Comments for Same-Gender Marriage and Religious Freedom at http://www.interfaithalliance.org , comment 1 to 34 out of 20 comments http://www.interfaithalliance.org Mon, 06 Sep 2010 18:07:20 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.interfaithalliance.org/equality/read#comment-72 Dwana wrote: "Clergy who won't marry gays will be prosecuted for hate crimes; gay activists will see to that." Dwana, you are a liar. As you know quite well, every "gay rights" law ever passed in the USA - indeed, every "race rights" law, every "gender rights" law, every "religious rights" law - has specifically EXCLUDED religious institutions from having to obey that law. Legally, religions can be as racist, as sexist, as homophobic, and as full of hate for other religions as they wish. Clergy can ignore ALL civil rights laws just so long as they are not getting money from the government. Legalized discrimination is a special privilege given only to religions and the military in the US. And isn't that a sad commentary on religion in this country. - ModernMillie Sat, 07 Aug 2010 01:24:32 +0100 http://www.interfaithalliance.org/equality/read#comment-69 Is this radicalism funded by my tax dollars? It is well known that anyone can sin as they please...as long as it doesn't hurt others...but, it always does hurt others! This site is so wrong in attempting to brain wash Americans and Judeo-Christians into believing that homosexuality is an OK option! You are guilty of causing children and adults to sin by doing this! And I don't agree with using my money to cause others to sin and lead an unholy life! God knows what is best for His children and he said has and will destroy nations who promote these unatural affections! I will work as hard as I can and pray to God that this interfaith alliance actually reads Gods' laws, promises and learns who the real God is! It's not you or the government! God is God...and I will follow His laws...not yours! God is opposed to homosexual marriange....you talk to Him, not me. And my children are my own..not the governments..to feed these lies into their minds through the public schools. Gays chose not to have children when they chose their lifestyle...so leave mine alone! They are mine and Gods and the schools cannot and will not teach them that having sex with their same sex partner is OK~ Homesexuals cannot have chidren...that is the punishment for their sinful ways! Feel free to attempt to contact me and brainwash me....it won't work...I will stear you to Gods' laws and His word...end of story. Fight God not me! - Mary Martin Koski Fri, 21 May 2010 05:52:27 +0100 http://www.interfaithalliance.org/equality/read#comment-68 Alas, the one point no one seems to want to face: Marriage, by the defining means of any Prophet, is a union of two hearts and souls. Period. Just because the celebrants are Adam and Steve means naught. Were the "union of two bodies" the real point, there are many whom I'd have never put together, not even as friends. If a soul is true to the emotion, and a heart sharing all it may, who are we to say Annette and Stephanie should not enjoy the unique position of matrimony? As the heart, so the love and the life. As the soul, so the faith in each other to truly make two hearts one. Else none should enjoy the place of marriage, and none should enjoy the secular benefits inherent. How would some like being told today they were not allowed to marry because they were Black/Indian/Chinese/Japanese/"retarded"/"deformed"/or any of several hundred Ethnicities or physical conditions? If this is how the worlds religions wish to be about the people in their congregations, especially those who are "a little bit different", it's no wonder they're moving to a faith that recognizes them as people, hearts and souls first. I happen to be one of those who found a faith that works for me. Happily preaching a message taken from all the new Prophets. And I am one of the "little bit different". - Rev. Leynda Erwin, The Kirk O' the Way Tue, 11 May 2010 14:24:25 +0100 http://www.interfaithalliance.org/equality/read#comment-67 Sure would cut down on unwanted pregnancies wouldn't it? Harold - Harold Bentley Thu, 29 Apr 2010 21:15:23 +0100 http://www.interfaithalliance.org/equality/read#comment-64 For those that say homosexuality is a choice, I have a son and a sister who are both gay and I can assure you it is genetic, although we obviously do not understand the genetic code that has caused this to occur for centuries. For those that point to God's word and say it is "in black and white" and wrong, I also point to the wise words of Rev. Oliver "Buzz" Thomas in his book "10 Things Your Minister Wants to Tell You": "So, is homosexuality a sin? Is that what the Bible really says? Certainly the writer of Leviticus thought so...The book of Leviticus is filled with laws imposing the death penalty on everything from eating catfish to sassing your parents. If you're going to accept one as the absolute, uneqquivocal word of God, you'd better be prepared to accept them all." Take the following questions he features as an example: 1. "When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice (remember, sacrifices are mandatory), I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Leviticus 1:9) The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?" 2. "I would like to sell my daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?" 