@ Tyler DThank you for the generous compliment. You set an
excellent standard for all of us and I appreciate it.
@ 1.96: Please reread the article and the law being contested. This is in no
way about government recognition of the ceremony being performed.The
law in question specifically states that ministers cannot bless marriages where
there is not a marriage license present - in other words, if Joyce and Jane want
to have a commitment ceremony (a "marriage" without a marriage license -
no government recognition, just recognition between them and God) and they ask
their minister to bless it, their minister can go to jail.Many
churches have some kind of baptism or naming ceremony for babies - imagine what
an imposition it would be on those religious rites if a law was passed saying
only a Judge could name a baby. Imagine if Jews were told they had to have a
doctor perform the bris. These are religious ceremonies with absolutely no
civil/legal bearing - what right does the government have to interfere in them?
Why should voters and the government get to dictate religious rites
for commitment ceremonies?As to your polygamy reference, that
already happens - ministers of polygamous congregations perform religious
polygamous marriages that have no legal impact.
1.96 Standard Deviations wrote:"Also, this article is about
using religious freedom to have the government recognize gay marriage. Some
religions also allow polygamy. Do you think the state's definition of
marriage should include multiple [human] partners? For example, allow 3 men
getting married together?"See Reynolds v. United States.Unfortunately for your argument, 135 years of significant stare decisis
considerations would need to be overcome before your slippery-slope scenario
would be an actual problem.In this country religious freedom is not
@ Jeanie: The key word in your sentence is "believe" - you believe
something to be true. However, that "belief" is not founded in fact and,
absent any supporting proof of a harm, is not a valid reason for codifying your
belief into law. On that same note, it is not your belief that
makes you a bigot - it is the actions you take that determine whether or not you
are a bigot. There are many things that are considered "sins" by one
religion or another or even multiple religions - and yet, there is no push to
deny civil benefits to other groups of sinners. Why the emphasis on this issue
for this group?Additionally, when it comes to the children the
choice is not heterosexual or same-sex parents - the choice is married or
unmarried same-sex parents. Prohibiting marriage does not prohibit child
rearing. How do you use procreation as a basis for denying marriage to couples
who already have children?
equal protection:"It's not the gender of the parent
that's the key. It's the quality of parenting that's being
offered by whoever is there."Nice. I think you just made the
case to allow sophisticated robotic overlords to raise human children. Robots
are gender neutral and also cannot reproduce. Robots can be programmed to give
quality parenting, express love, and be citizens in the community. Technology is
coming to a point where this may just be possible. Should we allow them to marry
as well, or is this an imitation of a real thing?Also, this article
is about using religious freedom to have the government recognize gay marriage.
Some religions also allow polygamy. Do you think the state's definition of
marriage should include multiple [human] partners? For example, allow 3 men
getting married together? Keep in mind these 3 men may be your
neighbors, have feelings, are good citizens, have honorable employment, and are
positive contributors to their community.Do you think gay-marriage
advocates really want to embrace freedom of religion to justify same-sex
marriage? This opens up a lot more possibilities -- probably more than they
@jeanie;Another test as to whether or not your disagreement is based
on bigotry, Jeanie, is to apply this test to it:You say that an
opposite sex couple is the optimal environment for children. Along with
preventing LGBT marriages, do you also propose to prevent murderers, pedophiles,
druggies, child abusers, wife abusers, etc. from marrying because they
don't provide "the optimal" environment? If the only group
you're going to deny marriage to, due to "not optimal" is LGBT
couples, then you can probably conclude that the reason for your disagreement is
based in bigotry.
@Jeanie, taking your optimal parenting rationale to a logical conclusion,
empirical evidence at hand should require that only rich, educated,
suburban-dwelling, married Asians can marry while excluding all other
heterosexual couples. The absurdity of such a requirement is self-evident.
