and procreation using a key desire throughout the ages ... prosperity. So, for thousands of years, marriage which was at one time a utencil for an organized means of procreation, has become a huge foundation for the heterosexual lifestyle and (for many current cultures) still symbolizes prosperity. Gee, and you honestly wonder why this is not being taken well by most? The homosexual groups are expecting heterosexuals to give up a HUGE part of heterosexual culture (in a matter of a few years) in the name of one of the biggest hoaxes of all... equality. The very idea of equality is a fools dream. Think about it. I can NEVER be honestly compared to another because there will always be something different about me than the other pearson I'm being compared to. What these overbearing and annoying homosexual groups really want is acceptance. Which makes them hypocrites because they aren't willing to accept the differences that many religions have with them. Which is the view that the homosexual act is a sin and will lead to judgement before God. Oh, and let's be clear. The Bible has constantly shown that God has love for those who who respect his commandments and a heavy desire to regain a relationship with those in sin. However, there is such thing as Godly anger and judgement from that anger. Which has been shown throughout the Old Testament. Jesus himself stated that we must still follow those commandments and that he hasn't changed such expectations (this the same God which finds the homosexual act "detestable" [Lev. 18:22]). The reason I mention this to make the point that acceptance will NEVER be offered by many of those who's religion deems the homosexual act as "detestable". I noticed some have claim to be Christian, yet, states that the same God who declares such an act "detestable" also accepts their sexual preferences. I don't think most religous groups will share that opinion and anyone who links those who will not accept homosexuality with those who are terrorist and cruel religious groups show themselves to be just a group of hypocrites who demand acceptance and yet, shows no acceptance towards those whom think differently.
Posted by JSW
, December 10, 2009
Since my faith permits same sex marriage, I take issue with those who would ban it. My first ammendment right to allow homosexual marriage is currently being restricted.
Posted by TK
, December 04, 2009
The problem is that there's a huge misunderstanding in people who think civil marriage is a Church invention.
Civil Marriage is a Pagan custom of civil law, and its purpose is for civil law, legal matters, nothing more. We inherited these pre-Christian laws. It has nothing to do with religious laws or the bible. In fact, I don't think the bible even mention's marriage anywhere. The Church didn't adopt the practice of marriage until after the 8th century or later, and prior to that people were simply together just by stating they were a couple. If they had property then they would more likely get a civil license. The church started marrying people and making it in the eyes of that church's god and their own religious beliefs. The church also started documenting marriage because some smaller towns had no civil office, so people had to go to the church to document it. The church did take control of all civil matters in those darker days, lots of information was lost, burned and many people where killed for speaking out against the church, so we don’t have to many documents remaining from these day’s. Civil marriages true purpose was legal, not religious, and it’s for proving property rights, heirs and other legal matters, not church. We now have civil offices all over, and it's not the church's business to document those civil marriages, but if people have a particular faith they may want to have a church wedding, but that is their business, and it has nothing to do with the civil office. People can have a Justice of the Peace sign a marriage license, and even I can sign one, it doesn’t have to be a religious wedding of any sort, nor does it have to have the word of god evoked.
Posted by Christian Miller
, September 14, 2009
Rachel,
Why do you want the government to impose its definition of marriage on you?
Posted by Rachel
, September 13, 2009
Why should I, a Pagan, have to submit my marriage for Christians' approval? I don't see why conservative Christians here think they should be able to define everyone else's secular, state-sponsored marriages in the U.S. Define your church's marriages that way if you must, but don't dare impose your definition on me.
Posted by Sarah Laducer-Piersol
, September 11, 2009
Thank you Rev Gaddy for publishing this paper, this kind of dialogue is much needed.
Posted by Sarah Laducer-Piersol
, September 11, 2009
Reading these comments here it is interesting how so many people still feel that same-sex relationships are a sin or admonished in the Bible. Please! If you are reading this and using the Bible as a reason to admonish same-sex relationships please recognize the same-sex relationships that are blessed by GOD in the Bible. Just like you wake up in the morning and know you are straight, I wake up in the morning and know that I am GAY and I LOVE my wife, just like RUTH and NAOMI, just like King David and Johnathan. I know that my relationship is just as much a gift from GOD as any other relationship. That is what I know to be true...and I am just as much a taxpaying citizen of America as any other. Please stop sub-humanizing me and my family
Posted by D Kemp
, September 03, 2009
This is wrong marriage is supposed to be a man and a woman. It is a sin and against God.
Posted by Christian Miller
, August 31, 2009
Dr. Gaddy,
You have invited this quiet discussion, but we have not heard your responses to this discussion.
