The Freedom to Marry Still Respects the Freedom of Religion
Ending the exclusion from marriage does not take away the
important religious freedom that we rightly cherish in this country. All religious groups retain the right to make
their own decisions, consistent with the principles of their faith, about whom
they will and won’t marry. Some
religious groups refuse to marry a couple unless both people are of that
group’s particular faith. Other
religious groups refuse to marry people who have been previously married and
divorced. Allowing same-sex couples to
marry does not change that important religious freedom. Some groups will refuse to marry same-sex
couples, and that choice should be respected under the law.
On the other hand, a growing number
of faith groups want religious freedom to celebrate the lifelong commitments
made by individuals in same-sex couples, because for them the core of
spirituality is precisely the commitments people make, because that
demonstrates peoples’ values. For instance,
Maureen Kilian, a church administrator and devout Episcopalian who was a
plaintiff in Lambda Legal’s New Jersey case seeking access to marriage for
same-sex couples, gave the following testimony: “For me, being married also
tells people about your values and your faith, because it is an incredibly
important commitment that has a spiritual side. In my faith, the marriage
commitment is really important. Straight couples whose belief systems place a
priority on commitment can, by getting married, show that their actions match
the words of their beliefs.” Allowing
Kilian to marry her partner of over 30 years would respect her religious
freedom to have her actions match the words of her beliefs. At the same time it
would not interfere with the important religious freedom of faith groups that
do not wish to marry same-sex couples, divorced individuals, persons of a
different faith or anyone at all.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
What if Congress passed a law declaring the 4th of July "Freedom Day". Did anything really change except the name? Would that make you any less upset? "Independence Day" doesn't really belong to anybody, especially the government , and no one has the right to redefine it. If everyone just stopped calling the 4th of July "Independence Day" then that's fine. Nobody should be forced to observe the holiday or celebrate it in the traditional sense.
In the same way, government does not own marriage . It shouldn't define it or redefine it or sanction it. The people should be the keepers and standard-bearers of marriage. If we decide that marriage means two loving individuals then we will be accepting of gay couples and respectful of their union. The government should not be saying, "accept this," or, "respect this," or, "recognize this." It's our right to recognize or ignore whatever social contracts we want.
If we still want to have some kind of government recognition then use the term "civil union." It's respectful and appropriate, because without the law (i.e. government) the term really has no meaning. I still object to the existence of a special class of citizenship though (i.e. I object to special privileges exclusive to married/unionized couples).
I'm an atheist, and my husband agnostic. We did not get married for religious reasons or in a church , yet our union is still recognized by the state. End of story.
Don't be fooled that because of a few misguided indivduals that gay marriage is okay. For thousands of years, marriage has only been with man and woman. It is absurd that a very small group of people thinks that because the misinterpreted what the Constitution provides, that they can change history over night. By the way, this is not one of them. Marriage has always been and should never be changed from between man and woman. This is natural. During hard times in our history, with the lack of a partner of the opposite sex, genders have come together for the comfort and contact experienced from birth. It helps keep us sane: humans need contact. But to make this as ligitimate as mariage between a man and a woman is naive, arrogant, selfish.
I don’t see what your definition of marriage truly is. You say that what is natural is that marriage is only for a man and a woman. Yet you say that it is also natural to seek comfort and companionship from others of either or gender. However, what if to other people that is what marriage is, the companionship of another except of the same gender. I understand where you are coming from but you simply cannot argue that marriage is one way and not explore the depths of what you are talking about. Marriage is defined quite differently by the government, religion and society itself. It’s unnatural to say marriage is “natural” only between a man and women when you haven’t set the standard for what “natural” is.
I'm an atheist, should I allowed to be married under your religious interpretation of marriage?
Allowing same-sex marriage does not respect the freedom of religion . In European countries that have legalized same-sex marriages, pastors are being arrested and jailed for refusing to marry same-sex marriages. Already in this country, a Christian photographer was fined for not accepting a job photographing a same-sex "marriage" ceremony. I would be long before I, as a pastor, must face a tribunal for my refusal to officiate a same-sex cerermony.