Log In | Register
IN REPLY TO:
Marriage And Religious Freedom, Fundamental Goods That Stand or Fall Together
---------------
A religious group has released a letter expressing their concerns over the matter of same-gender matrimony, a.k.a., gay marriage. Like many other assertions made by certain religious groups which are aimed at creating social policy and/or legal reform, it is rife with subjective rhetoric, half-truths, and outright lies. This reply serves to expose those deceptions.
The promotion and protection of marriage—the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife—is a matter of the common good and serves the wellbeing of the couple, of children, of civil society and all people. The meaning and value of marriage precedes and transcends any particular society, government, or religious community. It is a universal good and the foundational institution of all societies. It is bound up with the nature of the human person as male and female, and with the essential task of bearing and nurturing children.
As can be seen here, this is nothing more than a personal opinion, expressed in such a way so as to imply an authoritative source. Upon closer examination, however, the flaws of these statements become readily apparent.
First, to address the claim that a “one man and one woman” marriage is, “...a matter of common good.” There is no academic or authoritative information, evaluation, or study of any kind which indicates that allowing same-gender marriages has a negative affect on the community, the city/town, or society as a whole. This is simply a deceptive assertion being perpetuated by the opponents of same-gender marriage.
Second, that opposite-gender marriage, “...serves the well-being of the couple.” The concept that an opposite-gender marriage is inherently healthier than a same-gender marriage is demonstrably false. In the distant past, it was far more common that homosexual men and woman would enter into an opposite-gender marriage, purely for the sake of convenience or appearances. According to at least one published medical study (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7346553) as many as half would ultimately end in divorce. This can only serve to show that homosexual individuals who are compelled into a heterosexual relationship are anything BUT healthy, and in fact, has contributed to the very-high incident of divorce in this country. Indeed, can one honestly believe that a relationship which maintains a limited ability to express full and honest emotion is healthier than a relationship which maintains an honest expression of affection on all levels?
Third, that opposite-gender marriage serves the well-being, “…of children.” An article in “Medscape Medical News,” examined the results of 15 different academic studies which examined the lives of children born and raised in same-gender parent households. Those studies universally determined that children raised by homosexual parents are no better, and no worse, than those raised by heterosexual parents.
To continue, the letter states, “The meaning and value of marriage precedes and transcends any particular society, government, or religious community.” I might appreciate the irony of this statement if it were not so clearly contradictory and arrogant. These religious leaders declare marriage to be beyond the purview of any subset of society or culture, but then go on to define it and ascribe limitations based on their own personal opinions. The intellectual dishonesty of this is staggering.
As religious leaders across a wide variety of faith communities...
There is no “wide variety of faiths” being represented here. The faiths being represented are Evangelical Christians, other Conservative Christians, and Orthodox Jewish. The variety of Episcopal, Angelican, UCC, Quaker, Unitarian/Universalist Christians, etc., as well as many non-Christian religions, which either support or consciously asserts no opinion in the matter, are clearly not represented here.
…we join together to affirm that marriage in its true definition must be protected for its own sake and for the good of society. We also recognize the grave consequences of altering this definition. One of these consequences—the interference with the religious freedom of those who continue to affirm the true definition of “marriage”—warrants special attention within our faith communities and throughout society as a whole. For this reason, we come together with one voice in this letter.
As I said before, for a group which claims, “The meaning and value of marriage precedes and transcends any particular society, government, or religious community,” they are very insistant on being the only group which understands this “true definition of marriage.”
Some posit that the principal threat to religious freedom posed by same-sex “marriage” is the possibility of government’s forcing religious ministers to preside over such “weddings,” on pain of civil or criminal liability. While we cannot rule out this possibility entirely, we believe that the First Amendment creates a very high bar to such attempts.
There is no honesty, nor intellectual honesty, in presenting a claim of a potential problem while simultaneously admitting that it probably won’t be a problem. This is simply a “red herring,” and speaks to the lack of candor of these religious leaders.