Moreover, why target just homosexuals for discrimination, if your
"genuine" concern is for child welfare?Every major
professional organization in this country whose focus is the health and
well-being of children and families has reviewed the data on outcomes for
children raised by lesbian and gay couples, including the methods by which the
data were collected, and have concluded that these children are not
disadvantaged compared to children raised in heterosexual parent households.
Organizations expressing support for parenting, adoption, and/or fostering by
lesbian and gay couples include (but are not limited to): American Medical
Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychiatric Association,
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, American Psychoanalytic
Association, American Psychological Association, Child Welfare League of
America, National Association of Social Workers, and the Donaldson Adoption
Institute. It’s not the gender of the parent that’s the key.
It’s the quality of parenting that’s being offered by whoever is
Jeanie asks: "What reason could be given to disagree with gay marriage and
not be considered bigoted? Or is there no room for any other conviction?"When talking about gay people, a good trick to use to see if itwill
sound bigotted is to try the same argument substituting a different minority
class--like black people, the elderly, Mormons, or the disabled. If your
argument sounds off when applied to those people, carefully consider if you
should say it about gay people.Another good rule is to do unto
others as you would have done unto you. If an argument would be hurtful when
applied to you, carefully question if you should apply it to others.
jeanie: "Many people believe the most simple, healthy configuration of a
family is a mom and a dad, given the complimentary functions of our bodies and
the complimentary nature of our dispositions."Your are basically
reprising the "optimality" argument, that SSM should not be allowed
because children do best with a married mother and father. That is one of the
state's arguments in its appeal (they refer to the "gold standard"
in the argument). The "Mom+Dad=Best Child Outcome" is true, but it by
itself does not provide a rational basis for opposing SSM. The law allows for
many different family structures, including unmarried single parents, unmarried
hetero couples, and divorced single parents. In order for the optimality
argument to hold, you must demonstrate that married same sex parents produce
worse outcomes for children than all of the other legal family arrangements.
This is unlikely, in my assessment, because the benefits to children of two
parents (regardless of gender) compared to single parents are greater than any
potential drawbacks to those two parents being same sex. As to complementarity
of parental disposition, children get plenty of gender modeling from extended
family (grandparents, aunts, uncles) and the broader community.
jeanie asks;"Ranch,What reason could be given to
disagree with gay marriage and not be considered bigoted? Or is there no room
for any other conviction?"Answer: The problem isn't that
you "disagree with gay marriage", thats your opinion and its fine (but
you can't use your opinion or religious beliefs to tell others what they
may or may not do), the problem is that your arguments are not consistent.If you're going to deny LGBT couples marriages because they
can't procreate, then you MUST apply that same criteria to heterosexuals
who can't procreate, otherwise your reasoning is suspect (probably
bigoted). ("complimentary nature" - garbage!)Bigotry
doesn't have to manifest in huge, 15-minute fame ways (Cliven Bundy's
type). It can also manifest in the little ways. You can smile and say "I
disagree", but you have to examine your motives. Why do you disagree? Why
can't you disagree and tolerate our marriages? "God says"
isn't a valid reason, and if that is your reason, its probably bigotry
cloaked in religion. If your LDS, you disagree with alcohol use yet you
tolerate it, right? This is no different.
@Liberty For All: "Except only our religion is blessed with special access
to moral truth for which other religions are not privy. Sorry to
disappoint."I read this and laughed before I realized that you
are probably serious. Perhaps you are not aware that all the
religions say this? All the religions say they are the special one and every
other one is fake, or a copy, or a corruption. In fact, untold misery and
bloodshed has happened through history over which religion is right and which is
wrong. Sorry to disappoint, but your little operation in Utah has no
more claim on the truth than the Vatican, Islam, Wicca, or the Dali Lama.Actually, on the whole of it, I think the Dali Lama may have the edge on
Ranch, What reason could be given to disagree with gay marriage and
not be considered bigoted? Or is there no room for any other conviction? Do we demand that all people believe the same or give them a hateful
label? I believe it is possible to passionatly disagree with someone and still
respect them - and even be their friend. As far as biology goes, it
is not only our physical make up it is our male and female natures as well, you
know "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus". Infertile heterosexual
couples still offer their complimentary nature to the raising of children. A Quaker, I am well aware of the statistics. I deal with
children who live them. It is my experience that children who are born within
the bounds of a strong marriage with a dad and a mom thrive. Your
statistics are why many organizations devote untold resources to strengthing
marriages and teaching moral behavior. For every shocking failure story in the
news I could give you many success stories from my own neighborhood.
