The US Bishops' Marriage, Unique for a Reason blog ties the question of marriage into their two week fortnight for freedom efforts:
"...The Church’s teaching on marriage and on religious liberty both find their roots in Christian anthropology, that is, the understanding of the human person and his or her dignity. Concerning marriage, upholding the meaning of marriage as the union of one man and one woman upholds human dignity by, among other things, honoring the uniquely complementary natures of man and woman, their capacity for union and fruitfulness, and the child’s birthright of being given the best chance to know and be raised by his own father and mother.
Concerning religious liberty, as was said in a previous post, man’s ability – and responsibility – to seek truth and conform his life to it necessitates religious freedom. In fact, Bl. Pope John Paul II saw religious freedom as so important to human dignity that he called it the “source and synthesis” of rights basic to human flourishing. Concern for the human person means concern for marriage,and for religious liberty."
40 Comments
Many supporters of same sex marriages argue that, by defining the institution of marriage as between one man and one woman, the state automatically tramples upon the constitutional rights to freedom of religion. They argue that just because many religious organizations may believe that gay marriages should not be granted by the state does not make it the state's obligation to observe their opinions on this matter.
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which is part of the United States Bill of Rights, expressly forbids laws being made "respecting an establishment of religion" and that prohibit the free exercise of religion. Thus, according to this argument, the state has no authority to define marriage as between one man and woman because there are various religions which hold that gay marriage is morally equivalent to heterosexual marriage.
Americans United for Separation of Church and State prominently expresses concern that heterosexual-only marriage laws impose a specific religious doctrine as state policy. According to them, "a marriage amendment in the Constitution raises important church-state and religious liberty concerns."
"Americans United for Separation of Church and State prominently expresses concern that heterosexual-only marriage laws impose a specific religious doctrine as state policy."
Since this is demonstrably absurd- every religion and every civilization from the beginning of human history has understood marriage to consist in the long-term, stable union of the two complementary genders of our species- we can conclude that Americans United for the Separation of Church and State are also Americans United for the Separation of Law and Sanity.
Religion
Different religions view marriage variously; most famously on the question of how many wives a man can legally marry. The First Amendment as historically interpreted does not prevent the state from deciding this question as a matter of civil law. Similarly, the First Amendment does not prevent the state from deciding questions of the permissibility of divorce. Likewise the First Amendment does not prevent the state from deciding if marriage as a matter of law is a heterosexual institution, as long as there are non-religious grounds for so holding. Here are just a few places on the Internet where the authors make a case for the heterosexual basis of marriage on secular grounds. The fact that many people of faith would come to similar conclusions or make similar arguments does not render those arguments either invalid or inadmissible.
http://tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html
http://tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html
http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2011/06/27/a-secular-case-against-gay-marriage/
http://moralitywar.blogspot.com/2008/12/secular-arguments-against-gay-marriage.html
http://collapsetheblog.typepad.com/blog/2011/12/the-secular-case-against-gay-marriage.html
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Essay:Secular_Arguments_Against_Same-sex_Marriage
My religion supports same sex marriage.
"the state has no authority to define marriage as between one man and woman because there are various religions which hold that gay marriage is morally equivalent to heterosexual marriage."
The state has no authority to define, let alone redefine marriage, in any case. Marriage is an institution uniting men and women that has existed for thousands of years across countless cultures long before any government in existence has been established. The government did not invent marriage. It has no authority to define or redefine it for anyone.
And even if you dismiss the above, how do you account for all the other fringe religions that favor polyamorous relationships? Why do they have any less of a right to have marriage redefined by the state to include polygamy in order to suit their belief that multiple sexual partners is the moral equivalent to a committed husband and wife?
Americans United for Separation of Church and State are big on misinterpreting the 1st Amendment to suit their ideology. Perhaps they should be reminded that the separation of church and state isn't in the constitution at all.