Instead, we believe the most urgent peril is this: forcing or pressuring both individuals and religious organizations—throughout their operations, well beyond religious ceremonies—to treat same-sex sexual conduct as the moral equivalent of marital sexual conduct.
Again, this group presents a “red herring.” There is no example, history, nor precedent, which indicates that any religious organization will be forced to accept a social policy with which it disagrees. When abortion, birth-control, surrogate motherhood, etc., were declared legal, no church in the country was bound or coerced into changing its position or doctrine where such issues were concerned. To claim that religious freedom would be compromised by a civil policy, which places neither compulsion nor restriction, is utterly dishonest.
There is no doubt that the many people and groups whose moral and religious convictions forbid same-sex sexual conduct will resist the compulsion of the law, and church-state conflicts will result.
Again, the compulsion of which they speak does not exist. To allow same-gender marriages is to remove a restriction from a subset of society. There is neither requirement nor compulsion of any kind for churches to accept or acknowledge a marriage which is not consistent with their own religious philosophy.
These conflicts bear serious consequences. They will arise in a broad range of legal contexts, because altering the civil definition of “marriage” does not change one law, but hundreds, even thousands, at once. By a single stroke, every law where rights depend on marital status—such as employment discrimination, employment benefits, adoption, education, healthcare, elder care, housing, property, and taxation—will change so that same-sex sexual relationships must be treated as if they were marriage.
This is nothing more than an outright expression of discrimination. These religious leaders have stated, herein, that they support the “right” to discriminate against homosexual couples, and that the inability to do so will have a negative effect on society.
That requirement, in turn, will apply to religious people and groups in the ordinary course of their many private or public occupations and ministries—including running schools, hospitals, nursing homes and other housing facilities, providing adoption and counseling services, and many others.
The religious leaders who presented this letter are also asserting the belief that people should have the right to impose their religious and philosophical beliefs in the course of civil and occupational duties. In other words, if same-gender marriage becomes legal, it should be allowable for a town clerk to refuse to issue a marriage license, since it is opposed to their personal belief that gays and lesbians should not marry; that student enrollment can be adjusted or refused if the student has same-gender parents; that adoptions can likewise be refused; etc., etc. Again, this is nothing more than attempting to justify gender-preference discrimination.
So, for example, religious adoption services that place children exclusively with married couples would be required by law to place children with persons of the same sex who are civilly “married.”
Adoption services are governed by Federal, state, and local laws. Adoption is not purely a religious function. If a “religious” adoption service has a problem with conforming to the law, then they should not be in the adoption business.
Religious marriage counselors would be denied their professional accreditation for refusing to provide counseling in support of same-sex “married” relationships. Religious employers who provide special health benefits to married employees would be required by law to extend those benefits to same-sex “spouses.” Religious employers would also face lawsuits for taking any adverse employment action—no matter how modest—against an employee for the public act of obtaining a civil “marriage” with a member of the same sex. This is not idle speculation, as these sorts of situations have already come to pass.
The same conditions apply to each of these examples; business and civil duties operate under the jurisdiction of the law. Yes, many of “these sorts of situations” have come to pass, and in every case, the discrimination was found to be illegal and/or unconstitutional.
Even where religious people and groups succeed in avoiding civil liability in cases like these, they would face other government sanctions—the targeted withdrawal of government co-operation, grants, or other benefits.
For example, in New Jersey, the state cancelled the tax-exempt status of a Methodist-run boardwalk pavilion used for religious services because the religious organization would not host a same-sex “wedding” there.
The property in New Jersey was not tax-exempt for religious reasons; the property received its exemption under the “Green Acres Program.” The truth of the matter can be found here: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/nyregion/18grove.html
San Francisco dropped its $3.5 million in social service contracts with the Salvation Army because it refused to recognize same-sex “domestic partnerships” in its employee benefits policies. Similarly, Portland, Maine, required Catholic Charities to extend spousal employee benefits to same-sex “domestic partners” as a condition of receiving city housing and community development funds.