Posted by Dwana
, August 30, 2009
I read most of this paper and found it's perspective interesting. However, I feel that the gist of the paper is fundamentally dishonest. Basically, this paper is an attempt to advocate FOR same-sex marriage while trying to convince opponents of same-sex marriage that legalizing gay marriage will be a win situation for them, not just for gays. Not true.
The legalization of gay marriage will mean an imposition on ALL people of the anti-religious view that homosexuality is morally equal to heterosexuality. It is ludicrous to think that gay activists will respect the right of religious organizations not to approve of their sexual lifestyle. Instead they will continue their aggressive efforts to normalize homosexuality and to demonize as bigots everyone who won't get with their program. Clergy who won't marry gays will be prosecuted for hate crimes; gay activists will see to that. I guess what really angers me about this paper is the pretense that opponents of gay marriage are being and will be treated with respect. I'm also angered by the pretense that support for gay marriage is all about equality and civil rights. It's not. Support for gay marriage is about replacing this nation's traditional, Biblically-based social order with an explicitly anti-Biblical/anti-religious social order. Once gay marriage is legalized the momemtum will be on the side of government-mandated acceptance of homosexuality. Schools, for instance, will be required to teach children that homosexuality is normal and that the contrary belief is bigotry. Intolerance won't go away, it will just be redirected toward those who dissent from the pro-gay view. This paper may have been a well-intended attempt at bridging the gap between warring camps but it's hampered by its fundamentally dishonest and naive premise. There is no way that gay activists will tolerate dissent from their cause even if such dissent comes from religious groups. That is VERY wishful thinking and it will get us no where.
Posted by Laurence Taylor
, August 26, 2009
Sometimes, we get lost in the forest because we bounce off all the trees. In this case, we seem to have lost the fact that marriage is a civil union that may or may not be sanctified by a religeous organization. In some cases, marriage is merely an agreement between two people that is witnessed by others. (remember jumping over the broom?) The problem here is to that we want to keep some privileges of marriage attached only to the union of man and woman, because this union usually results in an increase of citizens. Homosexual unions do not, so they are looked upon as a negative influence on the growth of society. They do not add anything to the future tax base. Therefore, they are not helping the growth of society.
That does not mean they do not contribute to society, because they do. The problem is that unless you are priming the pump, the supply will not increase. It does make sense, that marriage without sanctification by any religion, should not be held hostage to the rules of the religion. But society, does not have a standard set of moral guidelines. Societies guidelines conntinue to change without mutual consent of the persons living in it. This in itself is the basic cause of the problem. Who is it that establishes the foundation of society. It is usually religion.
Posted by Christian Miller
, August 16, 2009
Dear Reverend Gaddy,
I carefully read your paper “Same-Gender Marriage & Religious Freedom” and applaud your call to “quiet conversations”. I agree with many points of your Introduction, but would suggest making the discussion a “trialogue” instead of a “dialogue” so that the concerns of single people can be addressed. My thesis is that getting our governments out of both the marriage business and the special civil union business can be a graceful solution to hostile rhetoric over government sanctioned same-gender marriage. I agree with your “Don’t Start with Religion”. I propose that our discussion narrowly focus on the question: How should our government (federal, state and county) laws regarding marriage be changed? The challenge is to strictly limit the discussion to “government marriage” and resist discussion of other forms of marriage, religious or personal. This limit will be difficult because the same-gender marriage issue invites such strong emotional reactions involving, as it does, the powerful topics of religion, politics, sex and family. It is also difficult because government marriage and religious marriage are now so intertwined. You quote Laycock, “Religious and legal marriages are …distinct in conception as well as in origin.” I would agree, but would add, “not in practice and not in the hearts and minds of most people.” As Turley points out marriage always has been a “conspicuous door placed in the wall of separation between church and state.” Currently ministers are government agents who issue government marriage certificates and justices of the peace perform wedding ceremonies that have religious overtones. You cannot get married in my church without a government marriage license. See my attached essay, “Marriage: An Unholy Alliance of Church and State” There needs to be a divorce of church and state. It can be done. Any the various churches or governments could unilaterally withdraw from this marriage entanglement. Churches would be able to marry any couples it chooses. That church marriage, however, just would not have any legal standing. Likewise any couple can characterize its relationship with any word it chooses, but it would not have legal standing. Since we as citizens have no control over the churches, let us focus only on what government alone can do. Governments can change marriage laws, therefore marriage is a very appropriate subject for political debate. How should our government be involved in marriage? What should the laws be regarding marriage? The same-gender marriage