I would very much like to see a firmer civil-religious division with respect to what links the intimate lives of two consenting adults. In other words
( ... )
The first is a (partially justified) worry that the creation of an equal civil union for gays will lead to the enforcement of this worldview onto churches. I say it's partially justified because there are people out there that sue to make trouble, and people that sue due to deep-seated beliefs that shouldn't necessarily be the province of the judicial system. It seems sort of inevitable that one of these lawsuits would get through and force churches to recognize gay unions.
And the second is that marriages are authorized on a state level; your "easy" solution requires all of them to acknowledge the solution. Furthermore, if the end result isn't "marriage", federal law needs significant (detailed) revision to keep the current regime (law clerks in DC will have a great time of it, I'm sure). If the end result is "marriage", DOMA needs to go the way of anti-miscegenation laws.
I'm just pointing out complications, of course. I don't think these are REASONS to avoid your suggestion.
Wait, can people sue for discrimination by a church? The Catholic church won't ordain me, even if I convert to catholicism, because I'm female; would I have grounds for a lawsuit? Likewise if some scary Southern church won't marry an interracial couple (I don't know if these things actually happen, but, you know)? Aren't they private, and therefore allowed to say what's what in their churches? (I honestly don't know, and a quick google search before I hit the grocery store isn't much helping.)
(though I could see leaders being concerned about "creeping acceptance" as the once-controversial becomes more mainstream, people cause trouble, etc.)
ugh, neither obvious nor easy. Back to the drawing board. (My original comment started with much shouting about the inappropriateness of religious bodies asserting themselves in places where they are neither needed nor wanted... after many deletions I can't say I'm any more useful than when I started out.)
Someone would try. I know enough about human nature to know that; when the anti-gay-marriage people talk about being "forced" to marry gays, I have to give them a nod, in that there will be attempts, and possibly one or two will go beyond a judge laughing the lawsuit out of court.
So it's not like I consider it a serious threat to religious organizations. But shit will happen. And the fact that it will probably get national attention will not reflect well on either side.
Admittedly, it still comes down to a worry of the European secular boogey-man ruining religion FOREVER. And, frankly, when they talk about being "forced" to recognize gay marriages, they're cloaking the fact that they know in 20, 30 years probably, gay marriage would be accepted enough that a religion would be laughed out of a debate for seriously opposing it. See Arthur's posts for a more thorough examination of that sort of opinion.
I often notice on long lists of supposedly libertarian platforms the commenter has squeezed in "respect for life" or "emphasis on cultural traditions" or some other codeword for various socially conservative values. I mean maybe I fundamentally don't get it, and it's probably because I emphasize the social side over the fiscal side, but I'd say you're being a bit disingenuous saying libertarian in one hand and then clearly reflecting your own personal cultural-religious bias
( ... )
I'm not quite certain what you're saying about my post, but I agree whole-heartedly that the churches can do as they like. I'm even fairly certain they have the right to be significantly more discriminatory, even through their social missions, than other organizations. I suspect that in time many churches, at least their American branches, will shift their views on homosexuality, but see no point in forcing them to move any faster than they feel comfortable with.
Sorry, got rambling and off-point there giving an example. I personally think the state should get out of the marriage business. I guess the point of my example was that a lot of churches are actively struggling over the issue, and trying to balance the unity of the church both within the US and abroad with the desire for justice and a strong belief that love is a really good thing.
Although, as people on the xkcd forums have pointed out, the state is not going to get out of the marriage business at any point in the conceivable future; married couples have many rights and benefits that they do not want to lose, and restructuring everything to get the state out of the business would be far more of a headache than telling gay people they can marry same-sex partners.
And yes, it's obvious some churches are actually critically considering their positions. I recall seeing some post by a Catholic news source that put its position that they see the day when the Church has more important things to deal with than the gay marriage issue, and will simply stay out of the way there. (misplaced the link, or I'd be better at quoting)
Comments 17
Reply
The first is a (partially justified) worry that the creation of an equal civil union for gays will lead to the enforcement of this worldview onto churches. I say it's partially justified because there are people out there that sue to make trouble, and people that sue due to deep-seated beliefs that shouldn't necessarily be the province of the judicial system. It seems sort of inevitable that one of these lawsuits would get through and force churches to recognize gay unions.
And the second is that marriages are authorized on a state level; your "easy" solution requires all of them to acknowledge the solution. Furthermore, if the end result isn't "marriage", federal law needs significant (detailed) revision to keep the current regime (law clerks in DC will have a great time of it, I'm sure). If the end result is "marriage", DOMA needs to go the way of anti-miscegenation laws.
I'm just pointing out complications, of course. I don't think these are REASONS to avoid your suggestion.
Reply
(though I could see leaders being concerned about "creeping acceptance" as the once-controversial becomes more mainstream, people cause trouble, etc.)
ugh, neither obvious nor easy. Back to the drawing board. (My original comment started with much shouting about the inappropriateness of religious bodies asserting themselves in places where they are neither needed nor wanted... after many deletions I can't say I'm any more useful than when I started out.)
Reply
So it's not like I consider it a serious threat to religious organizations. But shit will happen. And the fact that it will probably get national attention will not reflect well on either side.
Admittedly, it still comes down to a worry of the European secular boogey-man ruining religion FOREVER. And, frankly, when they talk about being "forced" to recognize gay marriages, they're cloaking the fact that they know in 20, 30 years probably, gay marriage would be accepted enough that a religion would be laughed out of a debate for seriously opposing it. See Arthur's posts for a more thorough examination of that sort of opinion.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
And yes, it's obvious some churches are actually critically considering their positions. I recall seeing some post by a Catholic news source that put its position that they see the day when the Church has more important things to deal with than the gay marriage issue, and will simply stay out of the way there. (misplaced the link, or I'd be better at quoting)
Reply
Leave a comment