5. "I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath (literally Saturday). Exodus 35:2 clearly states that he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself? Must I also kill his offspring? There are many other examples but I think the idea is clearly communicated with these examples. As Rev. Thomas indicates, mainstream religion moved beyond animal sacrifice, slavery, and the host of primitive rituals described in Leviticus centuries ago. Selectively hanging onto these ancient proscriptions for gays and lesbians exclusively is unfair according to anybody's standard of ethics. - MB Fri, 26 Mar 2010 11:19:57 +0100 http://www.interfaithalliance.org/equality/read#comment-63 I do not buy the arguement that homosexuals are simply born that way, and therefore should be allowed to act out their desires with like minded folk. All heterosexual men are born with the instinct to spread their seed as much as possible, into every attractive woman who walks by. Because that is how I am born, does that give me license to act on my feelings? Crack your Bible folks. The answers are in black and white. - Robert Wed, 17 Mar 2010 03:27:09 +0100 http://www.interfaithalliance.org/equality/read#comment-41 why dont you start a medicin treatment for the people who feel that they are deferent from others like hormons or somthing medical anyway for me i respect all mankind and wish everybody goodness but i dont feel good when i look at two person who are the same sex getting married something wrong it is out of nature and against it so why we support something not naturally and against our nature this is wrong thing you are doing thank you - sudad Sat, 02 Jan 2010 21:46:02 +0100 http://www.interfaithalliance.org/equality/read#comment-40 It's obvious that many of you have fallen for the (what has yet NEVER been proven) idea that homosexuality is genetic. I do not share such a notion and believe that it's a preferance and a choice. Even though I believe being gay is not genetic, I do believe a person's choice is theirs alone. Saying that, I have to say some things that many may not share about this subject. First, anyone who makes such speculations about the Bible that is truely baseless shouldn't make the Bible into an unfounded justification for thier personal views. I believe TK made a statement that marriage is not mentioned in the Bible and Sarah Laducer-Pierson used the relationships between both King David and Johnathan as well as the relationships of Ruth and Naomi to excuse here sexual preferances. As is often said in the daytime talk shows "Don't get it twisted".King David having a homosexual relationship with Johnathan would have left David dethroned and painfully killed right beside his supposed lover Johnathan. The Bible mentions many scandals and a homosexual "bromance" would've been mentioned. In the Bible, King David lamented about the loss of Johnathon where he states " I grieve for you, Johnathan my BROTHER; you were very dear to me." Your confusion might be where right after, David continues lamenting by saying " Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of a WOMAN." This is more of a "Bro's before Hoes" declaration, not a justification for homosexuality (Please forgive the "Bro's before Hoes" statement. It was the easiest way to explain the point). As for Ruth and Naomi. Naomi was Ruth's mother-in-law. After Ruth married Boaz (See TK? There's marriage in the Bible!) she later gave birth to a son, Ruth gave her son to Naomi to take care of, but, that's as far as the relationship was. They were family. Second, did anyone consider this as a cultural problem? People which I've talk to take this as an actual attack on those who embrace a traditional life style. I would argue that marriage was not primarily a pagan civil matter, nor was marriage first embraced by the church in the 8th Century. Christians had secret marriages performed in secret way before it was leagle to be Christian. Before Christ was even promissed in prophacy, for thousands of years, marriage was used as a means to procreate and enlarge the family. This would raise the status of a man's family and keep a man's name in tact. If a man had a daughter, many times that daughter would be married off in a form of trade giving another man's name a chance to prosper and grow while gaining some form of gift (such as a herd of lambs or some grain or [if the trade is with a man of riches] gold and/or jewels). However, if the man has a son, a reversal of gifts may be offered. Also, if the man was important, he was offered many gifts if he decides to let his son marry the other man's daughter. Many cultures have tied marriage and procreation using a key desire throughout the ages ... prosperity. So, for thousands of years, marriage which was at one time a utencil for an organized means of procreation, has become a huge foundation for the heterosexual lifestyle and (for many current cultures) still symbolizes prosperity. Gee, and you honestly wonder why this is not being taken well by most? The homosexual groups are expecting heterosexuals to give up a HUGE part of heterosexual culture (in a matter of a few years) in the name of one of the biggest hoaxes of all... equality. The very idea of equality is a fools dream. Think about it. I can NEVER be honestly compared to another because there will always be something different about me than the other pearson I'm being compared to. What these overbearing and annoying homosexual groups really want is acceptance. Which makes them hypocrites because they aren't willing to accept the differences that many religions have with them. Which is the view that the homosexual act is a sin and will lead to judgement before God. Oh, and let's be clear. The Bible has constantly shown that God has love for those who who respect his commandments and a heavy desire to regain a relationship with those in sin. However, there is such thing as Godly anger and judgement from that anger. Which has been shown throughout the Old Testament. Jesus himself stated that we must still follow those commandments and that he hasn't changed such expectations (this the same God which finds the homosexual act "detestable" [Lev. 18:22]). The reason I mention this to make the point that acceptance will NEVER be offered by many of those who's religion deems the homosexual act as "detestable". I noticed some have claim to be Christian, yet, states that the same God who declares such an act "detestable" also accepts their sexual preferences. I don't think most religous groups will share that opinion and anyone who links those who will not accept homosexuality with those who are terrorist and cruel religious groups show themselves to be just a group of hypocrites who demand acceptance and yet, shows no acceptance towards those whom think differently. - Bruce McGilvray Thu, 10 Dec 2009 21:35:30 +0100 http://www.interfaithalliance.org/equality/read#comment-39 Since my faith permits same sex marriage, I take issue with those who would ban it. My first ammendment right to allow homosexual marriage is currently being restricted. - JSW Thu, 10 Dec 2009 07:21:26 +0100 http://www.interfaithalliance.org/equality/read#comment-38 The problem is that there's a huge misunderstanding in people who think civil marriage is a Church invention. Civil Marriage is a Pagan custom of civil law, and its purpose is for civil law, legal matters, nothing more. We inherited these pre-Christian laws. It has nothing to do with religious laws or the bible. In fact, I don't think the bible even mention's marriage anywhere. The Church didn't adopt the practice of marriage until after the 8th century or later, and prior to that people were simply together just by stating they were a couple. If they had property then they would more likely get a civil license. The church started marrying people and making it in the eyes of that church's god and their own religious beliefs. The church also started documenting marriage because some smaller towns had no civil office, so people had to go to the church to document it. The church did take control of all civil matters in those darker days, lots of information was lost, burned and many people where killed for speaking out against the church, so we don’t have to many documents remaining from these day’s. Civil marriages true purpose was legal, not religious, and it’s for proving property rights, heirs and other legal matters, not church. We now have civil offices all over, and it's not the church's business to document those civil marriages, but if people have a particular faith they may want to have a church wedding, but that is their business, and it has nothing to do with the civil office. People can have a Justice of the Peace sign a marriage license, and even I can sign one, it doesn’t have to be a religious wedding of any sort, nor does it have to have the word of god evoked. - TK Fri, 04 Dec 2009 12:08:49 +0100 http://www.interfaithalliance.org/equality/read#comment-37 Rachel, Why do you want the government to impose its definition of marriage on you? - Christian Miller Sun, 13 Sep 2009 20:02:18 +0100 http://www.interfaithalliance.org/equality/read#comment-36 Why should I, a Pagan, have to submit my marriage for Christians' approval? I don't see why conservative Christians here think they should be able to define everyone else's secular, state-sponsored marriages in the U.S. Define your church's marriages that way if you must, but don't dare impose your definition on me. - Rachel Sun, 13 Sep 2009 11:39:13 +0100 http://www.interfaithalliance.org/equality/read#comment-35 Thank you Rev Gaddy for publishing this paper, this kind of dialogue is much needed. - Sarah Laducer-Piersol Fri, 11 Sep 2009 09:24:11 +0100 http://www.interfaithalliance.org/equality/read#comment-34 Reading these comments here it is interesting how so many people still feel that same-sex relationships are a sin or admonished in the Bible. Please! If you are reading this and using the Bible as a reason to admonish same-sex relationships please recognize the same-sex relationships that are blessed by GOD in the Bible. Just like you wake up in the morning and know you are straight, I wake up in the morning and know that I am GAY and I LOVE my wife, just like RUTH and NAOMI, just like King David and Johnathan. I know that my relationship is just as much a gift from GOD as any other relationship. That is what I know to be true...and I am just as much a taxpaying citizen of America as any other. Please stop sub-humanizing me and my family - Sarah Laducer-Piersol Fri, 11 Sep 2009 09:21:47 +0100 http://www.interfaithalliance.org/equality/read#comment-33 This is wrong marriage is supposed to be a man and a woman. It is a sin and against God. - D Kemp Wed, 02 Sep 2009 