People get angry with us! They bash whatever we do! They say we have an agenda!
Well, I guess if wanting a better life is an agenda, then we do have one! We
also have religious freedom. We have beliefs, despite the fact that so many
people don't acknowledge it! You know what, if somebody has the need
to degrade me and treat me like dirt and use God as an excuse, more power to
you!I grew up Mormon and I was happy and I am grateful for it. The day
they let me know I wasn't wanted was one of the worst days of my life! I
love my Mormon family and honestly will care about Mormons as long as I live!
Always. We do not have to accept the degrading way in which people treat
us! What do we do? We do our best to stand up for ourselves! Yes, we dare
believe in ourselves! Whatever happens will be! We can't make people care!
I have had enough of constantly trying not to offend family and friends! I
realize that what I wished for will never be! You can't make people care!
@donn: There are 613 commandments in the Old Testament. Christians have
rejected most of them. There are 21 "abominations" in Leviticus alone.
Christians flatly ignore almost all of them. Paul explains why in Romans 14.
Now, if you have a copy of a Bible handy, I'd like you to turn to Leviticus
15:19-30, and then read Leviticus 20:18. Now, explain to me why no one in your
family obeys these particular laws. Should you and your wife be cast out of
your community?It's not enough to reject most of the OT and
embrace one line out of it. Either it all makes some contextual sense or the
context requires examination. Either you must ritually sacrifice every animal
you eat, dispose of every piece of meat more than two days dead, avoid swine,
mollusks, crustaceans, catfish, and most game animals, bury your dead before the
second sundown, not eat mixed grain or wear blended fabrics, or you can't
pretend to be following the OT.Embrace the New Covenant, accept
God's love, love thy neighbors, and leave judgment to the Lord.
@donn – “Others, were moral codes, and are timeless…
murder”The Amalekites will be happy to hear this… if
they were any around, that is.@Dan Maloy – “You
don't want "peace". You want "acceptance"If by
“acceptance” you mean equal rights, then ya.@Karen R.Great posts as usual… you’re fast becoming one of my DN
@ Dan MaloySir, your acceptance is not required. Never has been.
Perhaps some are seeking it, but that's a personal issue on their part.
What ALL on my side are seeking is equal protection under the law. What I want
is to provide my nephew with the power to allow religion to play a part in his
life to the extent that HE sees fit, not the other way around.@
donn"Others, were moral codes, and are timeless. Incest,
murder(child sacrifice), homosexuality, bestiality, adultery are still
abominations before God."So when your god redefined what is
moral, these are the ones that made the list. Okay, question: If they're
all abominations, why are only those who engage in homosexual sex deprived of
the right to marry? Is your god saying that two adults of the same gender
wanting to marry is worse than a man with a predilection for incest being
allowed to marry a woman with young children? Or worse, creating his own
victims with this woman? Seriously?Maybe your god needs to hit the
reset button again.
Those of you with a personal, special, elite relationship with God, and those of
you who feel confident enough to speak in is behalf.......Please give the
rest of us a heads up when he shows up to destroy all the rest of us.Might
be nice to have a little chat with him first, so we can really hear, from his
mouth, how he truly feels about all of this.
@A quaker, My question for you is, isn't it more moral to make honest gays
out of them, and let them settle down with one partner, or do you prefer to just
encourage them to sleep around for the rest of their lives? The O.T.
