MInTheGap

Standing in the Gap in a Society that's Warring with God.

Same-Sex Marriage and the Freedom of Religion

October 28th, 2008 Visited 1557 times, 3 so far today

Cooking their own reception food

One of the big comments that’s thrown at anyone that opposes Same-Sex Marriage is the idea that it would not effect Traditional Marriage at all—or that it only adds to marriage, but does not take anything away from it.  The idea is that, if it causes no harm to you personally in your marriage, then you should not oppose it.

The problem is that this is a short-sighted view of the problem, and does not take into account the consequences of this action.

It’s About Acceptance

For a long time I have thought that a big part of the reason that our society has been on this journey from labeling homosexuality a mental illness to now celebrating this deviancy have been about acceptance.  We were made to laugh at homosexuals, we were told that they were the same as us, and we have been fed a lot of pseudo-science or science in the pursuit of identifying a gay gene so that there can be justification for an action that a majority of people found to be revolting or at least against nature.

As humans, we do this a lot.  If there’s an activity that we behave in or an urge we have, we want acceptance, and we want approval, and the road to accepting a Same-Sex marriage may have pit stops (like property rights, visitation rights, etc.) along the way, but the destination was always moral equality and acceptance.

The Moral Problem

You see, it will never be enough for Same-Sex couples to marry.  After that, it will have to be the federal government recognizing the marriage so that they can claim the tax breaks that are involved.  Once it’s accepted on the federal level, the equality statutes of the federal Constitution will be invoked to guarantee that churches or people with moral obligations will not be free to discriminate from people they consider deviant in their hiring practices.

If it follows the trend of other countries, pastors could be brought up on charges for preaching against homosexuality, and churches would be refused the right to take out ads talking about what they consider the truth about this destructive practice.

Think It’s Just Me?

This post is what brought this angle back to my attention.  Take a look at what Troy has to say.  We’ve discussed before what PatHMV says…   But I think that Dust Bunny Queen makes the best point.

In the case of California, there is no difference between the Civil Union under the current law and Marriage except the word.  So what’s the difference?

  • Legally: None.
  • Morally: It carries the weight of acceptance.

We’re dealing with an acceptance issue, not a legal one.

Comments

3 Comments

RSS
  • Rachel says on: October 29, 2008 at 12:55 pm

     

    Another hit-the-nail-on-the-head post, Min. One state was already trying to get legislation passed (I’ll have to google it because I can’t remember which one) where pastors could be arrested, tried, and convicted of hate crimes if they preach against homosexuality. It’s already beginning.

    You’re exactly right, if the real issue was just being able to legally unite, the homosexual agenda would be satisfied with the unions as long as they granted the same “rights” as marriage (financial, health & visitation, etc.). But by pursuing this “changing marriage” agenda to where it (legally) will have to be performed in churches, synagogues, mosques (like THAT would ever happen), it goes way beyond just equality. It’s a whole overthrow of the system.

    Going to read the posts you linked right now.

    Rachels last blog post..Lessons Learned

  • Musicguy says on: October 30, 2008 at 7:59 am

     

    Rachel, I’d really love for you to google that state and provide the exact proposed statute.

    Min, we’ve had this discussion before. If you can provide a system that will guarantee the exact same CIVIL rights you enjoy as a heterosexual married person, I’ll take it. Call it fetruwyewasp, but be sure the system (or term) would include out-of state relationship recognition, tax breaks, medical decision-making (especially while traveling elsewhere), inheritance taxes, survivor benefits, family leave, spousal and child support, and immigration rights, just to name a few.

    Unfortunately, “marriage” is the universally recognized vehicle for state-recognized legal commitment. NJ tried the civil union route, and that has proved to be a disaster, as most entities (insurance companies for instance) are refusing to acknowledge their legality. Marriage is the only way gay couples can be guaranteed the civil rights of marriage.

    Show me the alternative, that won’t require gay couples to pay hundreds if not thousands of dollars in legal fees to attain the same civil rights you take for granted. This is not an issue of acceptance as you claim it to be, but rather, applying the law equally and fairly to everyone, regardless of sexual orientation.

    Musicguys last blog post..Loves It!

  • MInTheGap says on: October 31, 2008 at 3:22 pm

     

    @Rachel: I know that in Canada there was one minister that was in hot water for putting something anti-homosexual in a paper, and there’s another that’s going on trial for saying something in a sermon about homosexuality– though I believe that he is going to get off. They say that Christians are only so much more moral than the world, well America is only so much more moral than the rest of the world. Just look at the rest to see where we’re headed.

    @Musicguy: In order to justify getting rights that span states you have to explain why you should have such rights. In one case it’s a federalism issue. States may have the individual rights to recognize what they wish, but that doesn’t mean it should be forced on another state.

    In the pre-civil war era this was the case with slavery. Two different sets of states had two different beliefs on a moral issue, and until there was national consensus (or it was made a bigger issue by the President of the time) those states coexisted with their separate beliefs.

    Now, granted, I believe that slavery was wrong, but I also believe that forcing a moral belief on a state that disagrees is also wrong. I also believe it to be wrong to decide moral issues in a court. Regardless, if 25 states want to pass Gay Marriage legislation, fine. Don’t force those 25 that have Constitutional amendments banning it to comply. Don’t go and live there if you oppose it. You’re free to live wherever you want, and no one’s taking your rights away. Make your choice and abide by it.

    Marriage is more than a “vehicle for state-recognized legal commitment”. It’s a moral contract pledged between two heterosexual people for the purpose of making two into one and having a family. It’s never been more or less.

    Gay couples have the same rights as straights– they can get married to heterosexual couples just like heterosexual couples. The law doesn’t support polygamy, marrying your dog or a tree, and there’s no logical reason it should.

MInTheGap

Standing in the Gap in a Society that's Warring with God.

%d bloggers like this: