- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Is the statement posted online anywhere? I’d love to be able to point to the part about the ruling broadening religious freedom. Quote:Is the statement posted online anywhere?
The relevant paragraph from the decision (page 49) is quoted in the following comment in the By Common Consent thread about it:
DarkJedi wrote:TataniaAvalon wrote:If SS couples want to get married so be it! It doesn’t hurt me or my husband and it makes them happy. As long as they don’t force religions that are against it, to marry them (which hasn’t happened to my knowledge in any state that has legalized it) then there’s not a problem.
I agree. SSM is legal in NY and has been for almost two years. No church has been forced to perform such a marriage against their will or doctrine as far as I know. Individuals have been, however, in civil marriages – even if it’s against his or her beliefs, a town justice must marry a SS couple. And private businesses have also been forced to allow SS marriages at their facilities and/or cater to them (for example reception halls, bakers, caterers.) I have mixed feelings on that, honestly. While I don’t care if they want to marry, I do believe in individual religious freedom and freedom of speech as well. I actually think it’s very similar to the Duck Dynasty brouhaha. If a caterer doesn’t believe in SSM for his/her own religious reasons, I don’t believe they should be forced to participate – there are others (and other venues) that will.
I said this to a friend once. He asked me a question: if a business owner was opposed to inter-racial marriage would you support them turning a couple away? How about if someone believed blacks were an inferior race and wanted to only serve whites?
I was stumped. No, I would consider the business owner to be out of order. I accepted that if someone offered a public service then they shouldn’t be able to have prejudice influence who they served.
Like the issue of black priesthood in the 1940/50s, our ingrained and instinctive reactions to gay marriage are based on our environmental influences and cultural upbringing. It’s ok to challenge and question them.
I actually don’t see these issues as the same, Mackay, but I know some see them much closer than I do. In my mind there is a difference in racism and a religious belief in the sanctity of marriage as ordained of God. I’m sure there must be racist churches/religions, but I’m also sure they are not sanctioned of God. And while my beliefs about marriage do not necessarily match the church’s (or that of other churches with the same doctrine, including the world’s largest Christian church), I do defend that freedom of religion. Nevertheless, I do see there is some correlation as noted above. I was reading today of a Muslim Cashier in the UK that refused to sell alcohol. Sounds like she was real nice about it – asking the customer to wait while another cashier could be summoned to process the transaction. People that are defending their right to buy alcohol are calling for a boycott of the chain of stores!?!?!?
There is always a tension between individual freedom and public need. Neither should be carried so far that it tramples upon the others. Compromise is the best solution and that compromise is being continuously rewritten through the legislative/judicial process. It is not perfect but it may be the best that we can come up with.
The county clerk offices across the state opened this morning and are issuing marriage licenses – except for Utah and Cache (no surprise there), where the doors were left locked while the county clerks “sought clarification from the Attorney General’s Office”. People who live in those counties who want to get married simply were going to the neighboring counties. I don’t know if those two counties now are open.
DarkJedi wrote:I actually don’t see these issues as the same, Mackay, but I know some see them much closer than I do. In my mind there is a difference in racism and a religious belief in the sanctity of marriage as ordained of God. I’m sure there must be racist churches/religions, but I’m also sure they are not sanctioned of God. And while my beliefs about marriage do not necessarily match the church’s (or that of other churches with the same doctrine, including the world’s largest Christian church), I do defend that freedom of religion. Nevertheless, I do see there is some correlation as noted above.
I know what you mean, but a lot of early race prejudice and inter-racial marriage opposition was based on religious beliefs. The LDS weren’t the only ones to justify racial prejudice by saying God made it that way.
Sometimes when I look at things like gay marriage through the “We believe in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law” lens then I just see huge, glaring, contradictions all over the place. For me, I think this is great news. My Facebook feed has been very interesting over the past few days. The 10th Circuit Court in Denver has refused to issue a stay, which keeps gay marriages happening in Utah throughout the appeal process. One part of the decision’s wording is particularly interesting: Quote:“According to the order, the state failed to show it had a “significant likelihood” of prevailing in its appeal to the circuit court.”
In essence, it implies that the ruling will not be over-turned, based on the arguments included in the appeal.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.