Holiness Code contained different types of commands. Some were related to
dietary regulations or to ceremonial cleanliness, and these have been done away
with in the N.T. (Col. 2:16-17; Rom. 14:1-3). Others, were moral codes, and are
timeless. Incest, murder(child sacrifice), homosexuality, bestiality, adultery
are still abominations before God.
Can someone give a rational answer to: "How does my legal same-sex
marriage diminish your straight marriage in any way?"
@ atrulson: The definition of marriage has long been a matter for the courts -
just look at inheritance and divorce cases.As for best friends
marrying each other, that situation already exists with the caveat that the best
friends must be opposite gender. All that allowing same-sex marriage will
change on that front is allowing best friends of the same gender to marry
also.Throughout recorded history there have been stories of men and
women who have married for reasons other than procreation and stories of men and
women who married solely for procreation and once that one little heir was born
they were never intimate with each other again. There is even a story in the
Bible of a man who procreated with someone other than his wife because he
didn't think she could have children.There are also Biblical
stories of polygamy and all forms of incest.As far as what you and
your spouse feel for each other or whether or not you are intimate with each
other - no one has cared until now, and no one is going to care once same-sex
marriage is legalized.
@ 1.96: One of the arguments against same-sex marriage is that same-sex couples
can access all the rights and benefits of marriage without marriage (all one has
to do is look at tax law to see the obvious falseness of that statement, but I
digress) and that if same-sex couples wish to live together there is no reason
for them not to do so and they can even celebrate it if they wish, just as long
as they don't call it "marriage" and expect state sanction of their
relationship.Another argument against same-sex marriage is that
same-sex couples should have civil unions or domestic partnerships or some other
name for their relationship - just not "marriage."You
apparently not only oppose same-sex marriage, but oppose any option for any
relationship between same-sex individuals - going so far as to compare
non-marital same-sex relationships to slavery.Comments like yours
are why your side is losing.
To Liberty For All: "Except only our religion is blessed with special access
to moral truth for which other religions are not privy. Sorry to
disappoint."First Karen of Houston responded to this as well as anyone
could. Please reference her remarks.Secondly your statement is your
belief. I plain and simply do not share your belief. And if the treatment of the
LGBT community in Utah reflects your moral truths I'm all for a little less
morality and a whole lot more tolerance.Lastly the only thing that
disappoints me is your closed minded "I'm right end of discussion"
approach to life.
@DanMaloy: I won't argue that you consider homosexual affection sinful.
I'm sure you find things as simple as hand-holding deeply offensive. None
of us really knows what a given couple does in the privacy of their own bedroom,
and whether they are gay or straight, I don't really want to know.But here's the thing. That's already legal. Whatever physically
affectionate activity a couple wishes to engage in in the privacy of their home
is a protected right which has been emphatically affirmed by the Supreme Court
(Lawrence v. Texas). You may not like it, but that part of gays' and
lesbians' existence is now officially accepted by our society.So, whether or not we allow them to marry, the "behavior" is here to
stay, and by "here" I mean legally accepted.My question for
you is, isn't it more moral to make honest gays out of them, and let them
settle down with one partner, or do you prefer to just encourage them to sleep
around for the rest of their lives?
@Jeanie: I hate to disillusion you (or maybe I don't), but procreation has
very little to do with marriage. How else could anyone explain that women get
pregnant whether or not they're married? Have you seen the statistics?
Currently, some 41% of births in the USA are to unmarried women. And this
doesn't speak of children born to "shotgun weddings."And marriage has very little to do with good child-rearing. Plenty of
horrible, opposite-sex couples make a complete mess of it. Recently in Utah
news, we see a woman who allegedly killed 6 of her newborns, and a 3-year-old
who killed her baby brother after her parents let her play with firearms.Marriage is about love and commitment. It doesn't always work.