debate is about changing the definition of marriage, which begs a re-examination of why we want government involved in marriage. What is it about marriage that motivated our government to grant exclusive subsidies and privileges to holders of government marriage licenses? In order to facilitate the discussion and reduce some of the emotion of Proposition 8, I suggest this analysis be done by only considering government marriage laws as they have applied to heterosexual couples. A difficulty is that government marriage license laws in the US have a questionable history motivated at times by interracial marriage, eugenics and the expansion of Social Security and recently homosexuality. Our government can and does define who can get a marriage license (age, number, incest, already married etc). It defines the exclusive subsidies and privileges it grants to people with marriage licenses. It defines how marriage is terminated. Government, however, does not define what marriage is. I would submit that it is impossible for government to define what marriage is. It would be a challenge for anyone to come up with a workable definition of government marriage. What motivated government to give those 1138 benefits? Because government marriage is good for children? Good for society? Government marriage licensing does not require expression of love, intent to live together, make babies or be committed to one another. Without a definition of government marriage and why it is good, the justification for these benefits falls apart. On page 19 you say, “Second and more difficult to assure, same-gender marriages should enjoy a status that commands the same recognition and respect as that extended to marriages between men and women” Commanding status and respect may be desirable, but are not appropriate functions of government. On page 20, you ask, “Why would anyone decry a marital relationship that exhibited fidelity and community between two people across scores of years?” Fidelity and community between two people across scores of years do not necessarily have anything to do with government marriage. In your Principled Debate #1, I would modify to read “ Government should provide basic rights, freedom, and justice to every person without regard to an individual’s religion, race, sexual orientation or marital status.” I have read your Principle #3 several times and do not understand what is being said. I would appreciate an explanation and expansion. I would modify Principle #7 to read, “Gay and lesbian persons and single persons deserve all the same rights and privileges enjoyed by all other citizens of the United States. Thank you for inviting me to your discussion.
Posted by DKW
, August 05, 2009
Thank you, Dr. Gaddy, for pointing out the obvious difference between civil and religious marriage that many in the US, including the current and former presidents, seem to confuse. If the US adopted the system in place in many European countries, where a civil ceremony by a civil magistrate is required for all marriages, and a religious marriage is optional, the distinction would likely be clearer to many people. I believe both forms of union can and should be called marriage, otherwise we are relegating the term marriage to the religious and forcing the non-religious to adopt the (probably discriminatory and inferior) nomenclature of civil unions.
I'd also like to discuss the recent phenomenon, in state legislatures such as New Hampshire, of adding religious exemption or religious freedom clauses to marriage equality legislation. First of all, religious freedom is already granted by the US Constitution and it seems superfluous (though perhaps it has the benfit of calming unreasonable fears). Clearly no religious organization has ever been forced to perform a marriage. I was disturbed, however, that the New Hampshire legislation exempted religious organizations from recognizing the validity of legal civil marriages. This could lead to situations where a hospital owned by a religious organization and employing hundreds of doctors, nurses, and other staff members refuses insurance to the spouses and children of employees engaged in performing non-religious service to the general public. In my opinion, such an exemption goes beyond religious freedom to harming gay people who may have restricted options for employment in small towns.
Posted by Angela
, August 04, 2009
Not long ago, I watched a documentary about transgender men and women in Iran. See, homosexuality is illegal, but a man or woman can bypass the law by having gender reassignment surgery to then be "straight" and the government will pay for it. If that wasn't head-shaking enough, one of those waiting for surgery said in the U.S., the government does not make its decisions based on religious beliefs. Then, I say, explain what's going on now. People, meaning voters as well as elected officials, base their votes in governmental matters on their personal religious beliefs. In turn, their personal religious beliefs dictate the fates of all of us.
Bob, from the July 30th post, takes on God's own unique role of judging and condeming those of us who do not agree with him. To assume that he decides who will be condemed, according to what he thinks, is to say he is God. Sorry, Bob, don't think you are. But that's the problem. I believe in God, a loving, caring God who knows exactly what He/She is doing and doesn't need me to tell Him/Her how to do His/Her job. Unfortunately, there are many people who have assumed that right, and have, ironically, told God "go sit in a corner, the grown ups are talking" while claiming to hold their personal opinions based on what God wants. It's a little funny, in a straight jacket sort of way, if only those of us they're condeming weren't facing not only discrimination in marriage equality, but verbal, and physical, violence because people think God condones it. I will pray for them.
