DUers of faith - would gay marriage impede your ability

[ulysses]

to practice your religion freely?

If so, please explain how in detail.

[JohnKleeb]

1. nope not at all

[HamHocks4Kerry]

2. No.

The issue of gay marriage isn't about gay marriage for the fundamentalists. It's about POWER--and maintaining their grasp on domestic policy in the US.

[ulysses]

3. yup.

:thumbsup:

Yet, the issue of the free practice of religion has been brought up tonight by a DUer.

[joycep]

4. you have got to be kidding

No, our church welcomes gay and lesbians. They can serve in any position. Some of them are our most dedicated members and are dearly loved. I cannot imagine how any of them marrying would affect me in any way. I would just celebrate with them and so would the rest of the church. I just wonder why Jesus did not comment on this if it was a problem to him.

[ulysses]

6. wish I was. n/t

[noahmijo]

5. Nope

[Ms. Toad]

7. That's a question sort of like...

When did you stop beating your wife? The question seems to imply that practicing religion and gay marriage are mutually exclusive. I happen to be both a DUer of faith and married to someone of the same gender. My marriage is recognized both in my religious community and more recently by secular authorities.

Many people of faith are gay, and married, and several religious communities have determined that marrying couples of the same gender is part of God's plan for their community.

The state has never required any religious community to marry anyone it did not want to marry. So, the only conflict that legitimately arises is an internal one, when the faith community itself cannot reach unity on the question of how to lovingly embrace its gay members and their committed relationships.

[ulysses]

9. well sure.

*I* know that religion and gay marriage aren't mutually exclusive. Many here do. Some here, though, don't, so I'm trying to gauge where we are as a community.

[gratuitous]

8. Actually, banning gay marriage would cramp my faith style

Our open and affirming congregation, which likewise allows gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgendered and intersexed persons to serve in any position their gifts take them, would be horribly inconvenienced if some denominational authority was brought to bear on us and we were forbidden to practice our faith as we agree to practice it, and as Godde gives us the strength.

[OnionPatch]

10. Yeah, right

You're asking the wrong people of faith. People of faith on the left don't think that way. (I don't think.) I consider myself Christian but have yet to hear a sensible explanation of exactly how gay marriage is going to adversely affect me. I think the problem is that the left has more respect for science. From what I've read and understand, homosexuality is biological. You're gay or you aren't. Just because you witness two guys down the road that are married doesn't mean that you're going to suddenly turn gay. But I think fundies think this. They think being gay is a lifestyle choice and they're terrified their children will be influenced and "turned." Therein lies the difference.

[ulysses]

11. kick

edit: I know y'all are out there. Come talk to me. Tell me why. I've been married eleven years, about as whitebread as they come. Talk to me. Tell me why.

[IndianaGreen]

12. Many rabbis would perform same sex marriage

but they are prevented from doing so by state laws that impose the fundamentalist Christian view on homosexuality.

Why should we submit to the beliefs of a bigoted religion?

[flaminbats]

13. I believe God is what we wish him, her, or it to be or not be...

to the average freeper, God is hatred and vengeance on those who are evil.

to the average liberal, God is love and forgiveness of other sinful beings.

to the average agnostic, God is another blank check just waiting to be endorsed.

to the average atheist, God is nothing along with aging elements of something held together by energy and forces.

to Satan, God is that backstabber who should burn in hell.

to God, God is the universe which he both worships and controls.


to me..God is love, freedom, peace, good health, and happiness for all. But this anti-marriage amendment would impede on our ability to make these qualities available for all.

[mdguss]

14. My point is tolerance:

Yes, it could affect the ability to freely practice my religion. If I decided to attend a Southern Baptist Church, which teaches strict interpretation of the Bible, then gay marriage may impede on my ability to freely practice my religion. Will the church be forced to give the marriage membership price to a gay couple? Will the church have to pay for the health benefits given to the spouses of gay employees? If they do, then its forcing the church to materially support something it teaches against.