The divorce rate is 50%. But we should allow people to try. If Mickey Rooney
and Liz Taylor's 17 total weddings didn't ruin marriage, I don't
see how a committed lesbian couple's one wedding will.
re: "With gender out of the equation, couldn't we just as well be
talking about friendship?"What is the legal definition of
friendship, and why should the state care about a commitment between me and my
friend?"How is gender "out of equation?" Do
opposite sex couples lose their gender when same-sex couples civil marry?
Same-sex couples are well known to have a gender before and after they civil
marry. What happens to the gender of opposite-sex couples? Do
heterosexuals sometimes marry their best friend? Marriage usually has a
presumption of intimacy and establishes a legal relationship that does not
already exist with siblings or parents. Social security, pensions, spousal
health care are dependent upon that relationship (about 1138 benefits in all).
@ Liberty For All"Except only our religion is blessed with
special access to moral truth for which other religions are not privy."And there it is. "Mine is better than yours." Nothing human
about that, right?Nope. Nothing divisive about religion...
BJMoose "I would think these 1.21 billion would defer to their leader rather
than to your leader of 15 million plus."Except only our religion
is blessed with special access to moral truth for which other religions are not
privy. Sorry to disappoint.
@ Dan " You want to push your agenda down the throats of those who believe
acting on homosexual desires is sinful. You want to quell the speech of anyone
and everyone who disagrees with you in any and every circumstance. You
don't want "peace". You want "acceptance", not so much of
you, but of your behavior."The same arguments were used against
integration and full support of anti-misegenation laws. We have seen these
beliefs still play out in the far right 'Sterling and Bundy' public
comments recently. They still share the same answer as you: "NO!"
My answer: "The marriage equality train has long left the
station, despite deep and ugly claw marks all over the caboose."
Schnee (in response to jeanie): "Ability to procreate is not a precondition
on marriage."Not only that, but under Utah law, the INABILITY to
procreate is a mandatory precondition for certain marriages (first cousins).
The link between procreation and marriage is broken and the procreation argument
fails.This paper has made a cause celebre out of Hobby Lobby based
on that company's very indirect infringement on religious practice under
the ACA. The law does not force the company or its employees to buy or use the
suspect contraceptives. The company is only required to pay insurance premiums
into a pool from which some small portion MIGHT be used for contraceptives.
Contrast that to the North Carolina case, where ordained clergy of recognized
churches are threatened with jail for performing religious rites that are within
the dictates of their faith. One is trumpeted in the editorial pages. The
other is completely ignored.Some legal restrictions on religious
practice is necessary-- we don't allow human sacrifice or Warren Jeffs to
wed twelve-year-olds. However, there needs to be a compelling public purpose to
the regulation. The NC lawsuits will hinge on this.
Pro-homosexual crowd: "We just want to live our lives in peace. We want
EVERYONE to be happy."No. You want to push your agenda down the
throats of those who believe acting on homosexual desires is sinful. You want
to quell the speech of anyone and everyone who disagrees with you in any and
every circumstance.You don't want "peace". You want
"acceptance", not so much of you, but of your behavior.Here's my answer: "No."
According articles in other papers, the current North Carolina law allows clergy
to bless same-sex couples married in other states, but otherwise bars clergy
from performing "religious blessings and marriage rites" for same-sex
couples, and that "if they perform a religious blessing ceremony of a
same-sex couple in their church, they are subject to prosecution and civil
judgments."The issue is that the government has tried to
prohibit churches from blessing couples. Anytime the government starts telling
churches what rites it can and can't do, we should be worried.In America we value and protect freedom of religion. No matter what our
definition of marriage is or what type of relationships we think are good and
honorable, we allow religions to practice according to the dictates of their
conscience. In this case, the UCC honors the commitment of same-sex partners and
wants to perform commitment ceremonies. The government constitutionally cannot
interfere in this. The challenge to the law is justified and all of us who
support religious freedom should support this challenge.