A business is not a church, nor is a church (under legal definitions) a business. If a church is going to own and operate a business, it must do so within the confines of the law.
In short, the refusal of these religious organizations to treat a same-sex sexual relationship as if it were a marriage marked them and their members as bigots, subjecting them to the full arsenal of government punishments and pressures reserved for racists. These punishments will only grow more frequent and more severe if civil “marriage” is redefined in additional jurisdictions. For then, government will compel special recognition of relationships that we the undersigned religious leaders and the communities of faith that we represent cannot, in conscience, affirm.
Again, the church was never compelled to acknowledge the status of same-gender couples, but in no way does this allow a church-owned business to practice discrimination. The operation of a business is not a religious function, no matter how it is rationalized. Any and every church can discontinue the ownership and/or operation of a business, and continue to remain a church. Any and every business can be sold from a religious ownership to a secular ownership, and continue to be a business. The two are clearly and demonstrably mutually exclusive.
Because law and government not only coerce and incentivize but also teach, these sanctions would lend greater moral legitimacy to private efforts to punish those who defend marriage.
Purely rhetorical. The law is the law; it does not promote itself as “greater moral legitimacy.”
Therefore, we encourage all people of good will to protect marriage as the union between one man and one woman, and to consider carefully the far-reaching consequences for the religious freedom of all Americans if marriage is redefined. We especially urge those entrusted with the public good to support laws that uphold the time-honored definition of marriage, and so avoid threatening the religious freedom of countless institutions and citizens in this country. Marriage and religious freedom are both deeply woven into the fabric of this nation. May we all work together to strengthen and preserve the unique meaning of marriage and the precious gift of religious freedom.
The only “religious freedom” which has been addressed throughout this letter has been the “right” to discriminate against same-gender couples, based on the philosophies of their own personal religion. This letter promotes their “religious freedom” over-and-above occupational protections, occupational benefits, the ability to adopt, the right to government benefits, and so on. In short, they demand legislation be based on religious philosophy, rather than fundamental rights or the Common Law.
And now, to elaborate on the “unique meaning of marriage” that these religious leaders don’t want you to know.
Throughout the history of western civilization, extending back to Roman and Greek culture, and likely into pre-history, marriage had always, and exclusively, been a private matter. It had been governed by, if anything, only local laws or local customs. Here is a key point, which the religious leaders of the aforementioned letter would certainly prefer to leave unknown: until the 16th century, there was neither a law, nor a religion, which defined “marriage” on a federal or national level. NOT ONE. It was not until the 12th century that Catholic priests began ingratiating themselves into the marriage ceremony, but until the mid 1500’s, the majority of marriages, including those among Christians, were little more than Common Law marriages.
During the 16th century, as part of the Protestant Reformation, Martin Luther affirmed that marriage was “…a worldly thing…that belongs to the realm of government.” Thus, marriage remained a purely secular practice. However, in 1563, in a Counter-Reformation effort, The Council of Trent declared that marriage was a sacrament, and that only a marriage officiated by a Catholic priest, and attended by two witnesses, would be considered a “legitimate” marriage. Nonetheless, non-Catholics were still free to marry under the terms of a Common Law Marriage. This continued until England passed Lord Hardwicke's Marriage Act of 1753, which gave the Church of England full authority over marriages. Some eighty years later, The Marriage Act of 1836 would be passed over the entire UK, reinstituting a civil marriage, and eliminating the requirement of a religious element for a marriage to be considered lawful.
Lord Hardwicke's Marriage Act had no effect on the American Colonies, where Common Law marriages remained lawful. In fact, at no point in the history of the United States has there been a legal requirement of church recognition for a marriage to be considered lawful.
Thus, marriage is, and always has been, a civil and societal function. That religion has been able to infiltrate the institution is a poor rationalization for it to be able to redefine the institution according to its own doctrines.
-finis-
