I was appalled to find out that if California does not add a so-called marriage clause to its Constitution or other sort of law book, then religious institutions may be in danger of oh, what's the word... discrimination; they also face a jail, a fine, or closure, whichever is applicable. That is, this would be the case if someone decides to bring a civil suit against a church or other religious institution or official at refuses to perform a same-sex couple ceremony. These disciniplary measures have already been enforced against religious organizations and clerics who have refused to marry same-sex couples.
Religion, by is very nature, is discriminatory. (Don't all of you gasp at once now.) Most of them are not so in that everyone is welcome to join in activities, but to truly practice, there are usually rules and codes of conduct to which its practioners adhere. For a same-sex couple to ask a discriminating organization to perfom a ceremony and expect that it be done oversteps their bounds. It's almost like me, a Protestant who is not baptized in an Orthodox church, asking the priest of St. Antha-whosit in IV to perform my wedding ceremony in his church. He cannot do so in adherence to his beliefs. For me to demand that he honor my request takes away one of his first amendment rights.
But, for the state to recognize only one definition of marriage is a violation of the same first amendment rights that same-sex couples have. To demand that the only marriage recognized by the state is one between a man and a woman is nearly peposterous. Soon they'll add another clause in which the state will only recognize a marriage between a man and a woman of the same race or a man and a woman of the same peer group. Lying within its nature is the ability to take away the freedom of individuals to live the life they choose.
If their lifestyle is an affront to you, flip the coin. Your worldview is an affront to them. Does it not offend or hurt you when an athiest calls you dumb because of your faith? And yet you call same-sex couples scandulous or degrade them from the pulpit. I have had more than one friend hurt because of your actions on this subject. Yeah, really winning people over here.
Personally, I am caught in the middle. I don't want my church building closed because it adheres to its beliefs, and I do not want to penalize someone for living a life that I don't think is right.
Is there a middle ground?
This seems like a nice place to air my dirty laundry. I welcome comments; I love interaction with my readers. Who knows? You might teach me a thing or two!
I...
...am usually called Tina.
...like talking about esoteric subjects.
...am someone who fails.
...love my family, friends and God.
...am someone who succeeds.
...am unsure about the future.
...love vintage clothing.
...like to observe and comment on life.
...like talking about esoteric subjects.
...am someone who fails.
...love my family, friends and God.
...am someone who succeeds.
...am unsure about the future.
...love vintage clothing.
...like to observe and comment on life.
My first love
"Mmmm..."
4 comments:
Tina -
There is no need for you to worry about churches being forced to marry any couple they don't want to. The Supreme Court justices, in the May 15 ruling that approved marriage equality, made that very clear. Their ruling states: "[A]ffording same-sex couples the opportunity to obtain the designation of marriage will not impinge upon the religious freedom of any religious organization, official, or any other person; no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs."
So go ahead be be proudly for marriage equality!
hi tom. thanks for reading. what does the ruling say about religious buildings for public use?
wow, i thought i was the only one who stood in the middle! *eyes blinking*
i have always enjoyed your thoughts! i miss ya!
I think that this idea of same sex couples suing a religious organization that offer their buildings for public use is just a tactic to try and scare "Christians" and fuel more hate. Of the non-heterosexual individuals that I've known, I don't know of one who would truly want to celebrate their marriage in a facility that was not welcoming to them. I also think that this outcry of being "forced" to practice or go against religious beliefs is hypocritical. I know of plenty religious organizations that offer their buildings for public use, which allow alcohol and other activities that are not necessarily in line with their religious beliefs/practices.
In the end I agree with your comment about winning people over. If, as Christians, we truly want to make a stand for Christ we need to remember what He stood for; spreading good news, proclaiming freedom, releasing the oppressed, and proclaiming the Lord's favor. If we are choosing to continue Christ's mission then Prop 8 is not helping our cause it's hurting. Instead of investing so much time, energy and money into this proposition, why don't we invest it in organizations or programs that serve who are suffering and ostracized in our society, yes even non-heterosexual individuals. Maybe this is too radical an idea for some, but I seem to remember something in bible about this crazy guy named Jesus who hung out with prostitutes....
Post a Comment