It's along the same lines as forcing Jovah's Witnesses to recite the pledge--even though their religion strictly forbids the pledge.

It cuts two ways. People live different lives. I think we have to be accepting of someone who belongs to a conservative church--many conservative churches do great work in their community and abroad to improve people's lives. We shouldn't impose a secular view of things on them, just as they shouldn't impose their religious view of things on everyone.

I'm a person of faith, but not a member of a conservative church. I'm a Christian. Calling each other evil, and assuming that people you disagree with are either "radical wing-nuts" or "clueless secular humanists" is a good way to get nowhere fast.

[flaminbats]

15. Churches are non-profit organizations...

I know of no church that offers health benefits to the congregation, if they did...they would basically be selling this insurance. And selling insurance benefits to anyone but the Church employees would make them for profit, and not a religious institution. This is the same with paid membership, if church members are required to give donations to be members..then it is not a non-profit institution. It is a club or a union, but under the tax law it would not be a church!

My church has internal political divisions in it. The national leadership is considered liberal, and the state church is right wing. But our church would only marry gays if the congregation agreed with it, and if it was legal in my state. I know gays in my church, and one of them is the assistant minister at my Church.

[Ms. Toad]

16. From a legal perspective, separation of church and state

addresses most of the concerns you have raised.

Church membership and, for the most part, church employment is a religious matter in which he state cannot interfere. With respect to cost of membership, the church can elect which marriages, if any, it chooses to honor. Catholics who have converted from other religions, for example, may remarry in the church if their first marriage was not in Rhea Catholic church without going through an annulment because non-Catholic marriages are not considered true marriages; in contrast Catholics wishing to marry a second time are prohibited from doing so until their first marriage is annulled. The state can't jump in and say all marriages have to be recognized and treat equally. With respect to benefits - there are many Catholic hospitals that do not include contraception as part of their health insurance coverage because doing so would violate their religious beliefs - even if the employee doesn't share those beliefs; the same principle would apply with respect to who they choose to cover. (I'm not picking on Catholics - my spouse is a recovering Catholic so we've had lots of discussions about such things.)

Recitation of the pledge - it is illegal for the state to force anyone to recite the pledge. Personally, I believe daily recitation of the pledge is indoctrination/coercion which school age children should not be subjected to - but each child (Jehovah's Witness or not) can legally refuse to participate as long as s/he is willing to tolerate the inevitable peer pressure associate with being different.

Separation of church and state isn't perfect, but marriage has always been one of those areas in which the state has prohibited or refused to recognize church marriages (e.g., polygamous - Mormon, African-American, interracial, and non-clergied - Quaker, same gender - Quaker, Jewish, and others) rather than one in which churches have been forced to recognize/perform marriages which were inconsistent with their beliefs.

[mdguss]

17. Thanks; I disagree on the pledge:

Especially in this age of globalism, I think there's something to be said for national identity. I knew that the Jovah's Witnesses aren't forced to recite the pledge, but once were. If I remember correctly, most anti-canvassing laws are unconstitutional because of them as well (government preventing them from observing their religion by going door to door).

I was trying, maybe unsuccessfully, to use that as an argument for a proposition that was saying seemingly harmless things can impede one's right to worship freely.

I think the last paragraph is important. In my view its important that we don't force churches to recognize marriages they don't believe in.

[flaminbats]

19. as long as it is nonprofit, it will not have to recognize every marriage.

But it would not be allowed to hire a gay person, and then not recognize that person's marriage. It could decide not to hire the gay person.

But simply allowing gay marriage in a state would not require any church to follow the laws and regulations that for profit groups must.

[flaminbats]

18. I agree..

my main point is any church that provides health insurance to anyone but the employees is in danger of losing their tax-exempt status. It is also likely to lose its nonprofit status if it offers any special type of church membership only to those who pay a fee. Again, this would make it for profit...and therefore opens it up to a different category of laws and regulations.