20:23:53 +0100 http://www.interfaithalliance.org/equality/read#comment-32 Dr. Gaddy, You have invited this quiet discussion, but we have not heard your responses to this discussion. - Christian Miller Mon, 31 Aug 2009 14:52:37 +0100 http://www.interfaithalliance.org/equality/read#comment-31 I read most of this paper and found it's perspective interesting. However, I feel that the gist of the paper is fundamentally dishonest. Basically, this paper is an attempt to advocate FOR same-sex marriage while trying to convince opponents of same-sex marriage that legalizing gay marriage will be a win situation for them, not just for gays. Not true. The legalization of gay marriage will mean an imposition on ALL people of the anti-religious view that homosexuality is morally equal to heterosexuality. It is ludicrous to think that gay activists will respect the right of religious organizations not to approve of their sexual lifestyle. Instead they will continue their aggressive efforts to normalize homosexuality and to demonize as bigots everyone who won't get with their program. Clergy who won't marry gays will be prosecuted for hate crimes; gay activists will see to that. I guess what really angers me about this paper is the pretense that opponents of gay marriage are being and will be treated with respect. I'm also angered by the pretense that support for gay marriage is all about equality and civil rights. It's not. Support for gay marriage is about replacing this nation's traditional, Biblically-based social order with an explicitly anti-Biblical/anti-religious social order. Once gay marriage is legalized the momemtum will be on the side of government-mandated acceptance of homosexuality. Schools, for instance, will be required to teach children that homosexuality is normal and that the contrary belief is bigotry. Intolerance won't go away, it will just be redirected toward those who dissent from the pro-gay view. This paper may have been a well-intended attempt at bridging the gap between warring camps but it's hampered by its fundamentally dishonest and naive premise. There is no way that gay activists will tolerate dissent from their cause even if such dissent comes from religious groups. That is VERY wishful thinking and it will get us no where. - Dwana Sat, 29 Aug 2009 19:50:47 +0100 http://www.interfaithalliance.org/equality/read#comment-30 Sometimes, we get lost in the forest because we bounce off all the trees. In this case, we seem to have lost the fact that marriage is a civil union that may or may not be sanctified by a religeous organization. In some cases, marriage is merely an agreement between two people that is witnessed by others. (remember jumping over the broom?) The problem here is to that we want to keep some privileges of marriage attached only to the union of man and woman, because this union usually results in an increase of citizens. Homosexual unions do not, so they are looked upon as a negative influence on the growth of society. They do not add anything to the future tax base. Therefore, they are not helping the growth of society. That does not mean they do not contribute to society, because they do. The problem is that unless you are priming the pump, the supply will not increase. It does make sense, that marriage without sanctification by any religion, should not be held hostage to the rules of the religion. But society, does not have a standard set of moral guidelines. Societies guidelines conntinue to change without mutual consent of the persons living in it. This in itself is the basic cause of the problem. Who is it that establishes the foundation of society. It is usually religion. - Laurence Taylor Wed, 26 Aug 2009 13:52:25 +0100 http://www.interfaithalliance.org/equality/read#comment-29 Dear Reverend Gaddy, I carefully read your paper “Same-Gender Marriage & Religious Freedom” and applaud your call to “quiet conversations”. I agree with many points of your Introduction, but would suggest making the discussion a “trialogue” instead of a “dialogue” so that the concerns of single people can be addressed. My thesis is that getting our governments out of both the marriage business and the special civil union business can be a graceful solution to hostile rhetoric over government sanctioned same-gender marriage. I agree with your “Don’t Start with Religion”. I propose that our discussion narrowly focus on the question: How should our government (federal, state and county) laws regarding marriage be changed? The challenge is to strictly limit the discussion to “government marriage” and resist discussion of other forms of marriage, religious or personal. This limit will be difficult because the same-gender marriage issue invites such strong emotional reactions involving, as it does, the powerful topics of religion, politics, sex and family. It is also difficult because government marriage and religious marriage are now so intertwined. You quote Laycock, “Religious and legal marriages are …distinct in conception as well as in origin.” I would agree, but would add, “not in practice and not in the hearts and minds of most people.” As Turley points out marriage always has been a “conspicuous door placed in the wall of separation between church and state.” Currently ministers are government agents who issue government marriage certificates and justices of the peace perform wedding ceremonies that have