Comments for Same-Gender Marriage and Religious Freedom at http://www.interfaithalliance.org , comment 1 to 28 out of 20 comments http://www.interfaithalliance.org Thu, 11 Mar 2010 05:52:55 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 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 http://www.interfaithalliance.org/equality/read#comment-27 Not long ago, I watched a documentary about transgender men and women in Iran. See, homosexuality is illegal, but a man or woman can bypass the law by having gender reassignment surgery to then be "straight" and the government will pay for it. If that wasn't head-shaking enough, one of those waiting for surgery said in the U.S., the government does not make its decisions based on religious beliefs. Then, I say, explain what's going on now. People, meaning voters as well as elected officials, base their votes in governmental matters on their personal religious beliefs. In turn, their personal religious beliefs dictate the fates of all of us. Bob, from the July 30th post, takes on God's own unique role of judging and condeming those of us who do not agree with him. To assume that he decides who will be condemed, according to what he thinks, is to say he is God. Sorry, Bob, don't think you are. But that's the problem. I believe in God, a loving, caring God who knows exactly what He/She is doing and doesn't need me to tell Him/Her how to do His/Her job. Unfortunately, there are many people who have assumed that right, and have, ironically, told God "go sit in a corner, the grown ups are talking" while claiming to hold their personal opinions based on what God wants. It's a little funny, in a straight jacket sort of way, if only those of us they're condeming weren't facing not only discrimination in marriage equality, but verbal, and physical, violence because people think God condones it. I will pray for them. - Angela Tue, 04 Aug 2009 10:19:36 +0100 http://www.interfaithalliance.org/equality/read#comment-26 Thank you for your analysis and conclusions. There is nothing more discouraging to my patriotism than to continue to be denied equal rights because of my God given sexuality. That religious organizations and "God Fearing" politicians are the leaders of this hatred and denial of equal rights is the hardest to accept. I am encouraged by your understanding and a little more hopeful than before I read your paper. - Jim Corbett Mon, 03 Aug 2009 18:52:51 +0100 http://www.interfaithalliance.org/equality/read#comment-25 Yes, marriage as a civil institution must be made available to ALL adult citizens. I am a heterosexual who has been happily married for 26 years, but certainly do not feel I need a "defense of marriage." Moreover, I have never understood the argument that same gender marriage or civil union "hurts" me or the institution of marriage in any way. On the contrary, research from other countries that accept same gender couples indicates that hetereosexual marriage rates have gone up, not down. Offer all citizens secular civic rituals and arrangements, including marriage, equally. Clearly, most of the respondents to your proposal so far are reasonable people who read the document thoroughly and commented thoughtfully. However, despite your opening comments about "leaving scripture/bible/god out of this discussion," Dr. Gaddy, I suspect that those who DISagree with you will still heap "threats of eternal damnation" on you and harangue you with bible quotations. After all, what else do they have but emotional arguments based on faith and 3000-year-old expurgated book? "Faith is believing what you know ain't so." ~ Mark Twain "One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." ~ Arthur C. Clarke - Elizabeth Rose Fri, 31 Jul 2009 15:38:09 +0100 http://www.interfaithalliance.org/equality/read#comment-24 Thank you, Dr. Gaddy for your insights into this very difficult subject. I agree wholeheartedly and hope and pray that people of all persuasions will see the wisdom of your suggestions. I hope that you will make this paper available to a wide audience. Has Interfaith Alliance considered training moderators to lead discussions on this topic? As a board member of Call to Action Alaska, I would be very interested in CTAA reading and discussing this paper. - Joyce M. Potter Fri, 31 Jul 2009 13:12:19 +0100 http://www.interfaithalliance.org/equality/read#comment-23 The most intelligent and persuasive paper I've ever read on this issue. - Herbert H. Wilson Fri, 31 Jul 2009 13:06:24 +0100 http://www.interfaithalliance.org/equality/read#comment-22 Religions have the right currently to not marry any couple it see fit. The Catholic church does not marry divorced couples. No Catholic priest has ever been arrested for not performing a marriage because of divorce. So the argument about the government making religions marry same sex couples is already taken care of. - Sarah Fri, 31 Jul 2009 11:50:28 +0100