Posted by Jim Corbett
, August 03, 2009
Thank you for your analysis and conclusions. There is nothing more discouraging to my patriotism than to continue to be denied equal rights because of my God given sexuality. That religious organizations and "God Fearing" politicians are the leaders of this hatred and denial of equal rights is the hardest to accept. I am encouraged by your understanding and a little more hopeful than before I read your paper.
Posted by Elizabeth Rose
, July 31, 2009
Yes, marriage as a civil institution must be made available to ALL adult citizens. I am a heterosexual who has been happily married for 26 years, but certainly do not feel I need a "defense of marriage." Moreover, I have never understood the argument that same gender marriage or civil union "hurts" me or the institution of marriage in any way. On the contrary, research from other countries that accept same gender couples indicates that hetereosexual marriage rates have gone up, not down.
Offer all citizens secular civic rituals and arrangements, including marriage, equally. Clearly, most of the respondents to your proposal so far are reasonable people who read the document thoroughly and commented thoughtfully. However, despite your opening comments about "leaving scripture/bible/god out of this discussion," Dr. Gaddy, I suspect that those who DISagree with you will still heap "threats of eternal damnation" on you and harangue you with bible quotations. After all, what else do they have but emotional arguments based on faith and 3000-year-old expurgated book? "Faith is believing what you know ain't so." ~ Mark Twain "One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." ~ Arthur C. Clarke
Posted by Joyce M. Potter
, July 31, 2009
Thank you, Dr. Gaddy for your insights into this very difficult subject. I agree wholeheartedly and hope and pray that people of all persuasions will see the wisdom of your suggestions. I hope that you will make this paper available to a wide audience. Has Interfaith Alliance considered training moderators to lead discussions on this topic? As a board member of Call to Action Alaska, I would be very interested in CTAA reading and discussing this paper.
Posted by Herbert H. Wilson
, July 31, 2009
The most intelligent and persuasive paper I've ever read on this issue.
Posted by Sarah
, July 31, 2009
Religions have the right currently to not marry any couple it see fit. The Catholic church does not marry divorced couples. No Catholic priest has ever been arrested for not performing a marriage because of divorce.
So the argument about the government making religions marry same sex couples is already taken care of.
Posted by Gene Garman
, July 31, 2009
As can always be expected, Dr. Gaddy has clearly stated and emphasized the issue: the Constitution clearly commands separation between religion and government in respect to "any office or public trust under the United States" (Art. 6.) and to no law even respecting an establishment of "religion" (First Amendment).
In response to the "third rail" post below (July 27), there is nothing about "church" or "church and state" in the Constitution. The First Amendment commands no law respecting an establishment of "religion," which obviously includes the entire subject thereof. Regardless of society, religion is a matter of personal faith, not law. In the USA legal marriage is a matter of civil law, not religion opinion. Further, as emphasized in The Religion Commandments in the Constitution: A Primer, a textbook for understanding the religion commandments in the Constitution, religion exercise shall not be totally forbidden, which is what the word "prohibiting" means, but religion exercise is not above the law. In the USA all actions are ultimately subject to the supreme law of the land, and it applies equally to all citizens, regardless of religion belief.
Posted by Tom Clark
, July 31, 2009
Wise words from Rev. Gaddy. To those who insist on merging religious beliefs with politics and vice versa, and ramming their beliefs down other's throats, might I suggest relocating to a country where this is common practice...Iraq or Iran would be good for starters.
Posted by Julie
, July 31, 2009
As the daughter of a Southern Baptist minister, a former seminary student myself and a current active churchgoer, I was taught, and believe, that first and foremost, God is love. Over the past 15 years I have grown to know many gay and lesbian friends in committed, loving relationships. My own heterosexual relationships, including one failed marriage, were not as loving and devoted as these, yet I have the right and privilege in this society to marry and have all those benefits awarded me. Something is wrong with this picture. I firmly believe that my friends were born with their affectional orientation in place. They should not be discriminated against and judged because of who they are. I appreciate Welton's attempt to move the discussion along because there will be no consensus in the relgious arena. But marriage is a civil act and there should be no barrier there. My own pastor has decided not to perform the civil part of any union until all people can partake. He will perform the sacred portion for any loving and committed couple. Our congregation supports this stance.
Posted by Bob
, July 30, 2009
Obviously, your house is built upon the sand. Good luck in using a spineless argument to God! I'm sure he really does'nt mean what he said, as long as our liberal phylosophy can justify what we think, It's okay! I for one stand against it, soley on my belief in the creator. I am not concerned with what the U.S.law makers make it out to be or how offensive it may sound to the liberals. Also, Please inform me as to whom you refer to says "reading this same passage of Hebrew Scripture, other people, who employ a different method of biblical interpretation, insist that this passage is about hospitality, not homosexuality." As weak as our clergy is, due to the fear of loss of revenue I know they cannot unite so, let it be. I will pray for you and them!