religious overtones. You cannot get married in my church without a government marriage license. See my attached essay, “Marriage: An Unholy Alliance of Church and State” There needs to be a divorce of church and state. It can be done. Any the various churches or governments could unilaterally withdraw from this marriage entanglement. Churches would be able to marry any couples it chooses. That church marriage, however, just would not have any legal standing. Likewise any couple can characterize its relationship with any word it chooses, but it would not have legal standing. Since we as citizens have no control over the churches, let us focus only on what government alone can do. Governments can change marriage laws, therefore marriage is a very appropriate subject for political debate. How should our government be involved in marriage? What should the laws be regarding marriage? The same-gender marriage debate is about changing the definition of marriage, which begs a re-examination of why we want government involved in marriage. What is it about marriage that motivated our government to grant exclusive subsidies and privileges to holders of government marriage licenses? In order to facilitate the discussion and reduce some of the emotion of Proposition 8, I suggest this analysis be done by only considering government marriage laws as they have applied to heterosexual couples. A difficulty is that government marriage license laws in the US have a questionable history motivated at times by interracial marriage, eugenics and the expansion of Social Security and recently homosexuality. Our government can and does define who can get a marriage license (age, number, incest, already married etc). It defines the exclusive subsidies and privileges it grants to people with marriage licenses. It defines how marriage is terminated. Government, however, does not define what marriage is. I would submit that it is impossible for government to define what marriage is. It would be a challenge for anyone to come up with a workable definition of government marriage. What motivated government to give those 1138 benefits? Because government marriage is good for children? Good for society? Government marriage licensing does not require expression of love, intent to live together, make babies or be committed to one another. Without a definition of government marriage and why it is good, the justification for these benefits falls apart. On page 19 you say, “Second and more difficult to assure, same-gender marriages should enjoy a status that commands the same recognition and respect as that extended to marriages between men and women” Commanding status and respect may be desirable, but are not appropriate functions of government. On page 20, you ask, “Why would anyone decry a marital relationship that exhibited fidelity and community between two people across scores of years?” Fidelity and community between two people across scores of years do not necessarily have anything to do with government marriage. In your Principled Debate #1, I would modify to read “ Government should provide basic rights, freedom, and justice to every person without regard to an individual’s religion, race, sexual orientation or marital status.” I have read your Principle #3 several times and do not understand what is being said. I would appreciate an explanation and expansion. I would modify Principle #7 to read, “Gay and lesbian persons and single persons deserve all the same rights and privileges enjoyed by all other citizens of the United States. Thank you for inviting me to your discussion. - Christian Miller Sun, 16 Aug 2009 08:26:32 +0100 http://www.interfaithalliance.org/equality/read#comment-28 Thank you, Dr. Gaddy, for pointing out the obvious difference between civil and religious marriage that many in the US, including the current and former presidents, seem to confuse. If the US adopted the system in place in many European countries, where a civil ceremony by a civil magistrate is required for all marriages, and a religious marriage is optional, the distinction would likely be clearer to many people. I believe both forms of union can and should be called marriage, otherwise we are relegating the term marriage to the religious and forcing the non-religious to adopt the (probably discriminatory and inferior) nomenclature of civil unions. I'd also like to discuss the recent phenomenon, in state legislatures such as New Hampshire, of adding religious exemption or religious freedom clauses to marriage equality legislation. First of all, religious freedom is already granted by the US Constitution and it seems superfluous (though perhaps it has the benfit of calming unreasonable fears). Clearly no religious organization has ever been forced to perform a marriage. I was disturbed, however, that the New Hampshire legislation exempted religious organizations from recognizing the validity of legal civil marriages. This could lead to situations where a hospital owned by a religious organization and employing hundreds of doctors, nurses, and other staff members refuses insurance to the spouses and children of employees engaged in performing non-religious service to the general public. In my opinion, such an exemption goes beyond religious freedom to harming gay people who may have restricted options for employment in small towns. - DKW Wed, 05 Aug 2009 01:44:47 +0100