No one is saying that the Catholic church has to recognize or perform same sex marriages. They already turn down opposite sex couples all the time (in case of divorce - unless you give them a lot of money). What the Catholic church is really saying - religious liberty is fine as long as its our religion. That's hypocrisy. This is simply the final nail in the coffin of the Catholic church in America.
Son of Adam -
Please clarify... are you saying that our rights as citizens are being violated in that the various levels of government in the U.S. have laws defining and regulating marriage?
And if yes, how so, when "the separation of church and state isn't in the constitution at all"?
...every religion and every civilization from the beginning of human history... not even close. Until the advent of the modern church same sex relationships and marriages were socially accepted and recognized as such. There is even some evidence that the early church performed same sex unions. There are many examples of this.
Your religious liberty stops at my civil rights.
... the separation of church and state is indeed worded differently in the first ammendment, but the interpretation and practice is the same. We don't live in and most of us, including NOM, would not want to live in a theocratic country.
@ tim
Then how is it not hypocrisy to demand that the state redefine marriage to for gays in accordance to fringe religions while at the same time allowing polygamy to remain illegal?
@ RC
Throughout history, the state has simply recognized marriage in the way it has already been defined by thousands of years of experience and wisdom. The government can manage marriage on behalf of the people. But it should have no more authority over what can be done with it than banks have authority over what can be done with the money it manages for its clients.
However, when the government becomes big enough to claim ownership of marriage and redefines it for wealthy and influential special interest groups, then it is imposing a set of ideological standards, religious or otherwise, on the rest of society on their behalf. And those who disagree are officially wrong and officially bigots.
In essence, the state has assumed the role of dictating the proper way to think and feel about relationships and the role they play in society - all under the guise of "equality" and "religious liberty".
"Until the advent of the modern church same sex relationships and marriages were socially accepted and recognized as such. There is even some evidence that the early church performed same sex unions. There are many examples of this. "
That may be the case for homosexual relationships, but that is a far cry from defining marriage between any two people. Just because cases of fringe behavoir can be found throughout history, doesn't mean it has shared equal standing with normal male/female relationships either then or now. Your historical interpretation is quite a stretch.
"Your religious liberty stops at my civil rights."
SS"M" is not a civil right! Whatever "civil rights" you arbitrarily declare for yourself do not outwiegh religious liberties, as most court cases have already decided.
"... the separation of church and state is indeed worded differently in the first ammendment, but the interpretation and practice is the same. We don't live in and most of us, including NOM, would not want to live in a theocratic country."
That is nothing more than a bastardization of the 1st amendment. "Seperation of Church and State" is an offshoot of the phrase, "wall of separation between church and state," as written in Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. It wasn't even believed to be part of the constitution until 1947.
The 1st Amendment was written to protect religions from the government, not the government from religions. And the state enforced redefinition of mariage has launched more assults on religious liberties than anything else in recent history.
tim and Richard, I have written a pair of responses to your posts - especially yours, Richard, which is the most offensive bastardization of the 1st amendment I have ever seen. Whether they show up or not, know that your responses have only convinced me further of the unconstitutionality of the government enforced redefinition of marriage.
Son of Adam... glad I was able to provide you with fodder for what was most probably an enlightening response. The fact is that the separation of church and state is a unique and particularly strong element of the first amendment. One which provides for freedom from oppressive ideas and people, such as you and NOM. Our founders recognized the oppression and blood shed from religious oppression, as seen in most Muslim countries and the first amendment was designed to protect citizens from this church led oppression. Over the past 200+ years the courts have upheld this interpretation.
@ SON of ADAM
You were quick to put forward a "fact" that there are fringe religions that favor polyamorous relationships. Please enlighten us the actual names of these religions or their churches...if they even exist!
The Protestant Reformation of the 16th century rejected the prevailing concept of marriage along with many other Catholic doctrines. Martin Luther declared marriage to be "a worldly thing . . . that belongs to the realm of government", and a similar opinion was expressed by Calvin.