Posted by Navin
, July 30, 2009
The debate is centered on marriage but misses salient points:
1) definitions: male v female: do we require chromosomal analysis (there are persons with XXY that would could chose their label of the day), do we accept the clothing of the partners (gender), do persons with ambiguous genitalia have the right to marriage? religious: for many so called monotheists there is a duotheosophy: with us or against us. As such, these groups define religious as those with us, and anti-religious as those against us. marriage: neither the greco-roman nor christo-islamic tradition is sufficient reference to define marriage in the pluralist society of America, the EU, Africa, Asia, or really anywhere. This term is culturally constrained to ideological groups. In the complexity of definitions, the government for the people has to chose to be silent or chose to be all inclusive, ergo we accept (and celebrate) the fact that you can define marriage, gender, sex, as you chose. 2) Power. Civil society is about the distribution of power. A society that narrows power is more totalitarian. A society the keeps power with the citizens is democratic. A society that distributes power to protect the less empowered (minorities, women, kids eating lead paint, etc)is one that values the human right to diversity. We are trying to go towards a society, "moyen parfait... plus libre" in the world. For those of us that seek a society with greater democratic and pluralist value, the government (and social institutions) should be geared towards diversifying power relationships. This results in celebration of free choice and restriction on central power. Contractual relationships between persons provide for a sharing of power. The government has an interest in sustaining power equity in those contracts. Thus the government (and social institutions that work with the government)must create an support structures (laws) to recognize those contracts. For convenience we can use ancestral words (marriage)to talk about certain contracts, but whatever the historical baggage, the government wants to create equity distribution in that power relationship. (Parenting is not a contract.) Beyond that right of equity, the government must demonstrate a civil political (power distribution) interest in further regulation. Certain religious groups need to acquire power for legitimacy. Without that power, their message is so distorted from the sense of being human that they are unable to maintain sufficient economic viability. These groups will attempt to undermine the power of others in ever way possible (rewrite books, control relationships, undermine gender value...). The government has an interest in limiting the power of such groups (it wants to promote tolerance). 3) Morality: In a pluralistic society, the government really has to be quiet as to what constitutes morality. The government is interested in legality and civic behavior. It is not interested in eternal damnation. A religious group certainly is geared to speaking up about morality. Individuals certainly can entertain various ideas of morality. The spiritual nature of marriage can be an agreement beyond the civil contractual relationship (Hindu marriages are supposed to last 7 lifetimes, I hope the government is not interested in validating completion of such a contract). Thus individual can choose to join a religion based construct of gender relationships and the government should let them do so (with the exclusion of contracts that deprive equity of power).
Posted by Willis Elliott
, July 27, 2009
Dr.Gaddy fails to mention the third rail - the central rail, between "church" and "state." It is the American "society." As an "On Faith" panelist, my response deals with this.
Posted by Susan A. Gore, Ph.D.
, July 07, 2009
Amen to JK's post - religious ceremonies and government-recognized civil contracts are two different things. Both have been meaningful to my partner of 18 years and me. Or straight minister performed a moving ceremony with 250 family and friends in 1999 (in that hotbed of liberalism, Dallas), and we are among the 18,000 survivors of CA's marriage equality 2008-2009 flip-flop.
Dialogue is critical for others to understand the difference. Thanks, Welton, for providing resources for the journey.
Posted by JK
, June 18, 2009 Some religions are opposed to inter-racial marriage, some to inter-religious marriage, some believe marriage is for procreation, some believe its for love, others believe the opposite. Who decides? For a religious ceremony, let religions decide who they will and will not marry, but if the government is involved then it cannot discriminate. Religions are still free to decided, but the First Amendment prevents the government from imposing religion beliefs.
Add your own comment
|
Subscribe to this responses feed
Dwana, you are a liar. As you know quite well, every "gay rights" law ever passed in the USA - indeed, every "race rights" law, every "gender rights" law, every "religious rights" law - has specifically EXCLUDED religious institutions from having to obey that law. Legally, religions can be as racist, as sexist, as homophobic, and as full of hate for other religions as they wish. Clergy can ignore ALL civil rights laws just so long as they are not getting money from the government.
Legalized discrimination is a special privilege given only to religions and the military in the US. And isn't that a sad commentary on religion in this country.