Comments on: Why Religious Reassurances Matter

By: Josh

Josh — Mon, 25 May 2009 22:22:28 +0000

I think these religious reassurances are more to prevent potential scenarios such as if a gay couple presented themselves to their Catholic priest for marriage, even though the Church does not permit same-gender sexual expression. If said gay couple were to try to make a legal issue of it, this would force the state to try to legislate in matters of doctrine and faith, which is most definitely NOT the purpose of the government or courts, at least in the USA. I’m all for full civil marriage equality, but for a gay marriage to be recognized by a faith group, that’s for the faith group to determine, not the state. If I found a man I wanted to marry, I’d love for a full Nuptial Mass, but I’d have to settle for a civil ceremony. For change to occur in my church, it would have to occur within my church’s processes.

By: staci

staci — Fri, 22 May 2009 07:49:11 +0000

I support re-assuring clergy that they will not lose their rights in order to grant us ours. Put it in legislation if need be.

By: el polacko

el polacko — Fri, 22 May 2009 03:58:22 +0000

the idea that civil rights legislation should contain an asterisked allowance for discrimination by some groups is disgustingly wrong. why this exemption for “religion” when many religions have no issue with equal marriage rights ?
we are talking about registering relationships with the STATE, just as heteros have to do.. what happens in other ceremonies has nothing to do with it.

By: Jason D

Jason D — Fri, 22 May 2009 03:28:58 +0000

Jeff, every end is a beginning.

By: Priya Lynn

Priya Lynn — Fri, 22 May 2009 03:26:16 +0000

John said “Leading gay legal groups should get together on come up with language that does the job of exempting churches from having to perform marriages without opening new cans of worms by possibly legalizing other forms of anti- gay discrimation.”.

I agree John. I certainly don’t trust those laymen gays who assure us the overly broad language allowing for religious discrimination only gives churches the rights that they already had under the U.S. constitution to refuse to perform marriages they don’t agree with.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Fri, 22 May 2009 03:16:31 +0000

Religion will end the world…just wait.

By: Timothy Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid — Fri, 22 May 2009 03:05:24 +0000

David,

I think perhaps they weild more influence than you are alling. Mainline parishoners make up 24% of American voters.

And the word of a minister can give a sense of “permission” to a non-religious American who still considers themself to be generically “Christian”.

As long as “non-active Christains” are not hearing a uniform anti-gay message, then they can more easily do what is right without subconciously feeling they are going against God.

By: David Brian Holt

David Brian Holt — Fri, 22 May 2009 02:25:33 +0000

You’re being very kind to think that mainline clergy have much influence in the country anymore. They are seen as “apostates” by many evangelicals. It was encouraging to read, however, that over 60% of UCC clergy are in favor of full marriage rights. That number was probably much lower a few years ago but has been moved higher due to noble action by their national denomination.

By: Emily K

Emily K — Fri, 22 May 2009 01:52:21 +0000

I’m not a huge fan of enabling ignorance among the ignorant. But if this is what is needed, fine. It’s like people who double-click on hyperlinks – one click is really all you need but they feel like nothing will launch unless the second click is added.

By: Patrick

Patrick — Fri, 22 May 2009 01:31:07 +0000

If Christians deny civil rights to others because they perceive they won’t be allowed to discriminate against the others, then the Christians have already lost. What they teach and practice is not what Jesus taught or practiced.