The English Puritans in the 17th century even passed an Act of Parliament asserting "marriage to be no sacrament" and soon thereafter made marriage purely secular. It was no longer to be performed by a minister, but by a justice of the peace. These Puritans were the ones who fled England and came to America with their beliefs.
@ SON of ADAM
You were quick to put forward a "fact" that there are fringe religions that favor polyamorous relationships. Please enlighten us the actual names of these religions or their churches...if they even exist!
The Protestant Reformation of the 16th century rejected the prevailing concept of marriage along with many other Catholic doctrines. Martin Luther declared marriage to be "a worldly thing . . . that belongs to the realm of government", and a similar opinion was expressed by Calvin.
The English Puritans in the 17th century even passed an Act of Parliament asserting "marriage to be no sacrament" and soon thereafter made marriage purely secular. It was no longer to be performed by a minister, but by a justice of the peace. These Puritans were the ones who fled England and came to America with their beliefs.
I GET IT<>>censorship of thought
The Protestant Reformation of the 16th century rejected the prevailing concept of marriage along with many other Catholic doctrines. Martin Luther declared marriage to be "a worldly thing . . . that belongs to the realm of government", and a similar opinion was expressed by Calvin. The English Puritans in the 17th century even passed an Act of Parliament asserting "marriage to be no sacrament" and soon thereafter made marriage purely secular. It was no longer to be performed by a minister, but by a justice of the peace. The Restoration abolished this law and reverted to the old system, but the Puritans brought their concept of marriage to America where it survived.
@marriage corruption supporter,
I see your "it is not" and "so what" so called proof of the Godlessness of the founding fathers and the intent of the Constitution they bequeathed; and I raise you George Washington:
"Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me to “recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer"
Richard, that is the worst bastardization of the 1st amendment I have ever heard! The bill of rights protects freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. The courts have upheld this countless times. Basically, what you are saying is that our first amendment religious liberties are nullified by whatever rights you arbitrarily declare for for yourself!
No wonder you cling to the delusion that the sepearation of church and state is in the constitution. What better rationale can you use to ostrasize people of faith from civil society in favor of some leftist radical ideology.
Son of Adam, well done. You are of course wrong, but well done none the less. The first amendment does in fact protect my civil liberties from religion. I am free to practice or not practice as I desire. In public schools we are protected from religious indoctrination, in law religion cannot be used to justify, let's say not hiring a person purely on the basis of their race, religion etc. Thomas Jefferson was quite emphatic in his wall of separation and while there are many misguided souls, such as yourself, who believe that they can impose their religion on others, the law says otherwise. And the rights I speak of are not arbitrary, nor do I suggest that people of faith are ostrasized, just that they are not allowed to impose their fantasies on me.
Richard,
Sexual depravity is not a Civil Liberty; there is no civil value in your desire to masturbate against same gendered companions. You are the one forcing your fantasies on other people; sick, twisted, and perverted erotic sexual fantasies that have no redeeming value what-so-ever.
By their fruits ye shall know them; and brother, your fruit is rancid.
"Your religious liberty stops at my civil rights."
True. However, the SCOTUS emphatically rejected redefining marriage as a civil right. See Murphy v. Ramsey as well a Baker v. Nelson. You may assert a civil right for SSM, but the law as upheld at the SCOTUS level says otherwise.
Neither religious opinions nor sexual inclinations confer a right to determine the laws of the state against the will of the people as expressed by their representatives or in a referendum, as the case may be.
Your religious liberty stops at my civil rights.
True. However, the SCOTUS rejected redefining marriage as a civil right. See Murphy v. Ramsey as well a Baker v. Nelson. You may assert a right for SSM, but the law holds otherwise.
Neither your religious opinions nor your sexual inclinations confer a right to determine the laws of the state against the will of the people as expressed by their representatives or in a referendum.
