"Same-Sex Marriage and Religion: An Inappropriate Relationship" by Brittney Baker
Same-Sex Marriage and Religion: An Inappropriate Relationship Brittney Baker Key words, names, terms, concepts: California 's Proposition 8, Prop 8; morals. Religious groups, predominantly from a Christian based faith, seem to be the single most influential force in the attempts to keep same-sex marriage illegal. different-sex marriage and same-sex marriage is inappropriate. They lament the sustained . marriage altogether, leaving marriage to religious groups or other relationship, as the basis for government benefits or recognition. While these.
Inthe General Assembly had approved language for the church constitution that stated church teachings were that people were "to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman or in chastity in singleness. Bythe General Assembly passed an Authoritative Interpretation permitting pastors to sign marriage licences for same-gender couples where permitted by civil law in the states where their church was found, which took immediate effect.
The church allows but does not require pastors to perform same-sex weddings.Kids React to Gay Marriage
The United Church now allows individual congregations to decide whether or not to perform these marriages. Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism Even within the Roman Catholic Church, there can be found a few a groups who support for same-sex marriage. For example, while the Vatican and most of the Roman Catholic hierarchy oppose same sex marriages, there are a few Catholic theologians who support gay marriages.
Helminiak the Bible may be interpreted literally or within historical-cultural context. Under a literalist reading, the Bible can be read as condemning homosexuality and, by extension, gay marriage. Jude condemns sex with angelsnot sex between two men.
Not a single Bible text indisputably refers to lesbian sex. And Jesus himself said nothing at all about homosexuality, not even when face to face with a man in a gay relationship. The Bible was written for a world unlike our own. At the United States Unitarian Universalist General Assemblydelegates voted overwhelmingly that they would perform same-sex marriage ceremonies, and the church has been performing weddings with and without state sanction ever since.
Homosexuality and Hinduism There are both conservative and liberal views about homosexuality and same-sex marriages in Hinduismsimilar to many other religions. A liberal view is presented by Mathematician Shakuntala Devi, in her book, The World of Homosexuals, in which she interviewed Srinivasa Raghavachariar, head priest of the Srirangam temple. Since we no longer need heterosexual sex to create children and many children now are raised by single parents and same-sex couples, did it make sense to preclude gay couples from getting married?
After a number of state legislatures and lower courts had created a right to same-sex marriage, the Supreme Court, by a 5—4 margin, declared that the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed it.
Among other things, the ability to marry will counter an unfair form of unequal treatment. Whatever one thinks about the constitutional conclusion here, the fundamental arguments for allowing these couples to marry are decidedly strong. Tolerance and Mutual Respect This brings us to the need for tolerance and mutual respect.
Two points are crucial here. The first is that secular law in a liberal democracy should not be expected to enforce what are seen as religiously grounded moral truths. As a crucial example, many people who believe abortions are morally wrong, including the former Roman Catholic governor of New York, Mario Cuomo, also think it makes sense not to have the criminal law prohibit them.
And many who suppose that some divorces are inappropriate and immoral do not wish the civil law to enforce that view. A second key consideration is that any believer needs to understand why it is that many in the population, including an increasing number of the religious population, do not share his views about same-sex marriage.
If one thinks seriously about human capacities and inclinations, one cannot avoid understanding why few homosexuals feel comfortable about avoiding all sexual relations, and why, if these are legal and frequently engaged in, extending a right to legal marriage has a very solid foundation. For gay people and other strong supporters of same-sex marriage, a similar perception is needed. Given the long Christian tradition and its great importance in this country, those who strongly believe in same-sex marriage need to recognize that it is not surprising that a fairly large percentage of the population still believes genuine marriage must be between men and women, and that this view is not necessarily an outright negative opinion about homosexuals and how they should be treated.
What Makes Sense Where does this leave us for what makes sense for legislators and others within our liberal democracy?
- Related Articles
- Navigation menu
We definitely need genuine mutual recognition. The religious objectors need to understand that some people have strong homosexual inclinations, that almost all of those people will wish to have sexual relationships, that they, like the rest of us, will welcome enduring relationships, and that they believe they are entitled to equal treatment, which includes a right to get married and to be recognized as so by others.
A person needs to recognize this even if he sees all religion or particular forms of religion as deeply misguided. What these understandings tell us is that we have a division of convictions that cannot be simply disposed of. We face genuine competing interests that require degrees of sacrifice. On reflection, insisting that one side or the other submit to a total sacrifice is unjust and does not make sense. I believe the most appropriate approach is to distinguish actual participation from subsequent treatment.
The fundamental relevance of this line can be shown through a bit of reflection on personal matters and on how most organizations treat people. Most adult Americans provide services of a wide variety to other people.
Almost none of us, and I include teachers and professors, refuse to help those whose moral views and lifestyles differ from our own.
Is same-sex marriage special here? The religious leaders of some of those enterprises may believe abortions are immoral, that married people should not commit adultery, that sexual relationships outside of marriage are sinful, or that not every civil divorce meets necessary religious standards.
Yet we are unaware of frequent refusals of service because an individual or couple has violated these standards or of serious inquiries into the backgrounds or relationships of those who seek services.
Given this social reality, it is hard to understand a principled basis why such an organization should be able to refuse services to same-sex married couples that it is providing for people who have been engaging in what its leaders consider other serious wrongs.
Where this should leave us is not too hard to understand. People with convictions that same-sex marriage is not a genuine marriage in some fundamental sense should not be required to participate in one, but neither organizations nor individuals should have a right to refuse ordinary services to same-sex married couples. To take an analogy, this is essentially what the federal laws provide regarding abortions.
Religious views on same-sex marriage
Doctors and nurses need not perform them or assist their performance, but they have no right to refuse a woman other treatment because she once had an abortion. The edges of what should count as participation are not themselves obvious, but to take two actual cases, I believe that being the primary photographer at a wedding, taking hundreds of photographs some of which will last for decades or longer, should count as participation, but that baking a cake for a wedding celebration should not.
So long as the marriage is legally recognized, treating the couple as married for insurance purposes should not count as participation.
A harder question I will not explore here is what should be allowed for institutions putting children up for adoption.
Religious views on same-sex marriage - Wikipedia
What I have urged about what practically should be done rests on two related assumptions that will not be widely accepted in every location. The first is that antidiscrimination laws should generally forbid unequal treatment for homosexuals and for same-sex married couples. The second is that accommodating exemptions should be grounded in what is fairest.