Gay Marriage & Religious Liberty

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

---

The arrest of a minister charged with performing a religious ceremony consistent with his or her religion should have gotten our attention. If a government can determine that one religious practice violates law and can arrest and charge a minister for performing that ceremony, then government can determine that ANY religious practice is illegal. The arrest of a minister for performing a marriage between two people of the same sex can progress to the arrest of a minister for preaching on a Sabbath not sanctioned by law.

---

The problem with this conclusion is that when a minister in the United States marries a couple, he or she will say something like... "by the power vested in me by the state of Maine/Texas/Washinton/etc., I now pronounce you man and wife" In so doing, they are in the role of a civil servant and subject to the civil laws that govern marriage in their state. When my wife and I were married by our pastor, he did not say any of that because we had already been legally married by a judge. So our pastor did not legally marry us.

A pastor is free to marry to gay couple, a man to his dog, a group of five lesbians or a man with two sisters as long as he or she doesn't use "the power vested" in them by their respective state to do so.

Here is the link Nico provided in another thread: >>> Marriage: A Religious Liberty Issue? <<<

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

---

The only justification for restricting marriage to two persons of opposite sexes is that dominant churches have defined it that way.

---

This simply is not so. Civil government defines all kinds of human relationships for all kinds of reasons. In business, government defines what partners are, what an employee is, what subcontract labor is, what a corporation is, what a CEO is, etc.

Civil government is within its realm to define what it will recognize as a marriage for purposes of taxation, child custody, immergration, Social Security, medicare, etc. No matter what difinition government comes up with, there will be religions and/or denomination that will disagree.

If same-sex couples are allowed to marry, why shouldn't a person be allowed to marry their pet? Why should a group of people be allowed to marry each other? Poligomy is certainly a relgious issue as many faiths allow it. What about brothers and sisters marrying each other? What about cousins? How about aunts and nephews or (if gay marriage is allowed) aunts and nieces?

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

Shane said:

If same-sex couples are allowed to marry, why shouldn't a person be allowed to marry their pet?

---

This is nonsense.

Slippery slope arguments are the last refuge of the would-be tyrant and have no validity whatsoever. Might as well say we should outlaw aspirin because oh dear someone might go from using an aspirin to using heroin.

Quote:

---

Why should a group of people be allowed to marry each other? Poligomy is certainly a relgious issue as many faiths allow it. What about brothers and sisters marrying each other? What about cousins? How about aunts and nephews or (if gay marriage is allowed) aunts and nieces?

---

Who cares??? What business is it of yours??? Are they in ANY way impeding upon the sanctity of YOUR marriage if they DO??? Does this in ANY way alter what YOU view as the immutable truth of right and wrong, or what YOU understand to be God's plan for family relationships??? No, it does not. Is it any of your business? No, it is not. Will it harm you in any way, shape, or form if the government permits these unions the same familial benefits as traditional ones? No, it will not. You will still have the right to marry whom YOU please. You will still have the right to define marriage as YOU understand it ought to be defined, for YOUR family.

[Nicodema]

An intelligent and thoughtful article, for those who wish to actually THINK THROUGH the issue instead of having their view spoon-fed to them by the so-called "religious right", may be found here (click title below):

• Marriage: A Religious Liberty Issue?

[Dr. Shane]

Let's try and stay focused on the religious liberty aspect.

Civil government has as much right to regulate marriage between two people as they do to regulate it between a person and thier pet.

Civil government has as much right to forbid marriage between two people of the same sex as they do to forbid poligomy or incestural marriages.

No matter how government defines marriage, some churches and denominations will disagree with it. Governmet defining marriage is not an issue of religious liberty.

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

Shane said:

Let's try and stay focused on the

religious liberty

aspect.

Civil government has as much right to regulate marriage between two people as they do to regulate it between a person and thier pet.

Civil government has as much right to forbid marriage between two people of the same sex as they do to forbid poligomy or incestural marriages.

No matter how government defines marriage, some churches and denominations will disagree with it. Governmet defining marriage is not an issue of religious liberty.

---

Yes, Shane, we have all ALREADY heard your very well rehearsed toting of the right-wing party line. I would like to hear from other people now who might be able to think past these pre-programmed falsehoods, OK? Nothing you said above is true ... READ THE ARTICLE.

[Dr. Shane]

I not only read the article, I quoted from it.

Here is what the Supreme Court thinks. These cases deal with freedom of religion when religious beliefs conflict with civil law.

Quote:

---

The Hialeah animal sacrifice case was decided in the Supreme Court in 1993. In Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 113 S. Ct. 2217, city officials defended their ban against animal sacrifice based on public health and community moral standards. The church argued that the government permitted the killing of animals for many secular reasons, such as for hunting and fishing, and that banning religious ceremonial sacrifice is wrongful government infringement on their religion. The minister said that his religion should be institutionalized so that its practitioners could become part of mainstream America. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the church, overturning a lower court ruling.

---

Quote:

---

The two Native Americans drug counselors from Oregon lost their case, in which they claimed they were entitled to unemployment benefits after being fired for using as part of their traditional Indian religious ceremony. In Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), the justices ruled that the employees were fired for cause, having violated a contract with their employer agreeing not to use illegal drugs. Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia held that religious practices, in this case ceremonial use of peyote, are not exempt from "generally applicable" criminal prohibitions.

---

Quote:

---

In the Buddhist assisted-suicide case, during a court hearing the five accused friends were admitted to an accelerated rehabilitation program. Admission to the program was not tied to entering pleas of guilt or innocence. If they remained conviction free for a year, all criminal charges related to assisting with the suicide were to be dropped.

---

Quote:

---

Native Americans’ claims over sacred lands have been largely unsuccessful. However, efforts to regain Indian skeletal remains from museums so that they can be properly buried have met with some success. The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 requires institutions receiving federal money to return human remains and any artifacts found with them to the tribes that want them, given that the tribes have proven they have a valid claim to them. In addition, on May 24, 1996, President Clinton issued Executive Order 13007, directing all federal agencies to accommodate and protect “Indian sacred sites” whenever possible.

---