Richard, "SS"M" is not a civil right, nor do you have the authority to arbitrarily declare it as such or impose it onto society. Claiming that I support the imposition of religious beliefs onto others is nothing more than a lame strawman. The 1st Amendment was written to protect religions from the government, not the government from religions. And this blog has posted countless articles showing how the state enforced redefinition of mariage has launched more assults on religious liberties than anything else in recent history. That is why it is unconstitutional.
And Shane Mahaffy, or John McLaren, or whatever you call yourself - you are clearly ignorant that polygamy continues to exist in the United States. In fact, world-wide attention was once focused on the State of Texas in 2008 as agents surrounded the compound of The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (FLDS) and took custody of more than 400 children. Here's a book that reveals the history, culture, and sometimes an insider's look at the polygamous groups located primarily in the western parts of the United States.
Modern Polygamy in the United States
Historical, Cultural, and Legal Issues
Edited by Cardell Jacobson and Lara Burton
Also, Shane/John, I missed the part where the Protestant Reformation redefined marriage for homosexuals.
There are numerous secular reasons for keeping marriage between one man and one woman. I just happen to respect the religious reasons as well.
Infanticide was common in ancient Greece and ancient Rome and in other pagan cultures, but Christianity opposed it, and opposing infanticide became the moral norm.
Would anyone now challenge the constitutionality of prohibiting infanticide because of its historical link to Christianity? Does the separation of Church and State require the rejection of all moral norms associated with Christianity that became part of English Common Law and American law?
The way the media consistently portray sexual deviants as sympathetic, loving, carefree, and honorable is reminiscent of the way they present chimpanzees in a similar light, but in the real world these animals are equally selfish, hateful, and vengeful; each predisposed to unspeakable acts of vicious cruelty.
If some religion advocates same sex "marriage", under our Constitution it is free to perform some rite or ceremony which pleases them
But they are not allowed to impose their fantasies on me.
Or the rest of the American people, who have resolutely and courageously defeated same sex "marriage" every time they have had the chance.
Everything is moving forward nicely now.
See you in November.
Th
Do the homosexuals understand that there are actual physical and biological differences between men and women?
Only those who went to med school. Really?
Randy E King - Why do ye speaketh in poorly formed olde English as though is haseth some semblance to biblical relevancy?
"Your religious liberty stops at my civil rights."
I wasn't aware that religious liberties and civil rights canceled each other out. Or is it only religious liberties that are nullified out to make way for pseudo rights arbitrarily invented by radicals and found nowhere in the Constitution?
Fortunately, civil rights include religious liberty. It is not a question of canceling out. It is a realization that Son of Adam's civil rights include his religious liberty. Where there are conflicts, there will be court cases. See, for example, EEOC v. Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School where religious liberty was vindicated by the court. I fully expect the SCOTUS to uphold the federal DOMA. At the state level, the heavy majority of states have a DOMA either by statute or constitutional amendment.
I always thought that civil liberties consisted of secular concepts like free speech and freedom of the press. But come to think of it, it does include religious liberties, doesn't it? That makes the quote: "Your religious liberties end where my civil rights begin" utter nonsense.
Wow, such raw nerves. Randy, if your words describing gays and lesbians are sweet fruit I'll take mine- much better, I think. Yours are way too sour for me and lead those of weak minds to commit acts of aggression against innocent people.
The hate, oppression and totalitarian attitudes expressed here demonstrate why we need to continue to fight against NOM and those of like mind.
I have always felt there is a civil, reasoned, secular, and tolerant case to be made for the traditional definition of marriage.
Comments on both sides of the issue often show less than the civility that I would like to see. I do not support hate, oppression, or totalitarian attitudes. I would never go onto a gay blog or even Daily Kos or the Huffington Post and write the sort of insults that are routinely hurled at NOM supporters by NOM opponents on this blog. If I did, I would not be surprised to find replies that showed raw nerves.
The Ruth Blog simply ended all comments since so many comments were uncivil. That was a good decision.
God has granted free will to every one of us, and yet He causes the rain to fall on the good and the bad together.
There is no call for dehumanizing our opposition.