To bj-hp"Only one man speaks for the Father on this earth and he
speaks for all of the Lord's children, including you, and that is President
Monson, of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints."According to the Census of the 2013 Annuario Pontificio (Pontifical Yearbook),
the number of Catholics in the world was about 1.21 billion at the end of
2011.I would think these 1.21 billion would defer to their leader
rather than to your leader of 15 million plus.
Schnee,...so that's where opinions differ. Some of us believe that
marriage is the beginning of the creation of families which naturally include
children, that it is not just a ceremony to signify commitment to another
individual. If that is the basis for one's belief, as the standard for
marriage, biology would matter greatly. Laws may very well be
inacted otherwise, but it won't change what many people believe. And,
disagreement can coexhist with respect for individuals without being labled
bigotry. It is impossible for everyone in a society to be like-minded on all
issues. That there are many from every side of disagreements that cannot manage
to disagree respectfully is abundantly clear, but it doesn't mean we
don't champion our causes we believe in by participating in the dialog and
it doesn't mean we are bigots.
@jeanie;Interesting that the DN moderators wouldn't print my
comment last night responding to your comment.LGBT people CAN
reproduce in exactly the same manner as infertile heterosexual couples.You said, and I quote: "...it becomes abundantly clear two of the same sex
cannot procreate."Guess what, jeanie, it is also abundantly
clear that two infertile heterosexuals cannot procreate, nor can two elderly
heterosexuals, yet you have absolutely NO PROBLEM with their marriages. This
indicates that you don't really care about "biology" or whether or
not a couple can "procreate"; all you care about is that the couple your
against is LGBT. (That's called bigotry).
I ran a search looking for this story and one of the hits was an August 2013
article titled, "North Carolina becomes 7th state to ban Muslim Sharia
law."The irony is indeed rich. I can't stop smiling.
Since the definition of marriage has become a court matter, can anyone tell me
what the legal definition of marriage IS? What is the legal
definition of love and how will the state determine that? If my sense of love
for my spouse had waned because I woke up on the wrong side of the bed, then
would I be breaking the law? Do I need to be sexually attracted to my spouse?With gender out of the equation, couldn't we just as well be
talking about friendship?What is the legal definition of friendship,
and why should the state care about a commitment between me and my friend?
@jeanie"All we have to do is look at the male and female body and it
becomes abundantly clear two of the same sex cannot procreate"Ability to procreate is not a precondition on marriage. If we were talking
about reproduction it'd be biology, but we're talking about marriage
I find it ironic that those of you who regularly cry "religious freedom is
being infringed" are so willing to infringe upon the religious freedom of
those who believe differently than you do. Ironic indeed.
Tiago, if you are LDS you might want to read Elder Neil Andersen's talk
"Spiritual Whirlwinds" from this last General Conference. If you are
going to invoke LDS leaders, be clear where they stand on marriage. Schnee, All we have to do is look at the male and female body and it becomes
abundantly clear two of the same sex cannot procreate. Some member of the
opposite gender had to be involved for a same sex couple to have kids. Many
people believe the most simple, healthy configuration of a family is a mom and a
dad, given the complimentary functions of our bodies and the complimentary
nature of our dispositions. I am sure you are aware that this is the meaning
behind the saying that "Biology is not bigotry". This understanding is
not just "skin deep".
To Ranch and others: What you are saying is wrong. This is just a temporary
victory for you but the total victory will be those who stand by the Prophets
and the Lord Jesus Christ. To say otherwise really doesn't matter.
Prophets have stated for thousands of years what would happen in the last days
preceding the second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. This attack is nothing new
it is another means to mock our Heavenly Father and his Son, Jesus Christ. It
is wrong to assume that this battle will have no other outcome except that
righteousness in the end will prevail where same-sex marriage and the
destruction of families will cease that the ordinances of the temple will be
open to all of the Father's children. The Proclamation on the Family will
live and stand as a witness against all who have failed to heed its warnings.