They are dreadfully, frighteningly wrong, and it is imperative for our civilization that they be defeated.
But they are human beings, and entitled to a decent regard for their humanity.
The SSM idea is unprecedented in the anthropological and historical records. When SSMers attempt to rewrite history and anthropology they demonstrate a tenuous grip on truth and a relish for manufacturing falsehoods. It discedits them.
More careful SSMers acknowledge the departure from the anthropological and historical records but claim that today is so very different from the preceding millennia. Yet they can off no justification for the abolition of the twosexed basis of marriage from our laws, traditions, and marriage culture. They rely on a psuedo religous faith in the supremacy of gay identity politics.
But that faith demotes human dignity as the essence of legitimate lawmaking. It is a small step for SSMers to demote freedom of conscience as an inconvenient obstacle to the desired consequences they favor in the aftermath of imposing the SSM idea as their specious substitution of the marriage idea.
Freedom of conscience is the root of civil liberty. Human dignity trumps government enforced falsehoods. Hence the open demand of most SSMers that the government be set against both freedom of conscience and human dignity.
The emotionalism of the SSM campaign take a truth and splits it into parts. It then uses odd rhetoric to invoke the emotion ordinarily associated with that truth. However it drops the parts of the truth that make the whole truth coherent and then portrays truth as being at war with itself. The SSM campaign then poses the following question in many different and contradictory versions:
If the truth is hopelessly incoherent, then the truth is irrational and should be reshaped, reframed, reorganized to eliminate the bits that get in the way of making the SSM idea coherent. So why not drops those bits of the truth that do not fit the SSM idea?
Of course what might feel coherent to the SSMer is irrelevant to the coherency of truth. The truth of human dignity matters. That is why freedom of conscience matters.
Like the marriage idea, the truth matters far more than identity politics. But, for the SSM campaign, gay identity politics explains everything.
Beyond SSM and beyond gay identity politics, there are the radical feminists whose preoccupation with their idealogical purity is more important than the truth about anything, including marriage, freedom of conscience, and human dignity. That is why they so often insist on redefining all of the above. For them the engame is not the conflict between the SSM idea and the marriage idea, but beyond marriage. For the "beyonders" the conflict is between truth and their idealogy.
The rhetoric and argumentation of the SSM brings to the fore the incoherence of the war against the truth. Society is being forewarned by the SSMers themselves. Believ what they say against the truth. They mean it. And they mean to impose it on all of society ... friend and foe alike.
Freedom of Religion is our first and most important Civil Right; all others flow from her. Marriage corruption supporters would deny all others access to the source of our freedom in order to impose their tyrannical vision upon us.
Son of Adam: It is not your "religious liberty" to tell OTHER people what they can do. Your religion is your own, and its edicts apply to you and your fellow congregants. Trying to impose your beliefs upon others who do not necessarily share them is WRONG, and un-AMERICAN.
How is trying to make your religion law any different than "Sharia Law?"
SoA 32,
The constitution states that you have the right to exercise your religion. That means EVERYONE has the right to believe or nor believe as they choose and NO ONE has the right to see to it that their rights supercede another's. And in the USA religious freedom does not supercede civl rights.
eliasasm, apart for your gay emphasis, what is the justification for imposing SSM on all of society?
No SSMers has come up with much of anything. The argumentation and the rhetoric depend very heavily upon the assertion of the supremacy of gay identity politics over all other considerations.
Freedom of conscience is not restricted to religious beliefs and practices.
Marriage has a reality that is independent of the law. Afterall, surely even SSMers acknowledge that they think the law sometimes gets stuff wrong. The law is not always right, according to them, and so they need to dig deeper.
Likewise when it comes to freedom of conscience.
SSMers who deem gay identity politics to be superior to both the truth of marriage and the truth of conscience, well, they ought not to be permitted to stand without direct and forthright challenge to their many totalitarian assumptions about lawmaking, law implementation, and judicial review.
The conflict between the SSM idea and the marriage idea has very large ripples across society.