Only one man speaks for the Father on this earth and he speaks for all of the
Lord's children, including you, and that is President Monson, of the Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. No one else has that responsibility.
Ranch, It may become legal but I'm sure you understand there will be
no laws to force anyone to call anything they choose not to. And some will
choose not to call you "husbands".
@1.96 Standard Deviations;You're losing. Get used to calling
my partner and I "husbands".
Tiago:If gay marriage is now considered a religious practice, but
will now become under consideration to affect the state's definition of
marriage, where is the outcry from those who want separation of church and
state? If there is a religion that allows marriage between animals
and humans, should the state allow this too for everyone, to accommodate
exercise of religion? One can teach a parrot to say, "I Do," to a
marriage proposal. Don't you see that gay marriage advocates
are being purely opportunistic and really don't care about religious
freedom? It still boils down to what is right/wrong, nature, the definition of
marriage, state's rights, the role of federal government.Marriage between man and and woman is the best definition and the optimal
institution for child rearing. On an aside, the federal government
shouldn't be involved in the marriage business in an idea world. Its role
is extremely limited and it shouldn't have come to this. The 14th amendment
has been abused by gay marriage advocates. It was never intended to be used for
@1.96 Standard Deviations"Biology is not bigotry. "Skin color is biological. Doesn't stop people from being bigots about it.
@1.96 Standard DeviationsI don't think it is sneaky. Gay marriage
advocates are advocating for the rights of their brothers and sisters, sons and
daughters to be able to live a committed, moral life. These ministers in NC are
advocating for the right to publicly celebrate the commitment of two people in
front of their community and, in their view, in front of God.They are not
out to get you or to hurt you. They have faith in things they know are true.
They feel love and a sense of community. They are trying to protect their
children. In America, we let people worship according to the dictates of their
own conscience.If you are LDS, I recommend you look at Elder Zwick's
talk from the last General Conference. When his wife jumped from a moving truck,
he thought it was irrational, but asked her "What in the world were you
thinking?" Her answer: "I was just trying to save our son."
I've heard about this lawsuit but I thought it was frivolous until I
learned of the law regulating what marriages a minister can perform. It kind of
depends on how it is worded but if its directed strictly at the clergy, I
can't imagine it surviving a constitutional challenge.
This is absolutely the way this should play out. You cannot allow any kind of
argument for religious liberty without allowing all arguments for religious
liberty. Religious liberty, after all, does not exist in a 'pick and
choose' vacuum. Or, as I've also heard it expressed, you cannot
embrace religious liberty for anyone unless you're prepared to embrace it
for your worst enemy. That's the way liberty combines with the absolute
subjectivity of religion. Long live religious liberty and same sex marriage;
your argument has just bitten you.
Gay marriage advocates love to have their cake and eat it too. Very sneaky
strategy. If this were used on another subject, say using the free exercise of
religion to bring back slavery, how far would that go? Gay marriage advocates
are so opportunistic and fair-weathered to twist whatever good there is into
something that is wrong. I am for time-tested marriage - marriage
between man and woman. Biology is not bigotry. Male and female genders are
supposed to complement each other. Marriage between man and woman promotes this
wonderfully, and this marriage is the optimal institution for raising children.
Yesterday the Deseret News published a Q&A with Ryan T. Anderson from the
Heritage Foundation who opposes same-sex marriage but supports religious
liberty.In that interview, Mr. Anderson seemed to recognize that
importance of allowing individuals and churches to practice their beliefs
concerning marriage--even those churches that support and honor committed
same-sex unions.Mr. Anderson said "In all 50 states, two people of the
same sex can live with each other and love each other. If their house of worship
recognizes same-sex marriage, they can have a wedding there."It would
seem that Mr. Anderson would support the United Church of Christ ministers and
the ACLU attorneys in this case. I would be interested to hear his specific
comments on this case.